Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment—

This amendment has become necessary since the present definition of “secret State funds” may not be exhaustive, and is also too long and too cumbersome. By means of this amendment we are now trying to make the definition of “secret State Funds” short and concise, in my view, to include all relevant possibilities.

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

1. (1) On page 2, in line 12, to omit “or making available” and to substitute:
   , making available, guaranteeing, granting or otherwise handing over, with or without authority,
2. (2) on page 2, in line 27, after “1977-’78” to insert:
   to or on behalf of the former department, or
3. (3) on page 2, in line 33, after “department,” to insert:

Subject to what the hon. the Minister may reply, I may well withdraw the second and third amendments because I believe the amendment he has moved is actually designed to cover those two amendments. His amendment seems to cover the difficulties I had with this clause during Second Reading. I should therefore like the hon. the Minister to give me the assurance I need in connection with my second and third amendments. I have only just read his amendment. It tends to indicate that the answer is in the affirmative. However, I should like him to confirm it. Whereas previously the intention was to cover only money which had gone from the Special Defence Account to the Department of National Security and from the Department of National Security to the Department of Information’s secret funds, this amendment will now also cover the situation in which that route had not been followed, but where the money went directly from the Special Defence Account to the Department of Information.

I can give that assurance right now.

Now, if that is so and that is covered, I am quite satisfied.

Secondly, it is quite clear, particularly in regard to money that was voted for the 1978-’79 financial year, that that money was not voted in terms of the legislation referred to in the old provision, but would have been voted and made available in terms of the Secret Services Account Act, 1978. If the hon. the Minister confirms that that is also sought to be covered, I shall be quite satisfied with regard to my third amendment. Therefore, if those assurances are given, I shall then withdraw my second and third amendments.

As far as my first amendment is concerned, the position is that the department may well have given guarantees to third parties in connection with certain projects and that the department was required to pay moneys in terms of those guarantees, and would now— in the ordinary course of events, if this were a civil transaction—have to obtain a cession of action and then seek to recover that money from the person who was guaranteed. The difficulty I have with the existing provision is that this situation does not appear to be covered. I want to assure the hon. the Minister that my sole purpose of moving this amendment is to make sure that whatever money was paid by whatever route, can be recovered. That is why the question of guarantees which were paid by somebody, is sought to be covered in my first amendment. Unfortunately, on the wording of the definition as it is currently contained in the Bill— the definition of “application”—it does not appear to be covered.

That is my motive behind it, and I should like to indicate to the hon. the Minister that the motive behind this and all my other amendments is purely to endeavour to assist the board in performing its functions adequately. There are no ulterior motives at all behind it.

Mr. Chairman, I can assure the hon. member for Yeoville that the instances referred to in his second and third amendments to clause 1 are accommodated by the new formulation in the amendment I moved.

Secondly, I have discussed the first amendment to clause 1 of the hon. member with our legal advisers. I am referring to his amendment seeking to insert the words “guaranteeing, granting or otherwise handing over, with or without authority” after the words “making available”. The legal advisers assured me that the phrase “making available” is wide enough to cover the wording sought to be inserted by the hon. member. In the circumstances I believe we must abide by the wording as it stands. Consequently I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendments to clause 1.

Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to prolong the debate unduly, but I should like to ask file hon. the Minister to ask his legal advisers to look at this matter again before it goes to the Other Place because I do not want a problem to arise when this particular situation comes to be dealt with. If it is clear that the situation is covered, there is no problem. If it is not covered, however, it would be most unfortunate if the work of the board were to be hampered. I therefore ask him to ask his legal advisers to look at the matter again. I appreciate the shortness of time involved, and I apologize for that, but I would certainly not like to see any person or procedure handicapped in the process. In view of the assurances given by the hon. the Minister, with the permission of the Committee I withdraw my second and third amendments.

Amendments (2) and (3) moved by Mr. H. H. Schwarz, with leave, withdrawn.

Amendment (1) moved by Mr. H. H. Schwarz negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment moved by the Minister of Foreign Affairs agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to (Official Opposition, New Republic Party and South African Party dissenting).

Clause 4:

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

Let me explain the motivation behind this amendment. I appreciate that in many cases it may not be possible to observe the Treasury and Tender Board regulations. Experience has shown, however, particularly the experience that some of us have had in the Select Committee on Public Accounts, that when the rules laid down by the State for the disposal of assets are observed this is of considerable benefit and is a safeguard to the community. Since it may not always be practical to observe the rules, however, the amendment has been worded in such a manner as to indicate that only—

I should like to see them always observed, but it might well be that in the peculiar circumstances in which the board has to operate this may well not be possible. That is why I have attached the qualification.

Mr. Chairman, I should like just to quote the clause—

The hon. member now wishes to add—

I have no essential objection to this. But the fact remains that it is implicit here that this board should, so far as it is practical or possible, observe the legal norms applicable in the Republic of South Africa, and specifically the norms laid down for proper action in connection with State funds and the liquidation and sale of State assets. We should remember, however, that the hon. member for Durban Point and other hon. members have stated that we should not hesitate, where there are disadvantages of a political nature, to terminate a project even though it entails financial loss. Owing to the distinctive, unique circumstances of the Information debacle, we are actually confronted here with a clash of interests. It might be necessary for the State Trust Board to decide in a given case that the State’s interests would be best served if it were immediately to liquidate project A or project B, sell State shares immediately, or act in some other way to put an end to a project, but that such a decision might actually, from a technical point of view, be in conflict with the ordinary Tender Board regulations and contrary to other control measures which apply in the normal course. Consequently, I regard it as somewhat superfluous to insert the hon. member’s amendment in this clause. The clause makes it plain that the board should act in a manner which would be least detrimental to the interests of the State. That is a clear standard and is wide enough also to absorb the words and suggestions of the hon. member for Yeoville. I do not think it is necessary to accept his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that the hon. the Minister does not want to accept this amendment. I want to indicate to him that I think that the problem that was raised by the hon. member for Durban Point in regard to party-political projects is fully covered by the provision and will in no way be affected by this amendment. The simple point I want to make is that experience has shown, certainly in the case of those of us who serve on the Select Committee on Public Accounts, that whenever such regulations are not observed, there is the risk of our running into difficulties. I recognize that there may be exceptions. That is why in my amendment the words “provided that wherever practical the board shall observe” are used. However, I can give a string of examples where these regulations have not been observed as a result of which the taxpayer has been prejudiced.

The other fact I think one must bear in mind is that experience has already shown in regard to matters pertaining to the former Department of Information, matters which will not be dealt with by this board, that in fact there has been a disposal of assets in a manner which is not acceptable to those of us who sit in these benches and also not, I believe, to the public at large. I do not want to start a political debate now, but to quote the example of how The Citizen was dealt with, the manner in which that was done is certainly not acceptable to us in these benches. If there had been tenders called for and the regulations had been complied with, it would have been another story. With great regret, I must say that, despite what the hon. the Minister has said, I must pursue my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I must say that I think that the amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville is not one which restricts the board unduly. It merely indicates a preference where it is practical. I do not think it will in any way restrict their right to determine that in certain circumstances it will not be practical to follow the normal rules. However, it at least indicates the desirable direction. For that reason we will support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, let us look at the essence of the matter. I should like to establish a mechanism that performs its task expeditiously and without undue burden and liquidate assets of the State with the least possible prejudice to the State. The Bill lays down the clear norm in this regard. It is built into the Bill. If this had not been the case I should have understood why one should resort to other norms and control measures. The very aim of this Bill is by means of legislation to create a specific body that will be able to operate on its own, independent of the usual public service rules, as expeditiously as possible, to liquidate assets with the least possible prejudice to the State. Hon. members requested me yesterday to give them the assurance that the council would finalize its affairs expeditiously.

I have a problem with the motion that Tender Board regulations and Treasury regulations should be complied with “wherever practical”. Who is going to decide when it is practical? It would not be long before there would be a big quarrel as to whether the Tender Board should have decided whether or not it was practical in a particular case. Should it be in the sole discretion of the State Trust Board to decide on that? If that is the case, then it is actually unnecessary to make provision for that in the Bill, since it weakens the effectiveness of the provisions. Who has the power to determine when it is practical to observe the Tender Board regulations? That is the problem. With that phrase, we would place an unnecessary damper and inhibition on the expeditious finalization of the functions of the State Trust Board. Unless it were duly spelt out who should have the discretion to decide on when something is practical, the board would be inclined to feel that it was being inhibited. The board would then feel inclined, in order to obviate further difficulties and scandalmongering, to submit every case to the State Tender Board and the Treasury. In this way it would not be able to serve its primary purpose—that of acting in such a way that the interests of the State should suffer the least prejudice. That is my argument.

However, if the hon. members tell me that the decision as to when it is practical to act in terms of Tender Board regulations should be in the sole discretion of the State Trust Board, I can accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I think the problem is solved, because on the wording of the clause reads—

If the amendment is accepted, the clause will further provide—

That means that the board itself will have to apply its mind to the practicability of this, and where it considers it practical, it will do so. In other words, where the hon. the Minister has said that if he can be told that it is the board which decides on the practicability, he will accept the amendment, I can tell him that that is what the amendment says. I therefore hope that he will accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, on that clear understanding I accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6:

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

1. (1) On page 4, in line 62, after “State” to insert:
   including the compromising of any claims
2. (2) on page 6, after line 14, to insert:

I should like to motivate these amendments. In the first instance the words “including the compromising of any claims” are proposed to be inserted because on the reading of the clause as it stands at the moment, it is clear that the clause will not entitle the board to compromise a claim, but in fact they will have to carry on right until the end to enforce them. I think it is necessary to give the board the power to compromise a claim. One can give innumerable examples, e.g. that one can sue somebody and if he has a defence, one knows that one is going to have a lengthy trial and under those circumstances it may well suit one to compromise. Vice versa there may be claims against the State which are capable of being compromised, and under such circumstances the State should be able to compromise the claims. But the way in which the clause is worded, unfortunately does not give the board the right to compromise a claim. I am sure that the hon. the Minister would want the board to have the power to compromise.

The second amendment deals with the question of enabling the board to conduct an inquiry. Perhaps this amendment is a little more difficult. Yesterday, during the Second Reading debate, the argument was advanced by the hon. the Minister that he did not want to have another commission of inquiry. I agree with him that one does not want to have another commission of inquiry. What I am trying to do, is to give the board the same privilege which a liquidator has on the liquidation of a company or a trustee has in a case of insolvency. In other words, he is in a position that while he finds himself without the evidence, he knows that the other side has the evidence available, but he cannot make a judgment in respect of a claim without having that evidence. That is why in the case of an insolvency, for instance, all the witnesses can be called to court for examination in order to find out what one’s rights are.

The sole purpose of this is not to have a commission of inquiry, is not to go into all sorts of things and report on them to Parliament or to anybody else, but to enable the board, in order to make a decision in respect of a claim, to have the right to examine a witness. This is the sole purpose of the amendment.

Talking about the clause generally, I agree with the hon. member for Durban Point that the provisions of subsection (2)(b) would in the normal course have given us grave concern. It is only because of the very unusual situation, because of the difficulties that exist in respect of the knowledge which the board will have, which the hon. the Minister has and which his department has, that one can agree to a provision in terms of which the onus is shifted in this particular manner. Therefore we shall not object to that. We shall allow it to pass, but on the basis that it is only to those exceptional circumstances that it will be applied. We certainly do not want to create a precedent in respect of other actions by the State in the future.

Mr. Chairman, with regard to the first amendment of clause 6 moved by the hon. member for Yeoville, we have gone into his proposal that the compromising of claims should be expressly written into the clause as a power, but after due consideration and consultation I am in agreement with our legal advisers that as the clause reads at present, the State Trust Board has the authority and the right to deal with the assets of the State in such a manner that it would be to the least prejudice of the State and that, in the event of the State Trust Board being convinced that the compromising of a claim would be least detrimental to the interests of the State, such a claim could be compromised. Consequently, I regard the insertion of the words as superfluous.

With regard to the hon. member’s second amendment in regard to clause 6, I find it surprising. We on this side of the House are continually being accused of throwing overboard or watering down our traditional legal rules and norms. To cut a long story short, we have already shifted the onus—and there the hon. member for Yeoville was correct—in the subparagraph to which he has just referred. We provide that the State Trust Board can issue a statement to the effect that assets and rights were obtained by the application of secret State funds, and that is then a rebuttable presumption. By doing so we have already shifted the onus. I must say at once that this is a pity, since one does not make such a decision lightly. However, I do appreciate it that the hon. members for Yeoville and Durban Point support this clause in that form, since unusual circumstances compel us to do so. Moreover, it only applies to the limited number of cases falling under the application of secret State funds. In another respect too, as hon. members will see from the amendment in respect of clause 7 as printed in my name on the Order Paper, we have deviated from the normal legal procedure with regard to the service of processes and summonses where the Board is the claimant. We are now making it possible for the State Trust Board to summon a defendant by publishing a summons in a newspaper circulating in every province, and that will then be deemed to be due service on the defendant. That is a second departure from our normal legal procedure, and we do not apologize for that. It is nevertheless a pity that the State should have to adopt measures that actually constitute a departure from the legal norms and legal procedure. We should be on our guard against the inclination to be over-zealous in punishing, wanting to get at people, displaying a sort of Spanish Inquisition mentality, wanting to destroy everything in sight. If I were to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville which seeks to vest in the State Trust Board the right to subpoena witnesses as in the case of a commission of inquiry, the possibility would not be excluded that an innocent bona fide claimant could sue the State Trust Board on account of alleged breach of contract or damages. In such an event, we would create the possibility that the State Trust Board would be able to summon promptly the claimant who sues it in good faith, because it would then have the power which the hon. member for Yeoville wishes to vest in it. Can hon. members imagine the spectacle if one were to allow the State Trust Board to do this? Can hon. members imagine a greater deviation from our sense of equity and justice than that? As far as the other two deviations from our normal legal norms are concerned, one’s sense of justice still tells one that in those particular circumstances one is shifting an onus, but one does still make it possible for another, innocent party to come and prove that specific assets were not acquired with State funds.

With regard to the audi alteram partem rule, with the summons by means of publication we shall go so far as to publish it in a daily newspaper in each of the provinces, so as to ensure as far as possible that a defendant will get to know about legal proceedings instituted against him.

To my mind, the amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville is too drastic at this stage. I think we should pass the provision as it stands at present, and afford the State Trust Board the opportunity of commencing with its functions. Perhaps this is not the last we shall look at this provision. As the Board gains experience, deficiencies and needs may arise, but let those deficiencies first come to light before we tamper with legal principles which we all value. I cannot therefore accept that amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to react very briefly to the points which have been made by the hon. the Minister. Firstly, I want to refer to the fact that he has said that the board already has the power to compromise. If the board has the power to compromise, well and good. The difficulty, however, is that I do not think it has that power. The hon. the Minister thinks it has that power, but events will show who is right in this regard.

I want to raise another point with the hon. the Minister. He has stressed the fact that the board shall deal with such rights and assets “in a manner which shall be least prejudicial to the interests of the State”. The difficulty which is being created in this regard is that that is not a subjective test at all, but an objective test. If the clause stipulates that the board shall act in a manner which in its opinion shall be least prejudicial to the State, it will be fine, but to stipulate that it shall act “in a manner which shall be least prejudicial to the interests of the State”, means that somebody can come along afterwards and say that objectively speaking one has not acted in a manner which is the least prejudicial to the interests of the State. I think that with that wording, which does not provide for the power to compromise the hon. the Minister is putting his board into a difficult position. But I shall leave it at that All I am trying to do is to be helpful in the circumstances.

As far as the second amendment is concerned, I have a difficulty. The hon. the Minister talks about the great inroads which have been made into the normal judicial procedure, but identical provisions exist in our company legislation and in our insolvency legislation, because the man who has to make the decision whether to sue or to defend, is not the man involved in the transaction. He is there in a representative capacity. The law of the land has given him that right Perhaps the best example I can give is the one the hon. the Minister himself has given, and that is the example of a completely innocent plaintiff who decides to sue this board. However, the board may know nothing about it whatsoever and may be entirely unable to decide whether the claim is good or bad, because it has no knowledge. How does it then make a decision in that situation? I thought that by giving this power to the board, that position would be met.

I have offered this suggestion and I have moved an amendment in that regard, and it is for the hon. the Minister to decide whether he actually wants the board to have that power or not.

Mr. Chairman, a moment ago I asked with regard to the hon. member’s amendment to clause 4 who would have to decide whether it was feasible to comply with the Tender Board regulations. He then assured me that the board would have to do this, in other words, it is a subjective test Now a second test has been mooted according to which it has to be ascertained whether something would be in the least detrimental to the State. But now this is, to him, an objective test. This is hair-splitting, Sir, and I reject it. I cannot accept it. If the hon. member wishes to discuss it, I suppose he has the right to do so, but I reject it and cannot accept it.

Amendments negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 7:

Mr. Chairman, there are already two amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper. I should like to add a third one. Amendments 1 and 2 printed in my name in the Order Paper, become amendments 2 and 3. The amendments, which I hereby move formally, read as follows—

1. (1) On page 6, in lines 15 to 20, to omit subsection (1) and to substitute:
   1. (1) Jurisdiction in respect of any proceedings instituted by or against the board shall be vested in the magistrate’s court for the district of Pretoria or in the Transvaal Provincial Division of the Supreme Court, as the case may be.
2. (2) on page 6, in lines 27 to 35, to omit subsection (3) and to substitute:
   1. (3) It shall be deemed that any process in connection with any claim instituted by the board, was duly served upon the defendant if the process was published in every province of the Republic in a newspaper circulating within that province, in the form provided for in the rules of the court concerned in respect of the service of process by way of publication.
3. (3) on page 6, in line 38, to omit “10” and to substitute “21”.

The reason for these amendments is obvious. With regard to the aspect of jurisdiction we have considered it advisable, in consequence of suggestions I received from hon. members on this side of the House, that it would be better not to restrict ourselves to the existing ceilings with regard to the amounts of money.

As far as the other amendments are concerned, these are also self-evident. As I have already explained, we have problems of a practical nature. In practice, we might encounter the problem that a defendant is not in the country or that we do not know the defendant’s address. In fact, I should like to go further. We could even have a position where a defendant who is overseas, could have arranged that he could be summoned in South Africa for example, either by a partner of his or by by his wife at the address of an attorney. In that way the wife, the firm or the partner could gain control over his estate, and then the State has to struggle with summonses and with proof that summonses have been properly served. Consequently, we request that these powers be given to the trust board in order to litigate effectively, so that the board could act effectively and have a summons served as envisaged in the amendment.

With regard to the amendment by means of which “10 days” is deleted and substituted by “21 days”, I should just like to point out that in view of the fact that we are dealing with a foreign aspect, it is perhaps fairer, also for the sake of legal certainty, to insert “21 days” in the legislation for all cases.

Mr. Chairman, the first amendment which appears in my name on the Order Paper, reads as follows—

If this amendment is not acceptable I see no point in pursuing it. The second amendment which appears in my name on the Order Paper, reads as follows—

This amendment appears to be almost identical with the amendments moved by the hon. the Minister. In the circumstances I do not intend to move it either, but shall support the hon. the Minister’s amendments.

Mr. Chairman, we in these benches also support the amendments of the hon. the Minister. I should just like to obtain certainty on one aspect. In terms of the rules of court referred to in the amendments of the hon. the Minister, it is clear that such an advertisement has to be published in both official languages, or may it be published in one official language only? If it may be published in one official language only, I should like to move that it should appear in newspapers of both official languages. There is, for example, the complication that foreigners would not read the advertisement if it were published only in an Afrikaans-language newspaper, since they might not understand Afrikaans. However, before moving an amendment, I shall wait to hear whether, in terms of the rules of court, such an advertisement in the newspapers has to be published in both languages.

Mr. Chairman, I am not quite sure what the position is in terms of the rules of court, but we are not really dealing with rules of court now. We are making provision in the legislation that a summons may be published in newspapers in all four provinces. That is what the legislation provides, and if the hon. member wishes to move an amendment to the effect that all summonses should appear in both official languages, we can accept that. The hon. member will appreciate that instead of four advertisements there would then have to be eight. I can appreciate the hon. member’s argument with regard to foreigners. However, my argument is that by advertising it, it is going to become newsworthy. We have assumed that if we published such a summons in a widely read newspaper in each of the four provinces, it would have news value and would therefore become known. In my view, it is a heavy burden to require us to publish eight summonses every time instead of four. We do not want the summonses to be published only in English or only in Afrikaans, but should like to divide them among the newspapers in such a way that they would appear once in Afrikaans and once in English every time we took them to the Press.

Mr. Chairman, I take the hon. the Minister’s point, but I feel that when one is dealing with matters in which perhaps millions of rands are involved, it may not always be picked up and may not always become news. Simply for the sake of the fullest opportunity for any person affected to know about it, I would like to move the following as an amendment to amendment (2) moved by the hon. the Minister—

This will mean that there will have to be the four extra advertisements, as the hon. the Minister has indicated. These will not be long and expensive advertisements; they will be legal advertisements, and I can therefore see no harm being done. How many advertisements are there going to be? At the most there will be a dozen. It is not as if this is going to be a regularly occurring thing, taking place week after week, or something that will involve big money. It will be publicized in order to reach the few people on whom notice cannot be served in the normal manner, i.e. the few who have fled overseas. As far as I know, so far there are only three or four people involved. It will therefore not bring about large expense and will not involve a large amount of extra work, but will nevertheless ensure full coverage.

I suppose we have to support our newspapers, and I therefore accept the amendment by the hon. member for Durban Point.

Amendment moved by Mr. W. V. Raw agreed to.

Amendments moved by the Minister of Foreign Affairs agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 10:

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

The clause as it stands in the first place refers to a report which, because it may not be in the public interest to do so, may be withheld by the hon. the Minister from being tabled in this House. We accept that in the report there might well be matters which could affect the national security if they were published, and secondly, that there might be other matters which would be prejudicial and go beyond the concept of national security, i.e. the process of a lawsuit at a particular stage where it might certainly not be in the public interest to publish certain information. One therefore accepts that position. At the same time, while accepting it, we believe that Parliament should be made aware of it. Therefore the amendment which we have moved requires that once the hon. the Minister is of the opinion that there is an issue of public interest involved, the report should be tabled in this House and in terms of the rules be marked “confidential”. It should then be submitted to a Select Committee appointed for that purpose. That is the procedure which, interestingly enough, is similar to that which is contained in the Advocate-General Bill in regard to a not dissimilar matter. But that still has to be debated in this House. In our view this offers the safeguard that matters which adversely affect the public interest will not become public if the report is tabled.

Mr. Chairman, for the purposes of this Bill, and on merit, it was not necessary for me to insert clause 10(2) in the Bill, namely that the reports which the State Trust Board submits to me on its activities, should be tabled. But I don’t know what might still crop up, and no one else in this House knows either. We have now had several debates on the Information matter. The decision that the evidence in the case of the Erasmus Commission should be referred to a Select Committee, arises from the fact that there is in fact evidence available. It is obvious that we could not have taken this decision if evidence had not been available. However, since there is this continual nagging about a cover-up and secrecy, I have decided that everything should be disclosed and exposed in so far as it does not harm the interests of our country. I am in favour of openness but then one should create a safety-valve for oneself in case things crop up which might damage our international relations. I do not really foresee anything that could affect our internal security situation. However, I do foresee that issues may arise that might jeopardize our relations with one or two other countries, which might be extremely prejudicial to us if we publicize them. Consequently, I just wish to insert a safety-valve in the Bill in the interests of us all.

However, it was not necessary at all to insert this clause. There is no State Trust Board at present. Officials of the S.A. Information Service are doing this work in conjunction with other officials from the Treasury. At present there is no need for it, and no demand has been made, for the work we are doing at present for the ordering of old projects week after week, month after month, or every six months.

I am offering something here in all fairness and frankness. But this is once again being taken further and further. My judgment on what might be in South Africa’s international interests, is being placed at issue. In case the State Trust Board were perhaps to come across something, I am being expected to commit myself in advance to an obligation in terms of which my judgment will not be sufficient. There will be a compulsory tabling of possibly dangerous information. We all know how confidential such a tabling is. I do not wish to cast a reflection on hon. members, but reports that are tabled, ultimately have to be typed and printed. How could I now intimate in advance on a potentially dangerous situation for South Africa’s foreign relations —which I do not think will arise, but might nevertheless arise—that I shall reconcile myself to allowing not my judgment, but that of somebody else, another person or body, to have the final say? I cannot do that. In view of these circumstances I am moving my own amendment which is printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Consequently I am returning to the position as it would normally be. I give this House the undertaking today that if any irregularities crop up, they will as a matter of course be referred to the commercial branch of the SAP for further investigation or brought to the notice of the Advocate-General. If there is anything else of an irregular nature that may come to the notice of hon. members, they can put questions to me about it here in the House when my Vote comes up for discussion. Consequently we are now leaving out the perhaps and possibilities. We are also avoiding all alternatives. It could happen that I come to the House and publish everything with regard to the activities of the State Trust Board. It might also happen that we refer it to a Select Committee. It might also happen that I invite the leaders of Opposition parties to come and see me and make the facts available to them. There could be any number of possibilities. However, I reserve the right to consider all those possibilities, which might eventually include the full disclosure of all the facts. We are not excluding anything.

For these reasons I have moved the amendment I have just read out. In that way I leave the door open for all alternatives.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. the Minister’s reaction is one of pique and not one of Pik. [Interjections.] This is a reasonable proposal, but I am not wedded to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Yeoville. However, as the hon. the Minister is now seeking to have that particular subsection withdrawn, the matter will be left entirely open to his own decision. In terms of that particular subsection it would have been encumbent upon him to decide what was without prejudice to the public interest “Public interest” is a very wide term. We would naturally support any restriction affecting security. We would support any restriction which protected our relationships with other countries. However, the simple use of the term “public interest” is as wide as wide can be. In terms of that the hon. the Minister can decide that the interests of the Government are the public interests, that the interests of a particular action of the Government are a public interest He can then decide not to lay a report on the Table of the House.

I see no harm in a report being published confidentially for the information of hon. members. If the hon. the Minister does not accept the proposal made by the hon. member for Yeoville, there would surely be some other way of designing an amendment which does not simply withdraw even what right was proposed for Parliament to enjoy, and leave no guarantee to Parliament itself. I believe the hon. the Minister genuinely wants—I indeed accept that he sincerely wants—this State Trust Board to be a body which will clean up the mess. He wants it to do the job properly. He wants it to be seen that the job is done properly. I am sure he does not now want to introduce even an opening for a mischief-maker to claim that there is a cover-up. I do not believe that there will be a cover-up. However, if we create the impression that it is possible, some mischief-maker will use this as an opening to throw suspicion on the whole operation of the board. He is going to say that there are secret operations again, secret operations about which Parliament will not know.

Surely, it is not beyond the limits of reason to work out an amendment which will ensure that the things the hon. the Minister has raised—things with which I do agree entirely; things by which the interests of South Africa can be harmed—are fully protected. However, it should be made possible for the world to see that there is no attempt to cover up other matters, which public interest is a wide enough term to make possible.

Whilst I have not designed an amendment —because I thought that the hon. member for Yeoville’s amendment would cover the position—I believe that, with a little thought, one could easily see to it that the position is covered. Perhaps by an amendment to the words “public interest”, that wording could possibly be changed to “the security of the State” or “its relations with other countries”, instead of the broad term “public interest”. In that event we would be able to support the proposal as contained in clause 10(2). The hon. the Minister could substitute the words I have suggested, or words to that effect I leave it entirely to the hon. the Minister, if he accepts the principle, to move an amendment to that effect in the Other Place. However, I think that simply because a proposal has been made which the hon. the Minister does not like, for him to withdraw the original wording of the Bill, will create the wrong impression and can be open to abuse by those who want to abuse it I should like to hear the hon. the Minister’s reaction to this.

Mr. Chairman, I am able to reply briefly to that. I accept the suggestions of the hon. member for Durban Point, and we shall try to find a formulation that is as close as possible to what the hon. member proposed here.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Durban Point has put forward a number of the issues that I wanted to put to the hon. the Minister, and since the hon. the Minister has reacted to those points, I shall not repeat them. There are a couple of things, however, that I think need to be said. Firstly, if it was necessary to have such a provision to cover the concept in the Advocate-General Bill, which could involve matters perhaps even more serious than some of the things involved here, I fail to see why it should not be appropriate in this case. Secondly, so that we clearly understand one another, I do not think there is any question of our wanting to see matters which, from a national security point of view, even Parliamentarians should not see, but there is such a thing as the Official Secrets Act, and to my mind the Official Secrets Act has been inadequately used up to now, and that could apply even to a provision such as this in regard to a report that would be tabled. There is a very important principle that is at stake here. At the present moment the accountability in respect of the actions relating to the former Department of Information is accountability by the Government to Parliament. Now it is the intention to create a board which is also going to be accountable, but not accountable to Parliament. It is going to be accountable to the Government. Where does Parliament then figure in the picture? So if there is no report, and if there is no requirement entitling Parliament as such to see what is involved, Parliament is surrendering a major right to call the Government to account for its conduct of the administration, which is what the business of government is all about. That is why, with great respect to the hon. the Minister, I say that the issue is whether, in fact, Parliament is entitled to know what is going to happen in regard to the activities of the board. It is inadequate to say that there will be formal discussions and it is also inadequate to say that there can be accountability in terms of a Vote, because what is being created here is an independent body, and we have had lots of experience of what the accountability of independent bodies to this Parliament is. Therefore we regret— and I do not want to repeat what the hon. member for Durban Point has said—the approach that since we are asking for more porridge because, like Oliver Twist, we are not satisfied with the porridge we are getting, we are not going to be given any porridge at all.

But I said I had accepted his amendment. I reacted positively.

No, the hon. the Minister said he would consider it. The hon. the Minister did not say that he would withdraw his amendment [Interjections.] Then the hon. the Minister must withdraw the amendment. [Interjections.] Is the hon. the Minister withdrawing the amendment?

Why does the hon. member not resume his seat?

I shall let the hon. the Minister speak, with pleasure.

Mr. Chairman, I must just say a few words. The Auditor-General will carry out a full audit on this Trust Account. At the moment we are already engaged in setting certain of these projects in order. However, I have not yet heard from a single hon. member that he demands a report on this operation every six months. At the moment there is no such right. We are engaged in setting State assets and rights that became a bone of contention through no fault of our own in order. We are doing this to the best of our ability since there is no legislation that specifically orders and regulates activities of this nature. However, that hon. member wants to make a “song and dance” of every conceivable thing. He wants a commission of inquiry for everything. We cannot dwell any longer on the misdeeds of the past. Here an open attempt is being made to act in an orderly way. In the absolute sense it was perhaps not necessary for me to introduce legislation, but what are we doing now? We have introduced legislation and we are trying to arrange things in a proper lawful manner, namely by means of the State Trust Board that will have to submit a report and will ultimately have to give an account of what has been recovered, to the satisfaction of the Treasury, so that moneys can be refunded to the State Exchequer. Account and reconciliation statements will be available.

I am now being expected to commit myself in advance to certain procedures that do not exist in respect of other State institutions. Surely this procedure does not apply to the Banana Board. Since when has it been necessary for the Banana Board to report on its activities to Parliament every six months?

Of course it has to. It has to report to Parliament every 12 months.

Who is there who institutes investigations into all its activities, for the chairman of the Banana Board submits a report at his discretion? Since when have we had this kind of comprehensive submission of reports? Ultimately all municipalities and provincial council will have to report on every action. Then we shall also have to start asking the newspapers who their shareholders are, for where are we going to end up if matters continue like this?

With leave of the Committee, I withdraw my amendment. I said that I accepted the principle put forward by the hon. member for Durban Point. The only problem is that we have not yet found a suitable wording, but I heard what he said and wrote it down and we shall go ahead with it in that way in the Other Place.

Mr. Chairman, with great respect and following on the outburst we have just witnessed, let us get a few facts right. Even the so-called Banana Control Board to which the hon. the Minister has somewhat contemptuously referred, is obliged to give a report once a year. It is obliged to have its accounts, etc., examined by the Auditor-General and it is obliged to have its report examined by the Select Committee on Public Accounts. There is a written report, but if the hon. the Minister does not know that such reports exist, the hon. members on his side will tell him that there are such reports and that they are tabled every year. Why should this be different?

With great respect, Parliament is being asked here to be relieved of an accountability which it is entitled to demand from the Government. That accountability can only be taken away when something else is put in its place. We believe there should be accountability. If the hon. the Minister wants to reopen the whole question, it is his affair, but we were not the Government in power that had the Information scandal take place. This indignation which the hon. the Minister has and shows, is the result of something which took place under his Government and his party; it did not take place under anybody else’s.

Are you trying to frighten me?

I am not trying to frighten the hon. the Minister; I am telling him the facts. It is therefore he who has to account; not us. [Interjections.] We do have to account; it is the Government that has to account.

The Bill has the effect of transferring certain rights to a board away from the Government so that the hon. the Minister can get up during the discussion of his Vote to say that that is what the board is doing and that is what is taking place under the board’s guidance. That is why there has to be a report, that is why the report has to be tabled in Parliament and that is why we cannot just accept “public interest” as covering everything. This House has a duty. Parliament has certain rights and we stand up for those rights and we will fight for them.

Mr. Chairman, I did not refer at all in a contemptuous way to the Banana Control Board. That is a characterization used by that hon. member emanating from a mind that thinks about others in those terms. That is his basic problem.

In the second place I have accepted what the hon. member for Durban Point suggested, and the Opposition party which ought to be the official Opposition therefore supports us.

Amendment moved by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, with leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Chairman, I think we must bring this debate back on the rails. We are actually supporting the proposal of the hon. the Minister to introduce a Bill to deal with the moneys in the manner set out in the Bill. It is customary in all money Bills and all monetary affairs that the Government should accept accountability to Parliament Here we have a very exceptional Bill dealing with an exceptional set of circumstances. Obviously, for the sake of the credibility of the operation, for the sake of public confidence, it is necessary that the standard procedure of accountability to Parliament be preserved. In the original Bill the hon. the Minister did in fact have a clause providing for that accountability to Parliament. This serves the purpose of the Bill very well. It creates the kind of confidence in the Bill that is necessary and maintains the kind of accountability to Parliament which is traditional in our system.

What the hon. member for Yeoville did was to suggest an improvement to that provision, an improvement which is in fact consistent with what has been done in the case of the Advocate-General. This is an entirely logical proposal, consistent with what the House has been doing recently in such cases. It is in no way intended to destroy the hon. the Minister’s Bill or to put the hon. the Minister at a disadvantage. It is in fact a constructive attempt to maintain a principle which is essential, to improve the credibility of the board when it comes into existence and, in general, to assist the hon. the Minister. There is no cause, therefore, for the hon. the Minister to attack the hon. member for Yeoville or to doubt his motives.

It is a prelude for tomorrow.

What is being done is entirely consistent with what the hon. the Minister himself is trying to achieve.

He used libellous language against me.

Sir, I do not believe the hon. member for Yeoville started off using provocative language.

Who used the word “contemptuous”?

That was in response to certain words used by the hon. the Minister, and one thing led to another. I am trying to defuse those words and to tell the hon. the Minister that what we in these benches are doing is, in fact, assisting him to make the Bill more credible, to make it more effective and to raise the prestige of the board, something the board certainly needs.

If the hon. the Minister were to accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Yeoville, he would not be accepting any new principle, but he would be accepting a procedure which has recently been approved by the House, or which is at least under discussion and was certainly proposed by the Government itself in respect of the Advocate-General Bill.

I believe that this amendment would not only be consistent, but that it would in fact improve the credibility of what we are trying to do by means of this Bill. That is what it is all about I believe we are wasting time by arguing with each other about the words that have been used here. I believe that the attempt is a constructive one and I sincerely recommend to the hon. the Minister that he consider very seriously the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Yeoville to clause 10(2) of the Bill.

I thank the hon. member who has just spoken for his contribution. I must point out, however, that I do not think that the proposal supported by him will necessarily improve the credibility of the board. The board has a certain task to perform and its credibility will depend on its efficiency; it will depend on how efficiently it can handle and wind up the projects initiated by the former Department of Information. Its efficiency will depend on the quality and results of its work. I have indicated quite clearly that the position is the same as that which applies to the Erasmus Commission. I know of no Act of this Parliament which provided for the evidence of the Erasmus Commission to be submitted to Parliament. That was a Governmental decision. Therefore, if any principle has been established, that one has namely that it is in the discretion of the Government. As I have said, it is quite possible that, when the board has completed its work, I shall follow that road. I do not see, however, why we should prolong the discussion. I have withdrawn my amendment, I have accepted the amendment of the hon. member for Durban Point and I cannot accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Yeoville.

Mr. Chairman, I merely rise to place on record our appreciation of the acceptance of the suggestion I made and to say that we will not support the amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville, but will support the clause on the basis of the undertaking given by the hon. the Minister.

Amendment moved by Mr. H. H. Schwarz negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Mr. Speaker, I want to be very brief and merely want to indicate that as far as we are concerned, we have wanted the Information debacle to be wound up and that steps should be taken to recover whatever assets and money belong to the State so that the interests of the taxpayer can be safeguarded. It is for that reason that we are supporting this measure and have accepted certain abnormal provisions which in normal circumstances we would never have agreed to vote for at all. But we recognize that this is an abnormal situation and that we therefore have to depart from what is the norm for legislation.

I want to say that it is unfortunate that a certain atmosphere developed during the discussion on this Bill. I think it is unfortunate in many respects, but it may well be that it is merely an outward indication of things which are yet to come. The responsibility, however, does not lie with us. We have tried to deal with this measure in an objective and reasonable fashion. We will continue to try to do so, but the responsibility does not lie with us if the signs are that there are other things which are about to happen. Our responsibility is to see that every action is taken to see that the money involved here is recovered in the interest of the taxpayer. That is why we will vote for the Third Reading, even though the measure is not entirely in the form in which we would like it to be.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill ushers in a completely new era for the education of Blacks, and I think it is necessary, therefore, to explain in greater detail the implementation of its major provisions. The erection of community schools by the department, as provided for in clause 6(1), is a very important step and will make it possible for educational facilities to be planned in a more meaningful manner and for the backlog which has developed over the years to be wiped out systematically. R10 million has been appropriated for this purpose for the 1979-’80 financial year, and it is expected that this amount will increase enormously in future financial years.

However, this new dispensation places a great responsibility, not only on my department, but on everyone who is concerned with the education of Black people. Heavy demands will have to be met in order to make a success of this important and comprehensive task. We must not fail, because the new dispensation holds great advantages for the children and for local communities. Moreover, the various communities will also have to be patient Our ideals cannot be realized overnight and backlogs cannot be wiped out immediately, but what is important is that it is now possible to make up the backlog systematically. Careful planning is of the utmost importance in order to draw up a proper programme for every five-year period in respect of the following—

1. (1) new schools and the acquisition of building-sites;
2. (2) up-grading of various schools;
3. (3) additional classrooms at existing schools;
4. (4) renovation of school buildings;
5. (5) fencing of school grounds; and
6. (6) the provision of sport and recreational facilities, which is of the utmost importance.

I also wish to convey my thanks and appreciation to the administration boards and the municipalities that have contributed their share over many years with limited funds and have been responsible for the erection of community schools in urban residential areas. Under the new dispensation, administration boards as well as community boards will still be involved in the allocation of suitable sites for schools. Administration boards can also be used in certain cases to erect the schools as agents of the department. There are many schools, especially those in the older residential areas, of which the grounds are far too small for the provision of sufficient classrooms and playgrounds for the children. Therefore it may even be necessary at some places that houses, of which there is unfortunately a shortage too, should make room for school grounds. I believe that we shall be able to rely on the co-operation of all interested parties in the interests of the child and his education.

A further aspect which should perhaps be explained in greater detail is compulsory school attendance. In this connection it is not possible, as I have already said, to commit the department or the Government to a specific time and date. There are too many unknown and variable factors which play a role. Hon. members may rest assured, however, that it is the serious intention of the Government, as spelt out in clause 3(c), to implement these things as soon as possible with the necessary co-operation of the parents. During the Committee Stage I was asked how, to what extent and up to what level compulsory school attendance should be introduced when we proceed to such a step. I think everyone realizes that we shall have to be very careful. A specific area or community may be ready for it sooner than another, and for this reason it seems a practical idea to introduce it on a regional basis. However, it would be short-sighted to give preferential treatment to one community, for example, in the sense that the introduction of compulsory school attendance in one area will mean that it will not be possible to provide any services in another area, or that they will be provided more slowly.

As regards the level on which we intend to introduce it, I should like to make the general statement that eventually—and I want to emphasize this—it will be introduced on the same level as in the other departments of education. Of course, it will have to progress to this level step by step. Under the present system of voluntary school attendance, there is unfortunately a high percentage of pupils who drop out or leave school during their first few school years, which actually amounts to a fruitless expenditure on the part of the State, since a child who leaves school before having completed Std. 2 cannot be regarded as functionally literate, and therefore the education which has been provided, under very difficult circumstances sometimes, and accompanied by sacrifices on the part of parents, is of little value. Therefore the first step will obviously be to ensure, inter alia, that the child receives tuition at least up to a level where he can benefit from it and become literate, and that the level which he can attain is gradually raised. Apart from this, however, it remains an important standpoint of the Government that every child who would like to attend school on a voluntary basis should have the opportunity to do so. In this connection I want to say that a large part of the public seems to be under the misunderstanding that the remark made by Dr. Verwoerd caused a ceiling to be imposed on the level to which the Black child is able to progress in this country. I want to emphasize that reading and re-reading the statement of Dr. Verwoerd makes it abundantly clear that no ceiling was imposed or envisaged on the development of Black children. He made his particular statement at a certain stage in the development of education for Blacks. Naturally, it will be some time before nation-wide compulsory education can be introduced, especially because the facilities on farms and in rural areas will not be able to meet all the requirements. I may just point out in passing that in response to several representations in this connection, from bodies including the S.A. Agricultural Union, serious attention is being given to methods of expanding the facilities in the rural areas. I am also saying this in response to what the hon. member for Bryanston and hon. members on this side of the House said in this connection. It is being envisaged that it will be made easier for the White farmer to establish a school on his farm and for farm children to have access to secondary educational facilities. In this connection we are trying to give greater recognition, in the form of leases to farm owners and higher subsidy payments, for the work with which the farming community has helped this department.

I want to emphasize, however, that as regards the introduction of compulsory school attendance and the level up to which it will be introduced, the Government will be led by the proposed Council for Education and Training, as provided for in clause 3, and will also consult the local school committees in order to involve the parents in these matters in every respect.

This brings me to the third aspect, i.e. the Council for Education and Training and its constitution, about which a great deal was said in the Committee Stage. The Council for Education and Training is to be established for the purpose of advising the Minister on educational policy and its implementation. As I indicated during the Second Reading debate, my department would like this council to play a more prominent role in education. The council is furthermore intended to provide for the involvement of the Black community on this effective level. Therefore it is essential that the council be constituted in such a way as to ensure the maximum representation of the community it is to serve in the first place. The constitution of such a council should also be seen in relation to a whole series of liaison bodies which liaise with this department and which already exist. In constituting the council, therefore, an attempt will be made to supplement these bodies and to avoid duplication. In this connection I believe I should refer to the various bodies which exist and with which liaison is already taking place.

In the first place, there is the examination board for examination matters and syllabi up to Std. 8. The universities, Black States and teachers’ associations are already represented on this council. Secondly, there are the subject committees, of which there are 22 in the country and on which educationists and professional officers of universities, of Black States and of other education departments are represented. It may be interesting to note that the hon. member for Durban Central inquired about an umbrella body on this level. In this regard, therefore, this kind of liaison already exists. Thirdly, there are regular meetings with the Secretaries for Education of the various Black States with a view to coordinating education in the various territories. Fourthly, there are regional management meetings, which are attended by representatives of the various regional organizations and the control structure of the department. I could supplement this list with the bodies enumerated in paragraph 20, page 225, of my department’s annual report for 1978, which has already been tabled.

There is a fourth aspect I just want to touch on briefly, i.e. the provision of school health services. In this connection I want to express my thanks and appreciation to the Department of Health. They will provide this service on the same basis as for the other population groups. However, we can only start on a small scale. Because of the shortage of trained nurses and other health staff, the service will be expanded only gradually. I believe that this service will be of great significance for the Black community, especially in areas where there is still great ignorance about basic health rules and where there is still a great deal of prejudice against modern techniques in the field of preventive medicine. I am thinking in this connection of kwashiorkor, pellagra and diseases of this kind. I want to point out that the health service will not be limited to immunization services. The intention is to provide a comprehensive service in order to identify conditions which are harmful to the child’s health and to take appropriate steps, or to have them taken, to eliminate or prevent these. I believe we all realize that a great deal of education will have to be undertaken in this connection, which will have to be extended to the parents as well, and we believe that the Department of Health is very well equipped to provide this valued service.

Apart from the new services which have already been mentioned, it is also important to note the major differences between the present and the proposed new dispensation, i.e. the change in control over community schools. Under the present dispensation, the control and administration of a community school are entrusted to a school board, and this board performs these functions with the aid of school committees, of which there is one for each school. Although there have unfortunately been problems in some cases with regard to the control of school boards—I am thinking in this connection of a few cases of abuse of their powers with regard to the appointment and dismissal of teachers—it must be borne in mind that school boards play a very important role in the community, not only with regard to education as such, but also in providing leadership within a specific community. Blacks have had an opportunity to develop their leadership qualities in this field. I make bold to say that in the territories which have now developed into Black States, school boards made an important contribution to the fact that education in these territories could be transferred to the various Governments in such an orderly manner.

Where we have now entered upon a new dispensation in terms of which community schools will henceforth be controlled by the department with the aid of school committees, I should like to thank the many school boards and members of school boards who have served education in such a disinterested way. Control by the department should be seen as a normal development which holds greater advantages for education. However, it remains very necessary that there should be effective parent involvement, which will be brought about by the school committees, so I should like to appeal to parents from this House to attend regularly and in large numbers the meetings at which school committees are elected and the activities of the school are reported upon.

I want to reaffirm that the Government will contribute its share to enable the Black child to develop to his full potential. I believe that everyone who is involved in this must cooperate to achieve this aim, but at the same time, I wish to ask that we should not all try to do this off our own bat. There are many organizations that try to render assistance with the best of intentions. The result is that there is duplication, and I believe that these attempts should be better co-ordinated. I also want to make a plea from this House in good time for the opportunity to be created for parents to obtain additional facilities for their schools, and thus for their children, by arranging functions. We do not intend to use the schools levy for the maintenance of schools, as has been done in the past. These levies which have to be paid and the funds which will be raised by parents and children will be given to them for improving the school with which they are associated. I trust that everyone will co-operate to enable the parents and the children fully to utilize their involvement in those schools, for their own benefit If all our organizations would embark upon their projects in consultation with the department, as is the case at the moment in the field of adult education—to which I also want to refer with gratitude—it could greatly benefit our Black children and our Black communities. If it benefits those communities, it will also benefit South Africa as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has taken the fairly unusual step of making a fairly lengthy speech in introducing the Third Reading of this measure. In doing so, he has been able to give us an amplification of some of the benefits which ought to flow to the field of Black education as a result of this measure. He has mentioned some of the changes and the effects of these changes which will be felt by Black pupils and by teachers concerned with Black education. He has also referred to the activities of the Department of Health within his department in providing better health services. This is perhaps one of the most noteworthy comments he made in his remarks to the House a short while ago. We are all conscious of the fact that, as a result of poverty, and starvation in many cases, there is a very great need for a really effective health service to operate amongst the young Black people of this country.

After a fairly lengthy discussion during the Committee Stage and the Second Reading, we have reached the Third Reading of this Bill. I think all will agree that the discussions and the debate have been conducted on a fairly high level. This was also the case when the matter was discussed by the Select Committee. I believe that hon. members on all sides of the House have indicated their appreciation of the importance of the subject matter of Black education and the need for change in the existing system and the existing administration. We in these benches, certainly, are conscious of the urgent need in the national interest to provide the best possible educational facilities and opportunities for Blacks at all levels as a matter of priority in this country.

During his speech today and also in his comments in the Committee Stage and in the Second Reading, the hon. the Minister has indicated that there are practical difficulties involved. He has been perfectly frank on this issue. I want to thank him for his candour in this regard. We know that there is a tremendous backlog. We appreciate that in the light of that backlog we cannot expect miracles overnight Nevertheless, our appeal to the hon. the Minister—if he needs this sort of appeal—is to bring about changes as quickly as possible and as a matter of priority in South Africa.

We in these benches are also conscious of the very real need to ensure that the enormous disparities which exist between Black educational standards and opportunities and those of White education, are eliminated with all possible speed. There must be no suggestion of discrimination between Black and White in the field of education. The sooner we are able to show that, in practice as well as in theory, there are equal opportunities for all South African children, the better it will be for all in this country. We have to realize that the provision of the maximum and equal educational opportunities for Blacks is a matter which vitally affects all the people of South Africa.

There are three aspects I should like to underline in considering this aspect. Firstly, there is the natural desire and the right of Black South Africans that their children and future generations will have the best possible opportunity to be educated and trained in order to be equipped to take their place in society and enjoy a better quality of life in this very tough, competitive and technological world and age in which we live. There is this very real and understandable desire on the part of Black parents that their children should be better equipped to fit in with this sort of situation. Whatever the background of the Blacks, however much they may have been denied opportunities in the past and however unsophisticated they may be, one cannot help being impressed by the fact that they are determined that, as far as their children and future generations are concerned, they will receive better opportunities than they themselves had. One is always impressed with the lengths to which Black people will go to ensure that their children receive proper educational facilities. One is always impressed with the fact that they are prepared to make almost any sacrifice, including financial sacrifices, to ensure that their children will have access to whatever facilities are available. Their desire for these opportunities cannot be denied. Furthermore, it is nothing more than their right as citizens of South Africa, and these needs have to be met.

When looking at this matter in general terms, the second aspect I want to deal with and which needs to be underlined is the effect or the impact which the whole issue of Black education has on race relations in this country. Given the burning desire of Blacks to see to it that their children get the best opportunities for advancement—a totally natural and commendable desire—nothing can be more calculated to harm Black-White relations in South Africa than for them to feel that the White child is always in a privileged position regarding these opportunities. Therefore, when one looks at this entire situation, it is terribly important that one must see that there are equal opportunities provided. We have seen recent examples—I do not want to go into them, because they are now part of history—of the very great resentment this type of situation, which is a disparity between two types of education, can bring about, and the incalculable harm which this can cause to race relations in this country.

A further aspect to which I should like to refer in general terms is the advantage of full opportunities for Black education and for the country as a whole. In this respect I refer specifically to the economy of South Africa. There is no doubt that if the real living standards of the growing population of this country can continue to rise, the productivity of our economically active population must increase substantially. Experience all over the world has shown that improved education facilities geared to the needs of the economy are one of the prime factors in increasing productivity, and in generating the resources to further expand all segments of our economy. This is extremely important, and there is no doubt that, in the South African situation, the development potential of Blacks is at present greatly under-utilized.

One figure given in some of the evidence which came before the Select Committee in this regard is that, for example in 1970, less than 2% of the economically active Black population of South Africa was in the category of a professional, technical or related worker, although they represented 28% of all workers in that category. It is evident—this is surely a matter of common cause—that this is to be attributed to a variety of factors, but that it is particularly owing to the lack of adequate educational facilities that we have not been able to make use of the potential of our Black community. Again it is a matter in which one must emphasize the need for better and more widespread educational opportunities.

We in the PFP are vitally concerned with these needs. We have always expressed our concern in this regard, and that is also the background against which we have viewed this legislation. During Second Reading and during the Committee Stage I said that one recognizes that there are tremendous improvements contained in the legislation with which we are dealing at the present time. We have also indicated repeatedly that we do acknowledge these improvements. We recognize and welcome the commitment to aiming for compulsory attendance and for free tuition amongst Black people, although we also recognize the difficulties amongst which the hon. the Minister has to operate. However, we welcome that aim. We have welcomed the commitment to involve the parents and the community on an increasing scale within the whole educational field of operation. The provision dealing with that, we believe, is a very commendable one. We believe it is a good step.

We have also welcomed the commitment to improving the syllabuses and to trying to bring them more into line—in time, at any rate—with those which operate in respect of other racial groups. We recognize and welcome the commitment contained in this Bill to ensure that the standards of education are the same as those that apply in respect of other race groups. The hon. the Minister has given us some examples of some of the other practical steps which he and his department are conscious need to be taken. One thinks, for example, of the whole question of building new schools, of improving existing facilities, of improving classrooms, of erecting fences around school grounds, and of—to put it in the hon. the Minister’s own words—the aim of eventually making them become like other departments of education.

We recognize all these things. We also recognize the better conditions promised to or envisaged for teachers, as well as the better training facilities, all which are a vital part of this whole matter. However, we want to emphasize again that despite the hon. the Minister’s difficulties, he has to move as quickly as possible.

[Inaudible.]

Well, the hon. the Minister will get all the encouragement from us in this respect, if he moves in the right direction. We believe this is a matter of vital concern and of vital interest for South Africa. Certainly, from our point of view we will give that encouragement. However, we regret that despite all these advantages, the Bill, as we have indicated in previous stages, is still committed to compartmentalized education in South Africa. We believe that that is wrong in principle. We believe it is suspect. It has been rejected by the majority of Black people in South Africa, as well as by other educational interests. We regret to say that we believe that it is a fundamental weakness. As I have said in previous stages, we believe that education should be controlled by one single department. It should be administered by one single department. Thereafter it can diversify, but it should be seen that there is one department dealing with the educational needs of all the people of South Africa. We have made the point that it is a fundamental point of difference for us in regard to this measure. We regret that the measure, containing as it does so many positive aspects, falls short in this very vital aspect involving the entire principle contained in clause 2 of the Bill, i.e. that of compartmentalizing education and enshrining and perpetuating a system in terms of which one is still going to have Black education administered by a different department to those administering White education, Indian education or Coloured education. We say that that is a fundamental concept to which we cannot subscribe. Despite the fact that the Bill does contain a great number of improvements—and we wish the hon. the Minister and his department well in effecting those improvements—for the sake of the principle involved we are not able to support the Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I almost feel like saying “oh no” and throwing up my hands, because the hon. member for Musgrave began very well and I could support much of what he said, particularly when he referred to the fact that right from the outset, through the Second Reading stage and the Committee Stage, the debate had been conducted on a high level. The hon. member mentioned that the hon. the Minister had held out fine prospects for us right from the outset, based on the Bill which is now in its final stage. He thanked the hon. the Minister for it. Having said all that and having indicated that he accepted it as such and was aware of the possibilities, he nevertheless could not resist advancing some hackneyed arguments yet again.

The hon. member now wants to make us believe that it is only the PFP that has an interest in the further extension and development of education for Blacks. However, this is not true. Surely this Government’s record proves that. The record of the Department of Education and Training, as reflected in its annual report, points out the exceptional results that have been achieved in the past On various occasions the other Opposition parties have also voiced their expectations. Consequently it is not only the PFP that has this idea. Then the hon. member comes along with the idea of discrimination and links it to the past. I think that there is one thing that the hon. the Opposition, the official Opposition in particular, must also realize. White education, too, has come a long way. White education in the Republic of South Africa was at one stage at exactly the same level as Black education is at present, in fact it was at a far lower level. However, White education took the bit in its teeth and worked to achieve better facilities, higher standards, etc. Indeed it is an honour and a privilege for the White community, and for this Government in particular, to do everything in its power to assist the Black people in achieving a standard for Black education, too, equal not only to that of White education, but indeed to that of any education system in the world. However, it is unfair to compare the present position of Black education with White education. Then, too, hon. members should cast their gaze back into the past and take into account what previous Governments did in the interests of the upliftment of Black education before the NP came into power.

The hon. member touched on another very sensitive argument as well. He discussed the relationship between education and good relationships between peoples. Of course the hon. member is right. But if poor relationships between peoples arise, these have been caused by the arguments on the difference between the two education systems for Blacks and Whites advanced unfairly and out of context in this House by Opposition parties year after year. When the hon. the Minister tells the hon. member for Musgrave by way of an interjection that he will attempt to develop Black education as soon as possible with their co-operation, it is aimed at that and I hope that the official Opposition will really take this to heart and will advance arguments in the best interests of Black education and not always attempt to make comparisons that they know to be unfair.

Why shall we place the Bill on the Statute Book? As far as I am concerned, we want to do this in the first place because the Government already realizes and recognizes the importance of education. No individual, and accordingly no nation either, can be deprived of its desire for more knowledge. Least of all can the Black peoples of the Republic of South Africa be deprived of that desire. The fact that they run kilometres in the bleakest weather conditions to satisfy their desire for more knowledge, is proof of the fact that these people have that aspiration too. It is an honour and privilege for the Government to be engaged in assisting them in this direction.

There is a second reason why the Bill must be placed on the Statute Book. The Black person’s pride in his own tradition, his own culture, his own history, his own essential characteristics and his own nationalism is recognized by the White, but the White would also like to stimulate this. In this respect the school fulfils a very important role. That is why the Bill affords the possibility of a development of the prospect we cherish. That is why we have embodied in the Bill the ideas of a Christian character, of mother-tongue education, of compulsory and free education, of differentiated education, of health services, of education associations, of a professional teachers’ council etc. In addition there is the importance of parent involvement as has also been pointed out by the hon. member for Musgrave.

There is a third reason why the Bill must be placed on the Statute Book. The Bill is placed on the Statute Book so as to be able to create the machinery to establish a systematic education system whereby the education of Black people can be developed to a standard equal to that of any other education system in the world. Of course this requires time and that is precisely where hon. members of the Opposition are making a mistake. Surely it is impossible to make available overnight a sufficient number of teachers with the best qualifications. It is impossible to create adequate education facilities in the form of classrooms, other buildings, sporting facilities, etc., overnight. These are things that require time and money.

The hon. member for Houghton must not come forward, as she did in the Committee Stage, with an ill-considered proposal that money be taken from the Defence budget or from the budget for White education. We all realize the importance of spending more money on the development of Black education. However, one can do this only in accordance with one’s limited means. In this regard there are surely priorities that have to be borne in mind. If hon. members want to take the trouble to delve into the past and to compare the various amounts allocated to Black education with the total allocation, they will realize that the Government fully realizes the importance of Black education.

I regard it as of the greatest importance when we are dealing with the development of the education of Black people, Coloureds and Whites, that this be done in the closest cooperation with the Department of Labour so that the necessary employment opportunities will be available. This is a matter of cardinal importance and the hon. member for Musgrave referred to it too. If we provide only the training and the qualified people subsequently seek employment opportunities without getting them, I am convinced that this will of necessity give rise to frustration, which in turn will give rise to unrest. This does not impose a ceiling on the amount of training a Black man may receive, and the hon. the Minister referred to this with reference to an earlier speech by Dr. Verwoerd. Of course it is accepted that there should not be any ceiling on the training provided to Black people. However, it is important that this matter be examined in order to effect the necessary correlation.

I want to conclude by saying once again that this side of the House willingly affords teachers and pupils of Black communities the opportunity of achieving their objectives. We should like to afford them this without interference and without their being troubled by persons and bodies that seek to misuse education for their own purposes. I hope that these people will be able to proceed undisturbed in achieving those praiseworthy objectives. From this side of the House we willingly give our support to the Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation has had a reasonably easy passage through this House, in spite of the fact that some aspects of it were in fact opposed at the various stages. I think that all of us are probably aware of the importance of this legislation. The hon. the Minister expressed quite a few good intentions and created expectations. In fact, his introductory speech at the Third Reading was conclusive proof of that. I should also just mention that, to my mind, nothing was said throughout the debate which will actually leave a cloud hanging over this legislation. In my opinion, nothing was said that could be misinterpreted.

†I think that what has emerged from this whole debate is the fact that all of us, including those of us who have opposed certain clauses and so on, have one common ideal in respect of the education of the Blacks, and that is that we want to see the quickest and most effective possible advancement of the educational standards of the Black people in South Africa.

I do not want to take up a lot of time, but I want to say that I think that, if there is one point one should emphasize on an occasion like this, it is that what is needed for this ideal to be achieved is, of course, not just an adequate Bill on education, but quite frankly to have the finance available to see that all the good intentions envisaged in the Bill are in fact realized. That is the crux of the matter, whether we like it or not. The hon. the Minister and other Government members have asked us where the money is to come from, and I think that that is a legitimate question. It is my honest and sincere belief that the money is available in South Africa and that all that is really required is for the Government to apply its mind properly to this problem and to determine its national priorities correctly. I do not want to be unreasonable, but I base that contention on the fact that, if one makes an analysis of the percentage of the gross national product spent on education in South Africa, one finds that South Africa spends about half as much on education as most of the developed and developing countries in the world do. We are grateful that the hon. member for Standerton mentioned this the other day. It is also well known. We have mentioned it in other debates. I have the feeling that, where that is the position, it is purely a matter of how we plan the national economy and how we cut the cake, to put it like that. The hon. the Minister asked whether we expect him to take money away from, say, White education. I was not thinking along those lines. I am not pleading for a redistribution in that sense. One could say that I am pleading for a redistribution of the money available in South Africa overall.

The other point we must also bear in mind is that the body of Black teachers as we have it today are—and it has been mentioned time and time again—lowly qualified, and therefore it does not matter even when one pays them a rate for the job and they all have the same salary scales, one will find that with the Black people, the per capita expenditure per pupil will naturally be less than what it is for Whites.

You learned something from me the other day.

Oh well, the hon. the Minister and I have often discussed this matter. The other thing is that people must not only look at the problem and say that we have so many Whites and there are hundreds of thousands of Blacks and then start making calculations and arrive at an astronomical figure. They must look at the point of view also of the distribution of the school population. One will find that with Black pupils at present the large bulk of them are still at the lower primary and primary schools. It is going to be like that for ever. The per capita expenditure on that must be lower if one compares it with the Whites, where one has a top-heavy higher percentage at the top. I am highlighting these points because I feel, and we have the support of the hon. the Minister, that we must tackle the problem because we can make a success of it.

*We realize that the problems are tremendous. I want to mention a practical example to hon. members. While we were debating this matter last Friday, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South mentioned the fact that he had had a school built on his farm. He also mentioned that one female teacher had to teach between 40 and 50 Black children. This is a tremendous problem we are facing. There is, in fact, such an amount of work for us to do in this direction that it is unnecessary for us to fight all the time. We should roll up our sleeves and get to work, because there is always room for improvement.

†In conclusion I must state again—because the official Opposition is opposing the Third Reading of this Bill—that as far as we in the NRP are concerned, we would obviously like to see in South Africa a situation where each community, each group, controls its own education with a proper system of co-ordination at the top.

We therefore do not per se see that just because we have one education department which is concerned only with the Black community as such, that in itself is discrimination. I have made it quite clear that we do not regard this Bill as ideal, and I have also pointed out that with the present constitutional arrangement in South Africa there is nothing we can do at this stage. We are therefore prepared to support something which we honestly believe is an improvement on the present situation. We believe that given an opportunity, with the spirit which is prevailing—and I can sense it today—a lot of good can come of this. Let us therefore start with a new beginning.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Durban Central for his contribution to this debate. He pointed out the shortage of funds with which to achieve at once the actual ideal that is now being stated. It is true that we are saddled with that practical problem, but essentially, the hon. the Minister and his Department are planning to do the best for this population group with what is available.

The hon. member also requested us to examine the distribution of the Black school going population and where the preponderance of numbers is situated. It is parallel with that of the Whites of a while ago. We can go back a number of years and see what a small number of Whites were at that time studying at universities. If one compares the number of Whites enrolled at universities today, one is amazed. The same trend will be found in Black education.

The hon. member for Musgrave once again referred to the criticism they have against the question of a separate department, but what these people fail to see and do not want to see is that the population groups in this country each have their own essential culture. Surely they as people are entitled to it. Their school activities, education and whole development is closely interwoven with their cultural heritage. No department other than their own department could allow those people to come into their own.

I should just like to say a few words to the hon. the Minister about the Bill that has been introduced. We want to express our gratitude for the fact that this Bill has, in my opinion, made provision for two important poles. Firstly, it creates for the professional Black teacher the opportunity of gaining experience. I do not want to say that he did not have this before. But this legislation is affording him a greater opportunity to gain professional experience. Secondly, it also affords the administrative and overall planning staff the opportunity of being able to gain experience in this difficult field.

The question of the care of the Black child in his own cultural context is also embodied in this Bill too. In the first place the development of the Black child is to the advantage of his own people, and his gifts are developed in the service of his people. In the second place the overall development of every child, White, Black or Coloured, is to the advantage of our whole country. In this regard it is important for that Black child to develop into a balanced person and that he should be capable of being of service in the wider interests of South Africa with all its people. Only once we are able to combine the forces of all the peoples in this country in order to develop mutual respect, trust and understanding, will we be able to achieve our ideals with the development of our comity of nations. This is the foundation that is being laid by this Bill.

I want to quote a Xhosa saying with which I grew up. One will greet those who live in dry parts of the country by saying “May you receive rain so that your dams may fill up”, or rather “Pula a ne!” I want to say the same to the hon. the Minister and the department.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Standerton for his good wishes in a language which I also used to have a smattering of so that I was able to follow what he was saying. I thank everyone who participated in this debate, in the debate during the Committee Stage and in the Second Reading debate. Because we debated this Bill for a long time, I do not want to keep the House busy for too long. I just want to express my appreciation for the preparatory work which was done and which made it possible for the House to deal in this way with legislation which was so controversial two years ago that it was virtually unthinkable that it could be introduced. I owe it to hon. members who made speeches to reply to the matters they raised. In the first place, I want to refer to the hon. member for Musgrave. He will still know sufficient Afrikaans to recognize the expression women often use when one has cornered them and they are unable to get free. If they are unable to argue any longer, they say “Ja, almaskie”, or in English “Yes, but nevertheless”. If I may give the hon. member for Musgrave a nickname, I shall call him Mr. Nevertheless, as a result of today’s speech, because he said everything in support of the legislation and made a good speech, but spoilt everything in the end by saying “Nevertheless”. If he had only said “amen” two minutes earlier, he would not have arrived at the nevertheless. I do not know what the hon. member was trying to prove. We have the well-known saying that if one wants to prove that a Government is wrong, and if one wants to prove that a law is wrong, a method for doing so can always be found. Has the hon. member ever heard why a fire-engine has red ladders? Mr. Speaker, allow me just to tell the hon. member this story. Why does a fire engine have red ladders? The answer is so easy. Every fire engine has six ladders; six is half of 12 and 12 inches is the length of a ruler; all countries in the world have rulers; the ruler of England is Queen Elizabeth; Queen Elizabeth is the name of a ship; a ship sails on the sea; the sea is full of fish and all fish have fins; the Fins live in Finland and they fought against Russia during the war; the Russian army is the red army, an army in Afrikaans is a “leer”, which spelt without the umlaut means ladder, and therefore a fire engine has red ladders. [Interjections.]

†It is as easy as that. I agree with the hon. member where he spoke about all the things that are being done for the people. I agree with so many of the things that the hon. member said. Other hon. members who are more competent than I also mentioned that. The hon. member for Virginia, the chairman of the Select Committee, also said it, and he said it in no uncertain terms. He said that it was to the advantage of the whole of South Africa’s future that we should give every opportunity to our Black people. We need not stress this point again. We know that we have to carry on with the job. It is, of course, true that it is not only the desire, but also the right of Black parents to claim that for their children which we as Whites claim for our children. That is perfectly true. We all agree on that However, we shall not get any further unless we get on with the job. It is a well-known fact that it will have an impact on racial matters in this country if their education is of an inferior nature and is kept inferior. Of course it must have an impact. It is no use denying it. If we agree on that point, why on earth must a person of the standing of the hon. member for Musgrave get up and say “Nevertheless”, “Notwithstanding”, “Almaskie” at the end of his speech? He said “We shall vote against it because the majority of Blacks reject the system.” I say that if the hon. member and the hon. member for Houghton can substantiate that statement, without just shouting across the floor of the House, and prove that to me by holding a referendum …

Yes, hold a referendum.

Please do not interrupt and please do not support the hon. member. I can deal with them. I am quite capable of doing so. If we have to discuss this matter in fairness to all, we must calmly discuss it and we must discuss it having regard always to the Blacks’ wishes in this regard. We must be aware of the impact that these statements must have on Black people. How on earth can a person make a statement such as this, that the Black people in this country reject the system, if it is not proved? Nowhere is there any proof of this.

All the appeals are for a single department.

I said so at Second Reading and it was also stressed by the chairman of the Select Committee that it was not said by everyone who represented Black opinion in this country. On the contrary. A draft Bill was submitted by Atasa, which is regarded as the highest body representing the Black people in this country on educational matters. Even they co-operated. But what positive things do we achieve by getting up in this House saying that if only we can get together and work together we can go ahead from now on, but we will not be able to carry on, however, because there is so much suspicion amongst the Blacks. Do we in any way assist towards removing these suspicions by making this kind of statement? The hon. member is destroying the whole object of his speech by making a statement like that I want to appeal to hon. members not to make statements which will damage the relations between Blacks and Whites in this country. A person has the fullest right to criticize the contents of a Bill, and I say, as was said by the hon. member for Durban Central, that if this is not perfect legislation, it is undoubtedly a vast improvement on what we have had up to now. It seemed quite impossible 10 years ago.

That is exactly what we said.

I admit that it was said, but I repeat that all the good things said in the first part of that hon. member’s speech, in nine-tenths of his speech, were destroyed by the remarks he made towards the end. He damaged race relations, and he will see it reported in the newspapers, especially those that are read by Black people in this country. I am appealing in all sincerity—we can make statements and we can differ—that we should be careful of the way in which we make our statements.

I want to thank the hon. member for Durban Central for his approach to this matter. He also had serious misgivings, but in his contribution to the debate he did at least not harm the relations which have been strained at times in the past.

*Tensions could again arise in the field of education, because education is a sensitive area, and this applies to all peoples in the world. Where is the national consciousness of all peoples born? It is born among their young people. On occasion Dr. Malan said the following about nationalism: “Jy kan nie die Atlantiese Oseaan met ’n besem terugvee nie; jy kan nie die suidoostewind met ’n sif keer nie, en net so min kan jy nasionalisme keer.” We shall not be able to prevent the birth of nationalism in any nation. It is to the benefit of South Africa that the awakening nationalism of our Black people should be led in the right direction, and this department will make its contribution to lead their justified aspirations in the right direction. I want to make an appeal to all hon. members to cooperate with hon. members on this side of the House, who have already proved their good faith in this regard.

Finally, on behalf of both sides of the House I should like to extend our gratitude to officials of the department, the Secretary of the department, Mr. Rossouw, Mr. Botha, and others. They even took the trouble to attend the committee meetings and perform hard work after hours to bring this piece of legislation as close to our ideal as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, this Bill and the one which preceded it this afternoon have occasioned some of the most interesting and valuable debates of the session. I think this has been so because they presented an opportunity for something which happens to have been rather scarce lately. They presented an opportunity for the philosophies of the Government and the Opposition to be compared with each other with regard to Bills dealing with extremely important national affairs.

I think we can at least agree that there are few subjects in South Africa which will be more important in the coming decade or two than industrial relations. We have not only discussed the broad principles, but also many of the particulars mentioned in the Bill, and rightly so. A number of amendments have been accepted which in our opinion, of course, do not go far enough. However, the amendments which have been accepted definitely constitute an improvement on the original Bill, and one may feel some gratitude for that.

It is appropriate, however, to refer again in the Third Reading stage to the important principles which are affected and the reasons for the difference between the governing party and ourselves. The Wiehahn Commission drew up an extremely important and significant report. This was to have been expected of it, since that commission consisted of prominent South Africans. They are experts in the fields in which they worked. They are not necessarily people devoid of any political views, but they are certainly people who would none of them allow their political ideas to influence them in the recommendations they made. They are experienced people; people who know what they are doing. They brought out a long and well-considered set of recommendations concerning industrial relations in South Africa. Some recommendations, such as those concerning the industrial court and the Manpower Commission, proved to be uncontroversial. I shall not say any more about them, therefore. The most important of the recommendations which did prove to be controversial were three in number, of course. In the first place, the commission recommended that all permanent workers in South Africa, irrespective of race and including commuters and migrant labourers, should be given the right to belong to and to be active in registered trade unions. The second extremely important recommendation was that the workers should be autonomous, that workers should decide for themselves what structures they wanted to create to represent their own interests in the field of industrial relations. The commission itself said repeatedly that there should be freedom of association for all workers. In the third place, the commission recommended that section 77 of the Act—the job reservation provision—be repealed. I must point out, however, that in this case, the commission recommended that the five remaining determinations be retained until they can be eliminated systematically. The commission did say that they should be eliminated systematically, and as soon as possible.

These, then, are the three most important recommendations of the Wiehahn Commission, which also formed the subject of the debate. It so happens that these recommendations are quite in accordance with the PFP’s general approach to national affairs. We proceed from the principle that it is necessary, urgently necessary, to make the maximum use of all our human resources in every field. On the basis of that principle, we not only want race discrimination to disappear from our community as soon as possible, we also want the colour bar to be removed entirely, and we feel that everyone in South Africa should have full and equal opportunities to develop, irrespective of race or colour, as soon as possible.

As I have already said, we believe that these things are urgent. It is also urgent that references to colour should disappear completely, not only from our legislation, but from our community as a whole. Our policy with regard to labour matters is simple, therefore. Every worker must be free to organize as he prefers, and in the way in which he prefers. There should be no laws which prejudice anyone in the field of labour on the basis of race or colour. Therefore we were able to agree wholeheartedly with the recommendations of the Wiehahn Commission to which I have referred. However, we should have preferred the five remaining determinations, in terms of section 77 of the Act, to be scrapped now, rather than to have them systematically eliminated over a period of time.

†However, on the Government side the approach is different. Because the Government’s approach to these matters is different it is evident that the proposals of the Wiehahn Commission caused them far more difficulty than they caused us. I accept that the Government sincerely wants to diminish discrimination in South Africa. However, in some curious way it is determined to do this within the framework of an approach which is based on ethnicity. That is what led to the half-hearted approach which has characterized this legislation and, with respect, the hon. the Minister’s explanations of it as well.

The hon. the Minister has given a definition of “employee” which is not that of the commission, and which is in itself highly restrictive. It will certainly eliminate more than half of the Black workers in South Africa from the definition of “employee”— far more than half, I believe. It is also utterly illogical, as we pointed out during earlier stages of the Bill, because it is based upon geographical considerations and not upon skill, experience, length of period of employment, or any other work related criterion.

So we find—not for the first time, and I am afraid, not for the last time—that the new wine of economic reality has to be forced into the old bottle of political prejudice; that of the apartheid policy. This leads to a half-hearted approach of the kind we have seen.

I must grant that the hon. the Minister has repeatedly promised, in the course of these debates, that he does propose to alter this definition, by ministerial edict; if not by new legislation. I very much hope that when he alters it he will see fit to do it by way of legislation. However, we are grateful for small mercies. When the hon. the Minister does extend this definition, as he has promised to do, it will in any case be an improvement. We see all that, but—and I must again say what I have already said at earlier stages—we are here concerned with the Bill before us, and with nothing else. My arguments are based upon this Bill.

Secondly, the hon. the Minister has retained in this Bill—as the Wiehahn Commission did not seek to retain it—the essential apartheid structure which was introduced into the trade union movement by the amendments of 1956. This Bill, if it becomes law, will still force workers to belong to racially based trade unions, whether they want to or not, subject only to a limited power in the Minister’s own hands to grant exemptions. Let it be noted, however, that even that is not a free power. It is a power which is made dependent upon the balance of numbers and a head-counting by race within various unions.

Thirdly, in repealing section 77 the hon. the Minister has not only retained the present determination, which we regret but which, granted, the commission did recommend, but he and other speakers also had a good deal to say about the essential usefulness of section 77 in the past. We would say, however, that section 77 has always been a source of very considerable harm, both to industrial amity and industrial peace in South Africa and also to the good name of South Africa throughout the world, and we very much doubt whether it has ever, for a moment, served any useful purpose.

In a nutshell, the Government seems to perceive dimly the force of the commission’s arguments against apartheid in the labour field, yet it remains tied to that same apartheid by a sort of invisible umbilical cord, and until that cord is cut we shall not have really satisfactory labour legislation in South Africa. For these reasons we remain opposed to the Bill and shall vote against the Third Reading as we did against the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to listen to the hon. member for Parktown. He said—and I agree with him— that this debate had surely been one of the most interesting and valuable debates this session. I agree because this Industrial Conciliation Amendment Bill is most certainly one of the most important pieces of legislation before this House this year. However, the hon. member for Parktown and his party have one problem. They concentrate exclusively on the Wiehahn Report, the commission’s findings. I too have the greatest appreciation for what the commission has done. However, to have something on paper and to have to implement it in practice are two quite different things. This side of the House believes in industrial peace. We are engaged here in an evolutionary process. However, if we were to implement the philosophy of the hon. member for Parktown and his party, the official Opposition, I venture to say that it would be the end of industrial peace in South Africa. The hon. member should remember that we are engaged here in a debate and not an auction. We are not selling anyone out.

Do you say the same of Wiehahn?

Yes. We are not selling anyone out, neither White, Coloured nor Indian. Everyone has a right to survive in South Africa and to participate in the labour dispensation in South Africa. Everyone, irrespective of race or colour, has the right to demand from this Government and even from this House that labour peace should be maintained and promoted in South Africa at all times. That is why this side of the House came forward with this Bill, to ensure in this way that labour peace will be maintained in South Africa in future, with this reservation that no member of the labour corps in South Africa is begrudged a place in the sun, because he is entitled to demand this of us.

It has been said that philosophy must be weighed up against philosophy. I am pleased that we are able to deal with this matter and able to conduct a debate in this way. I think the voters will now realize what the policy of the official Opposition is. Not only are they selling out the Blacks, the Coloureds, the Indians and the Whites, they are selling out South Africa’s whole labour structure. However, they do not know what the future holds for them.

Let us look at the Government. Why did the Government come forward with this Bill? The Industrial Conciliation Act has a very long history. One can go back to the year 1930, then move forward to the select committee of 1954. Then there are the debates conducted here in 1956, and of course the debates of this session too. If one looks at the historical background one sees that we have taken today what I think is the most dynamic step ever taken in the field of labour in South Africa. We shall continue to discuss labour a great deal in future. The hon. member for Parktown should remember that this is the first part of the commission’s report and by 1980 or 1981 we shall have even more to say about labour. The first sod has now been turned. Do not begrudge South Africa a chance, work with her to ensure labour peace in South Africa so that we can develop the economy, that has such potential, to even greater heights.

What is the fundamental philosophy of this Bill? Why did we come to this House with this important legislation. It is concerned with the restructuring of the labour situation in South Africa with the meaningful co-operation of the parties involved and the maintenance of the right of self-determination of interest groups within the concept of free association. The hon. member for Parktown may not agree with my view of free association, but I want to tell him that I do not begrudge any person the right to survive as well as the right to be able to work in South Africa.

I believe that the Bill and the debates on it indicate one thing, viz. the embodiment of dynamics, mobility and development on the one hand and self-determination for the worker on the other under the new dispensation. I venture to say that the workers of South Africa have not had the same degree of self-determination in their labour matters in the past as they will have in future in terms of the Bill.

I trust that the Bill will be placed on the Statute Book, and as soon as this has happened, it will be our duty to implement it in practice. When the Bill is being implemented, we must remember that there are cardinal points which will have to be examined. Those cardinal points are economic growth and development, because they are prerequisites for the maintenance of our physical preparedness.

That is why manpower research and implementation are of the utmost importance to our security. If we achieve success, we can influence our position in Africa and strengthen our position in the world. South Africa must emerge with a strong labour force to show what South Africa is really capable of.

We must not try to avoid the willingness to preserve labour peace by not abolishing security measures as required. We must not fall into old clichés by saying that these people must be protected; South Africa must be protected. If we do this, everyone in this country is being protected.

The Bill contains very important issues. I am looking into the future. I look forward to the implementation in practice of the proposed National Manpower Commission. South Africa has dynamic people. I am not only referring to people in this House; I am also referring to the general public. I envisage that it will be possible to create a “think tank” by means of the Manpower Commission through which South Africa’s top brain power can assemble around a conference table irrespective of whether they belong to the PFP or any other party and irrespective of whether they are White, Black, Coloured or Indian. If a person has the ability and capacity we need him around that table and South Africa needs his brainpower. I believe that we shall, by means of this Bill create the opportunity for those people to negotiate together on the future of the labour dispensation in South Africa.

I can also refer to the industrial court which is now being given new potency. “Dynamic” remains the watchword. I want to thank the hon. the Minister for that because I believe that we shall see in future what advantages this Bill holds for the labour dispensation in South Africa and for labour itself. Labour will be able to negotiate to a greater extent.

I believe that it is truly the intention, by means of the Bill, to ensure better bargaining in practice between employer and employee on the work floor itself. Where do people come into contact to a greater extent than in the workshops or factory floors? Disputes are settled there. That is why I think that the Bill creates the machinery for greater mobility and better co-operation between employer and employee. We must co-operate for a fine future in South Africa. South Africa needs everyone. Everyone must put his shoulder to the wheel so that a great future can be ensured for everyone in South Africa.

I believe that as a result of the legislation we shall be able to use labour more effectively. What does better utilization of labour mean? The better utilization of manpower can only contribute to labour peace, greater economic growth, greater productivity and the curbing of inflation.

I believe that this Bill affords the worker more freedom in practice to offer his services on the free market and to ask for them what he considers them to be worth. In this way everyone is now free to participate in the advantages of the system of free enterprise. To put it in plain language: South Africa cannot afford a person who seeks protection, climbs on the band wagon and does nothing for his country. Those days are past. This means that Whites, Blacks, Coloureds and Indians will have to stand by one another in practice in future so that this legislation can be implemented properly. In addition I believe that this new labour dispensation recognizes the interdependence of people, in the economic field in particular. This in itself must be regarded as the foundation for peaceful political co-operation.

To conclude, I want to say that Whites and Blacks must stand together, must learn together and must work together in the pursuit of a common ideal, viz. to eliminate the problems of race and colour and to develop true respect for one another’s human dignity. I believe that we are entering a new era in the field of labour. Between now and 1981 we shall have to reflect very seriously on labour in South Africa, but let us do so positively. The potential is there. Many amendments will have to be made to this Bill, but I believe that when the Opposition sees how this Bill is being implemented in practice, they will adopt a new and positive approach, not for their own sakes, but for South Africa’s. With those words I gladly support the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, at the conclusion of the debate on the Industrial Conciliation Amendment Bill, I think there are three aspects worth reviewing in the light of the discussion that took place during the various stages of the Bill’s passage. Firstly, I cannot deny that we were very considerably disappointed to discover that the Bill itself was not fully in accord with the expectations that were raised as a result of the publication not only of the Wiehahn Commission’s report, but also of the White Paper and of various publications like Impact which emanated from the hon. the Minister’s department. I must say that to a very large extent this probably reflects a lack of confidence on the part of the hon. the Minister in the ability and capability of private and free enterprise and the various employer and employee organizations to cope with the transitional stage. I think that that was probably the most disappointing aspect of this enabling legislation we have debated over the past few days.

Without a doubt the opportunities it creates for more than a million Black workers in South Africa to join trade unions is nevertheless going to represent a very significant step forward in terms of inter-personal relationships and industrial relationships in private enterprise and the free enterprise system. There can be no doubt that a man’s self-esteem, his welfare and also that of his family depends to a very large extent on the success of his interaction in his employment and field of occupation. In this regard we believe that the hon. the Minister now finds himself in a position of tremendous responsibility in so far as he has the responsibility to enhance the potential each worker in South Africa brings to bear in his occupation.

One of the most significant aspects of the new legislation is the change it has brought about Previously the Minister was not able to move in any specific direction because his hands were largely tied by legislative measures which were entrenched in the policy of the National Party. One of the major reasons why we find it possible to support this Bill in principle both at the Second Reading and at the Third Reading is that it gives the hon. the Minister flexibility. He is being given the opportunity to grasp the reins of industrial progress in South Africa in both hands. Obviously, he is going to be dependent for guidance on the recommendations to be made to him by the Manpower Commission and the industrial court, but the onus and responsibility lie fairly and squarely on the hon. the Minister’s shoulders. He can no longer claim that his hands are bound by legislation, and as a result of the power which is being given to the hon. the Minister under this Bill, we now feel that we can expect of him that he will positively enhance the development which was envisaged by the Wiehahn Commission. In a very large measure, I would like to say, we in the NRP have taken the Minister at his word. We are prepared to give him that position of trust and responsibility in order that he may steer the ship of industry and industrial relations in the direction envisaged by the Wiehahn Commission. It is our considered opinion that the goals and the objectives set by the Wiehahn Commission are the only desirable goals and that they should be achieved in the shortest practical period of time.

Thirdly, I want to comment on the attitude of the PFP and to point out that one of the disappointments of the debate was that, when it comes to positive progress and positive steps forward which will affect the lives of millions of people, we found that they did not see fit to support this legislation, but voted against it at Second Reading and will be voting against it at. Third Reading as well. I think the hon. member for Parktown was absolutely correct when he said that one of the interesting features of this debate was that we could compare not only the philosophy of one political party with that of another, but also the practical implementation of those policies.

I want to indicate, by means of a simple reference to job reservation, that we find it a great disappointment that the PFP, which always claims to be enlightened and “toonaangewend in die politiek”, should now want to impose through a legislative measure a remedy for a situation which is highly complex in the South African scene and should want to dictate to the workers what is going to be good for them and what is not going to be good for them. In fact, we find, to an increasing extent that the PFP, although it has tremendous ideals for the future, is encapable of handling the side of the actual practical implementation because not only are they over-hasty but to a very large extent we can say that they are also acting paternalistically. That is something they have accused the Government of for many years.

I want to point out to the hon. member for Parktown that we find it impossible to support the job reservation amendment of the hon. member for Houghton for the reason that we firmly believe that the negotiating process between the employer and the employee parties is the only way in which we are going to ensure the successful transition from the undesirable position existing at the moment to an acceptable position in the future. I say that with specific reference to job reservation. The hon. member for Parktown has tremendous interests in the mining field and I am sure that he would have felt very different about it if the hon. member for Houghton’s amendment had been accepted and that had led to industrial strife in the mining industry. I want to point out to the hon. member for Parktown that an investigation can be undertaken on the instruction of the Minister in respect of job reservation—and, in fact, such an investigation was undertaken in September 1978— into the desirability of doing away with job reservation, in, inter alia, the mining industry. I would like to commend to the hon. members for Parktown and Houghton that they read the recommendations of the industrial court which investigated that particular aspect in 1978. One of the other disappointing factors we therefore discovered what that the official Opposition, while they have ideals and long-term goals, are not capable of handling the side of practical implementation in the short-term.

In conclusion, I want to reiterate that we are supporting this Bill because we believe that the hon. the Minister now has his hands firmly on the reins. His actions and practices will be studied very closely by us over the following 12 months to see whether the promises that he made to this House and to the South African nation will be fulfilled and whether the ideals set for us by the Wiehahn Commission will be implemented and will not be found lacking in the future. We therefore want to indicate to the hon. the Minister that we will be supporting the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban North indicated that his party will support the Third Reading of this Bill. We in the SAP agree with most, if not all, of what the hon. member for Durban North had to say. We stated our case at some length during the Second Reading and I do not propose to repeat the same arguments in this debate. This Bill is only a start; but then one has the statement of intent by the Government and its acceptance of the report of the Wiehahn Commission. It is a statement of intent of what they are going to do and what is going to happen in the future.

The hon. the Minister has indicated by his attitude that, as the hon. member for Durban North has said, he has his hands very firmly on the reins. We are certain that, since the Government have stated that it is their intention to accept the Wiehahn Commission’s report, they are obligated to implement all its facets in time to come. The Bill, the Wiehahn Commission’s report and the Manpower Commission herald a new era for race relations in South Africa. Good labour relations and economic equality are prerequisites for a happy and contented country. Every person, irrespective of race, must have the opportunity to fulfil himself or herself in accordance with his or her own ability and skills. Obviously, in order to acquire the necessary ability and skills, every worker must receive education and training.

A further future effect will be that job reservation will be eliminated from the present Act. The Bill will further enhance the belief in the free enterprise system. This legislation will ensure goodwill and evolutionary change in South Africa. The Manpower Commission and the other bodies which have been established will have to encourage consultation, negotiation and consensus amongst employers and employees. The Manpower Commission is going to be a most vital component in the whole labour process in South Africa. It is going to have to examine matters in depth to ensure economic growth and the creation of employment opportunities. If we are to have industrial peace and prosperity, every South African has a contribution to make. This Bill is a step in the right direction, but no matter what laws one places on the Statute Book, they can only in the final analysis be successfully implemented if there is co-operation from all sides and goodwill amongst all the people.

The Wiehahn report and this Bill, if the concept put forward by the Wiehahn Commission is properly implemented, can be some of our greatest weapons in the struggle for peace on this continent If every man and woman has the feeling inculcated in them that they have equality of opportunity, and if they in fact have that equality, our growth potential in this country is unlimited. The politicians, the labour leaders and the leaders in every sector of the community have a role to play in this particular regard. The Government, with the co-operation of employers and employees, can show the rest of the world that every South African has a place in the sun in South Africa. The Press has a very positive role to play in encouraging labour harmony, but then the Government must assist the Press with the implementation of laws that are saleable. As we have indicated at Second Reading, we shall not oppose the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, at this stage it is very clear to me why the hon. the Minister reacted so violently during the Second Reading when the hon. member for Houghton said that due to the provisions of this Bill the Blacks in South Africa would now be doomed. She also made other, similar remarks. According to the Press and people outside this House, Opposition members are saying that due to the provisions of this Bill the Blacks are doomed. On the other hand there are also extremists outside the House who say that owing to the provisions of this Bill, the Whites are doomed. The fact is that the Government states that both Black and White are protected by this Bill. That is the point as far as this side of the House is concerned. The Government looks after the interests of all the workers, White and non-White in South Africa.

It is a privilege for me to be able to speak after the speeches made by the hon. members for Durban North and Walmer who supported this Bill. I also agree 100% with what the hon. member for Overvaal stated very concisely and clearly in his speech.

I do think it is necessary that we should now and again evaluate this spirit and attitude of the various parties, particularly the official Opposition, with regard to the positive development in South Africa particularly with regard to labour legislation and good relations. The hon. the Minister spoke of obscure motives when certain hon. members of the Opposition were debating the Bill. I want to state categorically today that there is a dualism in the thinking and in the practice of the official Opposition. There is a saying: “They preach wine, but they drink water.”

I shall show in a moment why I say this with regard to the legislation under discussion. The official Opposition preaches liberalism but they live in terms of capitalism. What is more, as anti-Nationalists, they are blocking the evolutionary progress of South Africa. On the one hand they hide behind the security which South Africa creates for them by maintaining law and order here, and on the other, they fight the measures created by the Government to provide for this peaceful development. One of their own mouthpieces said recently—I refer specifically to this because I believe that it is very important—

I shall let that suffice. As far as I am concerned, the hon. the Minister has done enough to show that he is prepared to listen to amendments and recommendations, and he even committed himself with regard to the hon. member for Walmer during the Second Reading debate by saying that the hon. member could come to him so that certain amendments could be considered. This was also mentioned by the hon. member for Durban North in the short speech he has just made. I think it is vital that we should take a look this afternoon at the terms of reference of the commission as regards new labour legislation in South Africa. I think it is easy to anticipate why these terms of reference were issued. It was simply because the demands of our times with regard to our enormous economic and technological growth will require that a fresh and penetrating investigation of the labour situation of South Africa be carried out. This was the principal reason why the hon. the Minister appointed a commission of inquiry into labour legislation. It is also important to note that the commission was composed in such a way that all the sectors of the population were taken into account so that the interests of all the workers in our large workers’ corps in the Republic of South Africa could be looked after. We are grateful that the report of the Wiehahn Commission has been issued. It is an outstanding piece of work that was completed at tremendous speed without cutting any corners. We have also had a White Paper which is very meaningful, and on the other hand the Government has given us very clear indication of the way in which they will act in order to implement the recommendations of the commission in the best way for South Africa at this stage and also with a view to the future.

I should like to make the following two statements: The first is that a test be set us with regard to this legislation. It is now being demanded of our rapidly growing and dynamic socio-economic community that it adapt to rapidly changing circumstances. As far as I am concerned, adaptation means that one is able to control the situation in which one finds oneself, in this case, the industrial situation. Moreover, all employers and employees are being subjected to another test, and that is how we are able to adjust will determine the degree to which we shall be able to grow in the future. This aspect in turn will depend on our ability to exercise control of the situation.

Consequently I want to maintain today that this is not a matter to complain about, but one to rejoice about If ever there was a reason for the Government, and the hon. the Minister in particular, to be congratulated, then that reason is that they had the courage of their convictions to lay down guidelines, with a piece of legislation such as this, which will be of immeasurable benefit for South Africa in the future.

In my opinion it is also of the utmost importance that we should take cognizance this afternoon of the fact that the hon. the Minister put it very clearly—and this is also contained in the provisions of the Bill—that no changes will take place at the expense of standards of training. I believe that we must certainly take cognizance of this extremely important concept. On the one hand, training will in future have to be given far more attention and priority if South Africa wants to increase its growth rate from 316/4% to 516/ 6%. If the necessary training is not provided, we can forget about achieving that growth rate.

On the other hand, this Bill provides that together with the training and standard of training that is essential in this regard, we shall also have to see to it that not only the relations on the work floor, but also those between employer and employee are harmonious. Several guarantees of safety have been built into this Bill on the basis of this statement.

We can say today without fear of contradiction that the labour situation today is that situation in which the focal points of human relations can be found. That is why it is of such extreme importance that personnel management and personnel control should not merely be something that we speak about, but that they should also be something that we specialize in in the future. Particularly our universities and other institutions will have to give attention to these matters.

No worker in the Republic of South Africa, whether he be White, Black or Coloured, can complain about the nature and the essence of this Bill if he considers it objectively and honestly. This is so because the six workers’ rights that apply in general in the Free Western World are enshrined in this Bill as well. I should like to mention these rights: The right to work; the right to associate; the right to collective bargaining; and the right to collective bargaining; and the right to withhold one’s labour; the right to protection; and the right to training, to which I have just referred. If, then, we refer ipso facto to freedom of association in the South African set-up and in the spirit in which the hon. the Minister put it, then it means security of association in the ranks of our workers. Enough has already been said about consensus and about the phasing out of the five existing determinations, and I associate myself with that entirely.

Moreover we must also admit that the recognition of trade unions for Black workers is essential. This also applies to the right to determine one’s own position. This is what the hon. member also referred to. The time when there could be workers in South Africa who could be labelled purely as lead-swingers, is past. They will phase themselves out of the labour market, whether they be European, Black, White or Yellow.

The right to determine one’s own position is of cardinal importance in this regard. In this regard it is also important to note that cheap labour simply no longer exists. It no longer exists in agriculture, in any industrial sector or in mining. We are looking for good labour. This gives us labour peace through evolutionary change. Built-in safety-valves are essential. That is why they have been included in this Bill.

In conclusion, I just want to dwell very briefly on a very important clause dealt with in the Committee Stage. That is clause 14, which concerns compulsory arbitration. We must bear in mind that problems often arise at the labour level between employer and employee and also with the various councils specifically because people are not fully aware of their rights and privileges. I therefore regard the clause in question relating to compulsory arbitration as one of the key aspects of this Bill. It deals with disputes between employers and employees. Specific reference is made to all disputes arising out of the implementation of improper practices which cannot be negotiated by industrial councils or conciliation boards and it is provided that they must be referred to the industrial court for arbitration with a view to the making of a determination.

Clause 14 of the Bill does not merely state that disputes exist. This clause provides that there are interests as well. I want to conclude with this. This Bill displays a spirit of protection of the employer and the employee’s interests in all respects.

Consequently I take great pleasure in wholeheartedly supporting the Third Reading of this Bill today and not only congratulating the hon. the Minister on the Bill he has laid on the table but wishing him all of the best as well. On behalf of hon. members on this side of the House I want to assure him that we shall support him in the extremely important period of implementation of the Bill. I trust that the PFP will learn from the other two Opposition parties and will support us in this vitally important scrum of labour legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that we cannot accede to the plea of the hon. member for Brits that we should join with him and the other Opposition parties in supporting the Third Reading of this Bill.

At this stage of the proceedings it is usual to consider whether any amendments of any real importance have in fact been accepted by the Committee during the Committee Stage of the Bill. As far as we are concerned, the hon. the Minister has accepted no amendments which can make any substantial difference to the attitude which we adopted towards this Bill at Second Reading. There were some amendments accepted; mainly, of course, those moved by hon. members of the NP, although one or two of those amendments were in fact very similar to amendments which we had placed on the Order Paper as well.

As far as I can judge, one important amendment is the amendment to clause 3. However, the most important amendment was the amendment to clause 4. It served to omit what we consider to be an offensive part of that provision, namely that of denying a relationship between members of registered and unregistered unions. The hon. the Minister had seen fit to remove that, and that is an improvement. For the rest, we do not see much difference from the Bill as it was presented to us at Second Reading. As we told the hon. the Minister then, we believe that the most important recommendations of the Wiehahn Commission have to a large extent been negated. The two most important ones, which the hon. member for Parktown has described in detail, I shall just refer to briefly. The one is, of course, the eligibility for trade union membership of all workers in South Africa, irrespective of race, of domicile, irrespective of whether the worker is a permanent so-called dweller in South Africa or whether he is a commuter or a migrant worker. We agree entirely with the recommendations of the Wiehahn Commission that, if industrial stability is to be ensured in South Africa, it is essential that the bulk of workers, who are after all physically present in their jobs, whether they are there for nine months at a time or whether they are there continuously, and who are physically in our presence in the urban areas of the Republic, should be placed under the discipline of the Industrial Conciliation Act and be allowed to join registered trade unions. That has been negated by the provisions of this Bill, as has been the freedom of association, something which is also recommended by the Wiehahn Commission.

I should like to point out that when the Wiehahn Commission’s report first appeared all of us were jubilant. We felt that a new era had commenced for labour relations in South Africa. We were, I think, fortified in our elation by the publication of the White Paper on the Wiehahn Commission’s report. The White Paper largely supported the recommendations of that commission. Even before the report of the Wiehahn Commission appeared, during the discussion this year of the hon. the Minister’s Vote we were all given to understand that we were about to embark on a new deal for labour in South Africa and that the bulk of workers in South Africa, who are Black, would be included in that new deal. Therefore, because of the expectations, the great expectations, which had been aroused by the hon. the Minister’s own statement during the discussion of his Vote, by the whole atmosphere surrounding the discussion of the Labour Vote this year, which preceded the publication of the Wiehahn Commission’s report, subsequently by the report itself and the recommendations contained therein, as well as by the White Paper on this report, all of us developed the feeling that we had been badly let down by the Bill which we have been discussing here this week.

We are very disappointed indeed. We are dashed, in fact, by the actual measure, and we are very upset about the fact that no amendments of any real importance have been accepted by the hon. the Minister during the Committee Stage, although very cogent arguments, largely based on the Wiehahn Commission’s report, were advanced during that stage of the Bill.

Well, it seems to me that when those hon. members talk about workers, they talk mainly about White workers. That is, of course, because it is the White workers who have the vote in South Africa. If one has the vote in South Africa, one in fact holds the trump card in obtaining concessions and consideration from the Government in power, and indeed also from some Opposition parties, which put the search for power, the expedient part of their policy, above what is really good for the country itself. That is, I am afraid, what has happened in this case.

When we in the PFP think of workers in South Africa, we think of all the workers in South Africa.

[Inaudible.]

We think of the many millions of Black people who are denied trade union rights. They were not, however, denied the right to belong to unregistered trade unions. We think that those people should now have been included—since we were about to embark on this new deal—in the right to join registered trade unions. We think of White workers as well, because it is our very firm contention, based on the most sound and elementary economic concepts, that the entire country is economically integrated, that what is good for the Black worker is also good for the White worker in South Africa, and that we can never possibly establish a proper growth rate in South Africa unless we make use of all the available labour resources in this country to the fullest possible extent. These are elementary facts of economic life. South Africa needs a large internal market, a large number of consumers who can only come from the vast bulk of Black people in this country, and for that to happen it must be possible to have those people trained and used to their fullest possible labour potential. Then we would have a decent consumer market in South Africa and lower unit costs of production, and we would also be able to export on a competitive basis. All these are the most elementary facts that have been advanced over and over again in this country. I think that all of us realize that we have to improve the growth rate in South Africa, but perhaps not all of us are fully aware of the fact, which was pointed out not too long ago by the head of the Graduate School of Business Administration at Stellenbosch University, that the creation of jobs is essential and that the labour force is going to grow from 2,8 million in 1979, i.e. this year, to 4,4 million by 1990 and that the Black labour force is going to increase, in fact double, from 1,8 million at present to about 3 million in 1990. In other words, of the 4,4 million people economically active in the labour market—or who should be economically active in 1990—3 million are going to be Black people. I therefore ask hon. members to use their intelligence and to tell me whether it is or is not to the advantage of everybody in South Africa to have that enormous labour force disciplined, harnessed and trained under the ordinary industrial conciliation legislation which is considered good for all other workers in South Africa. It is considered good for the White workers, the Coloured workers and the Asian workers, so there can be no possible reason why exactly the same conditions, regulations or laws should not apply to the huge bulk of Black workers in South Africa. We are very disappointed indeed about this Bill, and it is for that reason that we are going to vote against it.

You are disappointed in yourself.

I am only talking for hon. members on these benches, but it will be shown, as has been shown—how many years after the 1956 Act?—23 years after the original introduction of the job reservation clause that those of us who opposed it then were right.

Oh, that is some snappy arithmetic!

It is now being admitted in this House that the basic principle of job reservation has done nothing but harm to South Africa. The fact that the five remaining job reservations are not being repealed at the present time can be traced to one reason and one reason only, and that is not an economic one. It is entirely a political reason. The reason was given by the hon. the Minister yesterday when he discussed the relevant clause and said that he had given his word to the White workers of South Africa, and we must remember that those are only a segment of the White workers of South Africa because job reservation only applied to something like 2% to 3% of the workers of South Africa. So if it was possible to do away with job reservation for the remaining occupations in South Africa, I wonder why the hon. the Minister did not pluck up courage and repeal the remaining determinations as well?

The hon. member for Durban North made a very extraordinary point. He stated that we were trying to force certain conditions on the White workers of South Africa but that his party was keen to let them negotiate. I wonder, however, why he imagines that negotiation can only take place if there is job reservation, particularly since I have pointed out that it was only in 2% to 3% of the occupations that job reservation has, for many years, applied in South Africa. How did the remaining 98% manage to negotiate without job reservation?

The old United Party used to oppose job reservation.

Yes, the old United Party, which the NRP has professed to be in every by-election that it fights …

I thought you said you were the old United Party.

We have never said that we are the old United Party, not for many years. We cut that umbilical cord many, many years ago.

Have you spoken to Japie lately?

Those hon. members quite recently—in fact, last week and the month before—claimed, wherever they fought by-elections, that they were the old United Party. I must tell them, as the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs will certainly bear me out, that the old United Party opposed the introduction of job reservation tooth and nail in the good old days.

The hon. member for Parktown has, I believe, very eloquently advanced at some length the reasons why our attitude towards the Bill has not changed since the Second Reading. No Committee Stage amendments of real significance have been accepted, and therefore we have to adopt the same attitude that we adopted originally at Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, we have now discussed the Bill at length within and outside Parliament and at this stage I find it very difficult to add anything new. I want to thank the hon. members who took part in the Third Reading debate in a reasonably calm way, for their participation. The hon. members of the Opposition once again stressed the view that they adopt and will continue to adopt in the future, and I shall say something about that in a moment. The hon. members for Overvaal and Brits, who took part in the debate on behalf of this side, both made sound contributions in stating the standpoint of the Government I can add nothing to what those hon. members said because they did a very good job today of repeating the standpoint that has already been stated.

The hon. members of the Opposition were disappointed—the hon. member for Houghton has just expressed her disappointment— because they had expected a new deal—a new beginning, a new era—and according to them the legislation has not caused the dawn of a new era. The hon. members and we are quoting from the same report. The Wiehahn report is going to continue to be quoted from a great deal in the future but the hon. members opposite read this report with only one aim in mind, because they want to interpret it in such a way that they could tell South Africa that on the basis of the report the Government must inevitably follow the path of integration. That is what the hon. members tried to do with it.

Where did we misquote it?

However, one must read the report in perspective, because it concerns in particular the concept of freedom of association. The question of freedom of association in the labour world is one that is going to be discussed a great deal.

Before coming to that I must point out that we must see the situation against the background of labour in the outside world and in South Africa in order to determine the background against which we are changing legislation and the targets we are attempting to achieve. Looking at the outside world, we note that the labour situation has become very difficult throughout the world. It has become venomous, and strikes are the order of the day throughout the world. In every country of the world the labour sphere has become the most dangerous sphere. In recent years, Western countries have experienced the greatest degree of labour unrest, and many of these countries have found themselves in economic difficulties due to the attitude of workers. As the situation throughout the world has developed, there are many countries—here I have in mind the South American countries, the Eastern countries and the countries of the Middle East—in which the labour situation has become so dangerous that it in fact contains an element of revolution.

Looking at what has happened on the continent of Africa we see that over the past 20 years an effort has been made to apply the Western model on this continent. In the political sphere the democratic model has been applied in Africa, but it has been rejected, because there is no understanding for this model in Africa, and the philosophy behind it is not understood. It has not found favour anywhere. As far as the labour sphere is concerned, too, the Western model has been adopted. Africa has attempted to implement it but in the process it has been abused or totally rejected. The result is that there is not a single country outside the Republic of South Africa, from across the Limpopo to the Mediterranean Sea, that has made of the Western labour model such a success that we can adopt it without any hesitation. I mention this to indicate that we in this country must learn a lesson from these examples and, on the basis of this lesson, must try to create a new dispensation in South Africa, and this is what we are trying to do by means of this legislation.

I do not wish to take up much time. Allow me just to say that the two cornerstones or fundamental principles on which this Bill is based and on which we shall continue to build in the future, are in the first place that, as the hon. member for Overvaal again indicated, we must bear in mind that as far as labour legislation is concerned the rule that will apply in the future will be the right to self-determination of interest groups within the concept of free association; and, secondly, that it is the rule that in changing circumstances the employees will have a say in the restructuring of the labour situation concerning how that restructuring will take place. These are the two cornerstones on which we shall have to build.

When we consider what must happen in the future, we realize that from now until the end of the century, between 6 and 8 million people of various races are going to enter the labour market, and a place will have to be found for them. We know that these people will only be able to find a meaningful place if they are trained. Not only must they be trained as workers but, because the labour sphere is the most difficult sphere in any country and therefore in South Africa as well, the way in which they fit into the labour pattern as workers and in which they will be able to make their voices heard and participate in order to determine their own position, depends on the labour pattern, which is the most important pattern that we shall have to develop. That, then, is exactly what we are trying to do.

Against this background we must consider whether we can accommodate these millions of people and the existing workers, too, in a way which will achieve labour peace and not labour unrest. There is one thing we must remember: If a clash takes place in the labour sphere in South Africa, it will immediately become and escalate into a White/Black clash, and that we must avoid at all times. That is why we have the difficult task of finding a formula by means of this legislation in accordance with which workers will be able to enter without having a fear for their own position.

In my Second Reading speech I made the point that there were three fears that we had to bear in mind, viz. the fear of the White worker and the Coloured worker who have already achieved a place in the labour situation, that he will be supplanted; the fear of the Black worker entering the labour situation that he will remain in a backward position and will not find a place; and the fear of the employer that labour unrest will occur and that he will lose control of the situation and not be able to keep his factory operating. These are the three factors that have to be reconciled with one another.

Therefore, what we are doing by means of this legislation is, in the first instance, to create the two instruments which are to assist in the maintenance of order, furnish advice etc. I do not wish to repeat everything. The two instruments to which I refer are the labour court and the National Manpower Commission. As regards the fitting in of the existing workers with the workers that still have to come, I have given an undertaking to the White trade unions. I requested their cooperation when we had to obtain a formula to afford the necessary protection other than by way of statutory job reservation. I told them on that occasion that I would take something away and would put something better in its place. I have undertaken to talk to them in advance in all cases where I want to take something away. What we are doing by way of this legislation is to effect the improvements we have undertaken to effect, and I believe that we are doing so. As far as the remaining job reservations are concerned, the second step will now have to follow. This step will be that I shall speak to the people affected, that I shall discuss matters with them further in order to eliminate that reservation systematically, with their cooperation. In other words, I shall keep my word and adopt a process of gradual elimination. I need not argue further with hon. members on that score. I have given an undertaking to the workers and not to hon. members.

Hear, hear!

Against this background I want to say that I am not prepared to introduce legislation along the lines that hon. members opposite wanted, namely, aiming towards total integration in the field of labour. That I shall do. That is not the policy of the NP, it does not constitute wise provision for the future, nor is it fair to the workers. If that were to happen in South Africa it would create an extremely dangerous position which, when it comes to the crunch, hon. members opposite would not want to see either.

I want to give hon. members an example of how hon. members opposite agree with me when it comes to the crunch. What has happened in the course of this debate? In reply to a question I asked, the hon. member for Parktown—please note, this is the hon. member’s standpoint—says that he wants to see total integration in the labour sphere in South Africa. The hon. member for Houghton also spoke about total integration here. She wants to follow only that course and no other. Well and good. My question to the hon. member was whether he wanted recognition to be granted to totally integrated trade unions.

Foreigners from abroad.

I am making my own speech now. The hon. member might as well listen to what I want to say. [Interjections.] I am asking the hon. member …

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member knows what is coming. I want to make a statement just to show hon. members how dangerous this terrain is. I repeat: The hon. member argues that there must be total integration and that everyone must be accorded equal treatment. I want to know from the hon. member whether I understood him correctly to argue that contract mineworkers from Mozambique should also be recognized in this regard. The hon. member is not consistent, as is clear from his argument when we debated the matter again at a later stage. He makes a very neat about-face and states that one can understand that the situation of contract workers from Mozambique is somewhat different. There are considerable difficulties etc. In his subsequent speech the hon. member said that I was right and that we could not treat them in the same way. That is what I wanted to get out of him.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member must listen carefully now. The next day the hon. member conceded that I was right. We are now at the Third Reading. In spite of the fact that in his argument the hon. member for Parktown demonstrated what I have just said to hon. members, namely that the labour situation is a dangerous one, that it is difficult, and that it is very diverse and that one cannot make one rule for all, the hon. member for Houghton again advanced her original argument here. We have in the labour situation a variety of circumstances in South Africa, people who, in their diversity, also come from different places, people who make it essential that in work and in legislation, opportunities and mechanisms must be created whereby to deal with everyone in this diversity, and not accord everyone the same treatment, as hon. members opposite want to do. The best evidence that this cannot happen and that I am correct is the very fact that the hon. member argues in one way about peaceful relations with the Mozambicans on Anglo American’s mines and in another way on the Blacks living in Kwa Mashu.

You are misquoting me. Hansard will prove it.

There is no point in being pious in a debate and then adopting a standpoint towards the newspapers and the world …

It is pointless to distort.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon. member say that it is pointless to distort?

The hon. member knows that he may not say it. He must withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.

It is pointless to pious arguments here to the effect that the world wants to impose some kind of integration on us. When one confronts a person with the hard fact that 200 000 mineworkers from outside South Africa are involved, he goes out of his way to prove the contrary.

Your figures are wrong. You do not read Hansard.

Order!

I want to tell the hon. member that he must go and read his own Hansard. I too shall read it My argument is that we are on difficult ground here. The hon. member for Parktown and the hon. member for Houghton argued here for the edification of the outside world, but when I confronted him with regard to the weal and woe of the goldmines of South Africa he did an about-face and conceded that my argument was correct.

What you are saying now is an absolute untruth.

We are moving on difficult ground. By means of this Bill we are trying to create formulas with which to accommodate everyone. The way in which we can accommodate everyone is by creating job opportunities for everyone in the same big labour machine. In the restructuring of the labour situation, the workers and the existing trade unions will participate in determining who will work where and under what conditions. Therefore they will be able to take part in this discussion in the future. They will be informed how the other workers will be incorporated in the labour structure. This Bill makes provision for that. This exercise that we are going to undertake in the future will be an extremely difficult one. What do we seek to do? We want to give a vote and an opportunity for negotiation to everyone working within South Africa, but we can only do so on a differentiated basis, a basis on which people will take part at various stages and in various ways. Various instruments will be created to enable each one to take his place. But the important fact is that everyone will have an opportunity. The people outside South Africa who enter the country will also have an opportunity to take their place, even though it will no longer be by way of the trade unions but in another way.

In this regard it is our philosophy that we cannot follow the path of integration which other countries in Africa have followed, because that has been a total failure. Nor can we permit the kind of association which we find in Britain and the South American States, because we do not want to bear the consequences and endure the evils that that entails. What we must do is create something which is peculiar to South Africa and which has been formulated and thought out by our own people to make provision for our own circumstances and to serve the interests of our own people. That is exactly what we envisage doing by means of this Bill. It is quite correct that, as hon. members know and realize, we are not yet finished with this legislation. Further amending legislation will still be required in the future, but whatever course we adopt, hon. members can be assured of one thing, and that is that the workers in South Africa, White and Coloured workers who are members of trade unions, will not be left in an impossible position. Workers from outside obtaining privileges for the first time will also be afforded the opportunity to avail themselves of those privileges. That is why we are providing for the registration of Black trade unions, and on the road ahead the State will have to ensure that any clash which may occur between these two elements will be investigated timeously and it will have to come forward with timely advice. Subsequently Parliament will decide what further course to adopt and what we should do if such circumstances arise.

I want to say to hon. members opposite that they can forget about it. The kind of integration policy which they want to adopt is something the Government will never adopt as long as we are in power.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Some time ago the Government, with a view to the better utilization of manpower and as a result of the needs of industry, appointed an interdepartmental committee known as the Naudé Committee. The terms of reference of the committee were to inquire into and report on the training and retraining of Whites, Coloureds and Asiatics in industry, particularly on the level of operators and the higher category of semi-skilled workers. The training of apprentices in terms of the Apprenticeship Act, 1944, was not included in the terms of reference.

One of the recommendations of the committee was that if the industries themselves established training schemes for their White, Coloured or Asiatic workers, the State, just as in the case of the training of Black workers in terms of the Black Employees’ In-Service Training Act, 1976, should render financial assistance such as tax concessions in regard to the schemes. This recommendation was accepted by the Government.

A need for training for that part of the labour force that has not had some or other form of artisan’s training has been experienced for a considerable time. In 1976 a start was made to fill this need when the Black Employees’ In-Service Act was placed on the Statute Book. However, the White and Coloured trade unions alleged that employers, as a result of the implementation of the Act that makes provision for the training of Blacks, are giving preference to the employment of Blacks because employers receive tax concessions on their training expenses and are also able to acquire a better equipped and more productive worker at a low cost. From a training point of view, of course, the Black Employees’ In-Service Act only benefits Black workers. If the benefits of the latter are not also made available in regard to the training of Whites, Coloureds and Asiatics, it may be regarded as giving preferential treatment to one population group.

According to the last manpower survey of the Department of Labour of April 1977, 12 665 Whites, 10 738 Coloureds and 2 274 Asiatics were employed as operators and semi-skilled workers in the building and/or construction industry alone. Consequently there is no doubt that the industrial sector, and possibly the commercial sector as well, could benefit greatly if their non-skilled workers could receive the necessary training to enhance their usefulness, productivity and skill in the work situation. We are all acquainted with the fact that increased production and the better utilization of manpower contributes a great deal to strengthening the economy of a country.

The Bill was drawn up in consultation with organized commerce, industry and the trade unions. Organizations such as the South African Employers’ Consulting Committee on Labour Matters, Saccola, and trade union federations such as Tucsa and the Confederation of Labour pledged their support for the measure.

On 28 March this year the hon. the Minister of Finance indicated in his budget speech that these concessions would amount to R10 million in a full financial year. Provision for the granting of tax concessions to employers who provide Blacks with training in terms of the Black Employees’ In-Service Training Act are already contained in the Income Tax Act. Similar provisions will be made in this year’s Income Tax Bill if the Bill which is now before the House is passed.

I now want to explain a few of the important clauses of the Bill to hon. Members.

Firstly, I want to refer to the definition of “employee” in clause 1. As I have already mentioned, the purpose of this legislation is to train only Whites, Coloureds and Asiatics on the level of operators and the higher category of semiskilled workers in particular. As you will note, the definition of “employee” excludes Blacks who are receiving training in terms of the Black Employees’ In-Service Training Act from the Application of the Bill because there is existing legislation for them. The same applies to apprentices who are receiving training in terms of the Apprenticeship Act, and persons who qualify in this way as artisans. Furthermore, persons who acquire artisan status in terms of the Training of Artisans Act are also being excluded. Since the introduction of the Bill, however, I have received earnest representations from employers and trade unions for the inclusion of apprentices and artisans. Consequently I intend to move an amendment during the Committee Stage to include this category of workers so that employers may claim tax concessions on the same basis as that which applies to Black workers in terms of the Black Employees’ In-Service Training Act.

Secondly, I want to draw your attention to the definition of “training”. Employees will be provided with training to make them better equipped for any work in or related to the industry in which they are employed. However, training provided in terms of the Industrial Conciliation Act is also excluded from the Bill.

As far as the latter exclusion is concerned, I also received representations requesting that schemes under the Industrial Conciliation Act should be included. The reason for these schemes initially being excluded was so as not to encroach on the autonomy of industrial councils. Judging from the representations which were received, employers would rather fall under the legislation which is now being discussed so that they may claim tax concessions similar to those which apply to Black workers under the Black Employees’ In-Service Training Act. Consequently I intend to move an appropriate amendment during the Committee Stage.

However, I want to address a timely word of warning to employers who fall under the schemes in terms of the Industrial Conciliation Act not to claim double tax concessions if they are now included under this legislation as well. This matter will also be brought to the attention of the hon. the Minister of Finance, so that he may take action if this should be necessary.

Clause 2 of the Bill makes provision for the establishment of a Council for In-Service Training and clause 3 for the constitution of the council. The council will consist of 13 members. Two officers of whom one will be the chairman and one the vice-chairman will represent the Department of Labour, and one officer will represent the Department of Inland Revenue. In addition, five persons will represent the interests of employers and five persons the interests of employees. Alternate members may also be appointed. The period of service and remuneration of the members of the council are also being stipulated in this clause.

The procedures to be adopted when meetings of the council are held, for example the voting procedure, are set out in clause 4 of the Bill.

Clause 5 makes provision for the powers and functions of the council and committees that may be appointed by the council. The council will advise me as Minister of Labour on matters of policy, the promulgation of regulations and any other matter relating to the training of employees in terms of this Bill.

In clause 7 provision is being made for the registration of training schemes and the conditions which may be imposed on registration by the registrar. If the registrar should refuse to establish a scheme, the employer in question may appeal to me as Minister of Labour against such refusal.

Clause 8 deals with the registration of private centres for training. The clause also contains a prohibition on the training of employees of one person by another person except at private centres registered by the registrar. Furthermore, the clause provides that the registrar, after consultation with the council, may impose conditions on the registration of a private centre, may grant assistance—except financial assistance—to such a centre and may, after consultation with the council, withdraw the registration of such a centre. If the registrar should refuse to register a private centre, an appeal may be lodged with me as Minister of Labour.

Clause 11 empowers me as Minister to grant exemption from the provisions of clause 8(1) of the Bill. This means that exemption may be granted, that the employees of another person may be provided with training and that training need not necessarily be provided at a registered training centre.

The other clauses, which I have not specifically elucidated, deal with the administration of the Act. They are clause 6, relating to the appointment of the Registrar and Assistant Registrar of Training Schemes; clauses 9 and 10, which contain provisions relating to the appointment of inspectors and their powers; clause 12, relating to secrecy; clause 13, in terms of which regulations may be made; and clause 14, which contains the penal provisions.

As I have already mentioned, a Black Employees’ In-service Training Act already exists. If the recommendations of the Riekert Commission on this Act are accepted by the Government, recommendations which amount to the administration of the Act being transferred to the Department of Labour, thought will have to be given to the consolidation of the legislation with the existing Act, and problems which are already being experienced in the application of the existing Act and any further problems which may arise from this legislation, will be taken into consideration at such a consolidation.

The Bill constitutes great benefits for employers as well as for those employees who ought to receive further training. I trust that it will receive the support of this House.

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that this Bill is before the House today because, since 1976 anyway, a situation has developed in which White, Coloured and Asian workers are being discriminated against as far as in-service training is concerned. The Bantu Employees In-Service Training Act, as the hon. the Minister indicated, already provides for the in-service training of Black people. Certain specific benefits for Black people do accrue from that as far as in-service training is concerned, benefits which to date have not existed for other racial groups.

This Bill is obviously aimed at creating a parallel system for other race groups, a system controlled by the Minister of Labour. In terms of the Bill under discussion, not many rules are being proposed for the control of in-service training. It is mainly concerned with making provision for the creation of the machinery for control and co-ordination. The Act which provides for the in-service training of Black people, has proved that this kind of machinery can be utilized to the great benefit of the workers. Subsidies have been paid to training ventures in industry. Tax benefits in connection with training have been created, obviously in connection with expenditure on training by individual industries. Training facilities have been created too. All this could take place as the result of the legislation of 1976 relating to the training of Black people.

If the same kind of legislation were to be utilized in the same way in respect of other races—in other words, Whites, Coloureds and Asians—it could greatly benefit the workers of other race groups as well. I have mentioned before that the discrimination which has occurred up to now, since 1976, was actually in favour of Blacks and against. Whites, Coloureds and Asians. That is as far as in-service training is concerned. As the Riekert Commission quite rightly points out, there is another side to this measure of discrimination, because the employer of Black people had been subject to certain levies because of the fact that they were linked up with such in-service training systems.

This shows us once again how many facets are involved in the whole question of discrimination, how difficult it is to avoid discrimination when duplication occurs. We on this side of the House find the idea particularly acceptable that the benefits which Black people have enjoyed until now, under the Bantu Employees’ In-Service Training Act, should be extended to other race groups in our country. What is unacceptable and indeed incomprehensible to us, is that the Government should have to allow this to occur by way of the duplication of legislation and machinery in order to maintain racial separation at the level of industrial training.

The Riekert Commission—and the hon. the Minister referred to it himself in his opening speech—specifically dealt with this matter. The commission specifically dealt with the parallel legislation which I mentioned, the 1976 Act, and very clearly recommended that the separate treatment of Black workers and other workers at this level should be terminated.

†Let us just see what the Riekert Commission has to say on this question, and I quote from page 218, paragraph 4.477. Under the heading “Findings on the Black Employees’ In-service Training Act, 1976” it is stated—

*The findings and recommendations of the Riekert Commission could in this regard not be more clear.

†The converse of what I have just quoted is also very clear, and that is that the continued segregation in in-service training can be maintained only at the expense of coordination and more effective planning. It is so obviously unwise for two totally separate systems to plan and administer labour matters in a totally integrated economy. The commission speaks of duplicating training facilities, and I hardly need stress the unwise aspects of this, for example the unnecessary expense involved in duplicating facilities. We recognize and accept that to a certain extent there are geographic factors dictating a degree of duplication in certain border areas. There we accept the fact that there will be training facilities that will serve mainly Blacks, whilst in other areas there will be facilities that serve mainly the other races, but nevertheless, is it necessary to write the duplication into proposed legislation of this kind or to cause duplication by way of such legislation? It is necessary to have one Act and to have these matters administered by one department, both these points of view having been adopted very strongly by the Riekert Commission in its report. Let me quote again from page 214, paragraph 4.458—

It is good to hear that the hon. the Minister has at least taken cognizance of this. Towards the end of his speech he made mention of the possibility of the administration of Black labour eventually coming under the auspices of the Department of Labour and being controlled by that department. We really cannot see why however, at this point in time, and considering the very strong recommendations of the Riekert Commission, we should now pass an Act of Parliament to duplicate processes in the hope that at some future stage we would be able to take the logical step of bringing the administration of Black labour under the control of the Department of Labour, having in-service training controlled by one Act of Parliament and one system of machinery. I quote further—

What will be the position of the industrialist who employs workers of all races as practically every industrialist in this country does? He now has to reconsider his training initiative which requires the utmost encouragement of this House and the Department of Labour or whichever other department may be involved. He has to subject his initiatives to two different systems of control. Obviously this will bring about frustration and it will also obviously bring about bureaucratic red tape and restraints. This surely amounts to duplication and extra expense.

The success of the type of legislation which is before the House and the parallel Act of 1976 depends heavily on the participation of the employer in industry. Do we have to make it more difficult for him to play his part by duplicating the controlling mechanism?

*The reports by the Riekert Commission and the Wiehahn Commission were received with great excitement in South Africa. They resulted in a tremendous amount of good publicity for South Africa. They brought tremendous hope and relief in economic circles, among workers and in the hearts of those who had been the victims of that measure of discrimination which did exist in the labour field and which was quite substantial in some cases. Of this, I am afraid, there is nothing left. This legislation is clearly a flagrant negation—I say this very carefully—of the very clear recommendations of the Riekert Commission. It is a step in the direction of apartheid, a step in the direction of ideological segregation of workers’ organizations in spite of the fact that all of us know to what extent the economy of South Africa is in fact integrated. It is a step which makes it clear that the Government subordinates in-service training, like so many other things, to its obsession with apartheid. This is a step that goes against economic principles, common sense and even the recommendations of commissions appointed by the Government itself. If anything good is to be achieved by this kind of legislation which is being introduced so soon after the publication of the recommendations of the Riekert Commission, one wonders why this commission was appointed in the first place. Was the commission appointed merely to make a preconceived set of recommendations to the Government, and if it does not do so, are its recommendations negated in this way?

I therefore move as an amendment—

Mr. Speaker, I have been a member of this House for several years now, but when I listen to the PFP speakers I can say only one thing and that is, with all due respect to the Chair: “Well, bless my soul.” When it comes to a situation in which the needs of Whites have to be furthered, these people are opposed to the legislation. When it comes to some-tiling for Whites in which Blacks are not involved, they vote against a Bill. I think it is high time hon. members of the PFP stood up and told the people of South Africa that they represent the non-Whites in South Africa, and not the Whites. They are not interested in the needs of the Whites in South Africa.

The hon. member for Green Point made a very interesting speech. However, I want to ask him what he really knows about industry in South Africa. Has he ever seen the inside of a large factory? Does he know how a training centre functions? Has he ever been to a training centre? He must give me a reply to these questions. Has he ever visited a large industry or factory? Has he ever been to a training centre established in terms of the 1976 Act? He spoke about the duplication of legislation, and about racial separation. Does he think for one moment that one Act can bring everyone together on the floor and under the roof of a training centre? I want to issue a friendly invitation to him to visit my constituency so that I can take him by the hand and show him what training entails and what is happening in the factories and industries of South Africa, for he knows nothing of what is happening in practice. He screams and shouts and proclaims one theory after another, but I want to ask him whether he has read the report of the Naudé Committee yet.

I know it.

Why did the hon. member not quote from it then? He referred to the Riekert report. I also read the Riekert report. He referred to paragraph 4 on page 218. Why did he not quote further from it? He must read the Riekert report properly. They are obsessed with reports such as this one, and of the Wiehahn Commission. All that he knows about training and industry in South Africa, he gleaned from the Riekert report. I wonder what he would have done if there had been no Riekert report. He is unable to advance any practical argument at all. He does not know what is happening in practice in South Africa. I want to ask him whether he has read the brochure of the Department of Education and Training, namely Inligting oor Ambagsopleiding, Tegniese Opleiding, Gevorder de Tegniese Opleiding en Nywerheidsopleiding in Suid-Afrika. Does he know what is happening in regard to training in South Africa?

I have read it.

Oh, he has read it. Why did he not quote from it then? They only quote those extracts which suit them. However, they are opposed to the proof of what the Government and South Africa’s industrialists are doing. Do they want to tell me that they are opposed to organized commerce, industry and the trade unions? I agree with the hon. the Minister that they are opposed to them. After all, they have a lien on the wisdom of Solomon. They are opposed to the practical people such as Tucsa who work with these things every day. Tucsa is in agreement with this Bill, but they are opposed to it. The Confederation of Labour, people who deal with these things in practice every day, approve of this Bill and asked the hon. the Minister to promote this idea, but you are opposed to it I do not think you know what is happening in practice. You are obsessed with theory and merely with what is contained in reports and then you come and kick up a fuss here. [Interjections.] I invite that hon. member to visit a factory and see what training entails.

Order! The hon. member must refer to other hon. members as hon. members.

I want to return to the Bill. I want to say that this Bill should have been placed on the Statute Book of South Africa several years ago. A few years ago a need for such a measure already existed. Why? What does this Bill mean to us? It will ensure better labour mobility and better training which in turn will make a substantial contribution to improving the productivity of South Africa and consequently to keeping inflation in check. Hon. members must remember that as far as labour in South Africa is concerned, the emphasis will have to fall on training in future. In 1976 already provision was made for the Black people in terms of the Black Employees’ In-service Training Act. When we now introduce a Bill to make provision for the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians as well, they are opposed to it. It seems to me they want the Whites, Coloureds and Indians to be semiskilled or unskilled, and only the Blacks to be skilled. They want the rest to be thrown to the wolves.

The most obvious restrictive factor in the South African economy at present is undoubtedly the question of the availability of manpower that has the skills required by a modern economic system. We must remember that the shortage of well-trained labour will limit the capacity of any economy and will not create material welfare and employment opportunities for its people. If White workers are not properly trained—and some people realize this—the Black people, too, will eventually suffer. They do not realize that. As a result of the development of new industrial techniques within existing industries, it has become necessary for facilities for training people to be created. It is also a good thing that the two Bills have been separated. There is certain training which the Black man has to undergo and which the Whites cannot undergo. The hon. members of the PFP, however, do not understand the practical side, and one cannot explain it to them either. One cannot train everyone for the same work. What is more, the wide diversity of machines that are being manufactured by various manufacturers require a greater diversity of skills and techniques from people, from which everyone benefits. Even for the same type of operating work at various factories within the same industry people have to undergo different training to be able, strangely enough, to do the same work.

The particular object of the Bill is to make the employee better equipped for any work which is performed in or in connection with an industry. In the knowledge that the industrial sector, the artisans, commerce, Tucsa and the Confederation of Labour all support the legislation, I gladly support the hon. the Minister in the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we have listened very carefully to the motivation given by the hon. member for Green Point and also to the words of the hon. member for Overvaal. Let me say right at the beginning that we are not very impressed with the obsession the hon. member for Green Point has regarding forced integration. When one looks at the industrial training needs of the whole of South Africa, it is not necessary to introduce into this whole argument an obsession with forced integration which will detract from the worthiness of the principle which is being extended by this Bill.

I think there are a number of practical reasons as well, reasons which the hon. member for Green Point missed in his argument, for the Bill. Firstly, the horizontal stratification of the occupational categories in South Africa are there because of historical reasons and it is in fact going to take a considerable amount of time, energy and capital to actually obliterate those horizontal stratifications. These differences in occupational levels and therefore training needs are a fact of life and I do not think any amount of wishful thinking and ideological preaching can remove that practical consideration. Therefore the probability of duplication of the different in-service training schemes is fairly minimal. The needs of particularly Black South Africans are fairly radically different from the needs of the Coloureds, the Indians and the Whites in South Africa and therefore I do not believe, and certainly my party does not believe, that this will predominantly be a duplication of the services. I believe that the in-service training needs of the Coloureds, Indians and Whites, specifically, is to a very large extent different from that of the Blacks.

Then there are certain other practical difficulties which come into account, for example the fact that geographically the training centres should be so situated that the different workers will only need to commute over the shortest possible distance. It is also a fact of life in South Africa that, if one wants to serve the needs of the Coloureds, the Asians and the Whites, then I believe their training institutions as well should be situated close at hand. That is a further practical consideration which I do not think the hon. member for Green Point took into account. Furthermore, although we are aware of the recommendations of the Riekert Commission that in the long term the prospect is certainly there that one will be able to overlap these two particular In-service Training Bills, we do not believe that at the moment that is a primary consideration. The primary consideration is, in fact, to serve the needs of the community through the implementation of the new In-service Training Bill. I did not catch all the hon. the Minister’s words, but he did say that he would in fact consider the possibility of a consolidation once the new In-Service Training Bill has had an opportunity to operate. I hope I heard the hon. the Minister correctly. Was he also implying that it is his objective that the In-service Training Bill for Blacks in South Africa will be brought under the wing of the Department of Labour? I did not quite catch what the hon. the Minister said about that, and I would appreciate it if he could give us clarity on that when he replies to the Second Reading.

We do not have the difficulty the hon. members of the PFP have with this Bill and we shall be supporting it at the Second Reading.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, I want to reply briefly to the short debate following my Second Reading speech on this Bill. There is not much further I want to say about this matter, for in my opinion the measure before this House is a very simple one. The fact of the matter is that in the legislation on the training of Black employees, provision has been made for the training of Black employees. No provision has been made for Coloureds, Indians and Whites to be trained and a need exists for them to be trained as well. This need arises from the developments of the economy. The industries requested that this training should be provided because a shortage of trained persons was being experienced. The trade unions would like these people to be trained, because they want to see trained workers and the advancement of Whites, Coloureds and Indians in the work situation, where they will then be able to function as better trained workmen. Consequently representations have been made from both sides.

In this legislation we are consequently making provision for providing the necessary training, and this is what will happen in future. Against this background hon. members argued that they did not entirely agree with us since they insist on training where the various races are intermingled. I do not want to take this matter any further, because I think we have argued enough during the past few days on integration in the sphere of labour. The fact of the matter is that we should now have a bridging measure for this kind of training. We foresee that, against the background of what we have already said in this House on the future overall manpower situation, we shall probably have to see to the training of all the people of South Africa on a far larger scale. Until the day arrives when we return to this House to make provision for even greater plans for training we must in the meantime do the things which in my opinion are the minimum. For this purpose R10 million per annum is being set aside. This is going to enable us to provide thousands of people per year with further training. Consequently that is what this legislation requires.

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

Question affirmed and amendment dropped (Official Opposition dissenting).

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Section 21(1) of the Financial Relations Act, 1976, empowers a provincial council to make provision, inter alia, for the payment from the provincial revenue fund of an amount required for the defraying of expenditure incurred within the province in connection with a matter of national interest.

Section 21(2) of the Act defines a matter of national interest as any act, event, granting of aid, ceremony or demonstration declared by the Minister of the Interior to be a matter of national interest on the ground that it is calculated, inter alia, to promote religion, patriotism, education, physical or human sciences, culture, sport or national security.

As hon. members know, 1979 has been proclaimed to be Health Year. The provinces play a prominent part in the provision of health services and will of necessity therefore incur direct expenditure in some way or other in connection with the project. Since the provinces do not have the power to incur expenditure in relation to a matter such as a Health Year, a request has been made that the project be declared a matter of national interest in terms of section 21. However, the State law advisers are of the opinion that Health Year, 1979 cannot be included under any of the matters specified in section 21(2).

In order to vest the Minister of the Interior and Immigration with the necessary power to declare such an important project to be a matter of national interest it is being proposed in the Bill that the word “health” be inserted after the words “physical or human sciences” in the said section 21(2). It may be accepted that the provinces have already taken steps in regard to the matter, and consequently it is also being proposed that the statutory amendments shall be with retrospective effect.

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, the provincial councils in South Africa are part of the structure of our three-tier system. As such their right to spend money and disburse funds on behalf of the people is governed by statute. They have fairly wide powers and as the hon. the Deputy Minister has told us, they are able to spend money on the performing arts and research. According to sections 17 and 18 they are able to maintain various services which are required by any society.

As we all know, one of the main responsibilities of the provincial councils is the question of the provision of hospital services and certain health services. They perform a major service in monitoring local authorities in the provision of municipal health services. However, their right to spend money on the promotional side of the many facets of life is more limited. When I talk about the promotional side, I talk about educating the public towards a viewpoint, the campaigning for a particular set of circumstances and, in this case, the campaigning for the better health and well-being of the people concerned. This power is presently very limited. At the present time the provincial councils can contribute towards matters rather loosely defined as being in the national interest. However, this is more narrowly defined as being matters relating to religion, patriotism, education, physical or human sciences, culture, sport and national security.

Therefore, as the hon. the Deputy Minister and I see it at the present time, no provincial council has the capacity to contribute legally towards a campaign or a promotion geared to promoting the health of the people within the province concerned. This is an obvious lacuna, an obvious gap in the law, and I believe it is appropriate that, in this particular year, which has been designated Health Year 1979, this power be granted and be enshrined in the provincial statute as it is at the present time.

We therefore welcome the amendment and express the hope that this power will be widely and wisely used by the provinces concerned.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to indicate that we will also be supporting this amending Bill. I also wish to express my surprise at the fact that the need for this legislation, in terms of which provincial councils will be enabled to promote health financially, only arises at this late stage, particularly since the Health Year is already approaching the half-way mark. One does not always realize how limited the powers of provincial councils are except when one deals with a situation like this. In order to see matters in their true perspective one should also realize that even now that health is also to be included among those things provided for in section 21 of the principal Act, provincial councils can still not take independent decisions on whether matters are matters of national interest. It is still incumbent upon the hon. the Minister of the Interior to decide whether a matter is to be declared a matter of national interest.

While discussing this particular Bill, it is probably also worth noting the types of difficulties that occur when this sort of promotion is undertaken. One finds, for instance in section 23 of the Act, that a provincial council is not allowed to spend more than R50 on a wreath of flowers at, say, a Kruger Day celebration, without first obtaining permission to do so. Even in this instance, once it has been decided by the Minister that a matter is in the national interest, a provincial council has no jurisdiction to take a decision in connection with the amount of money to be spent. Even that has to be done in consultation with the hon. the Minister of Finance.

I am trying to illustrate to the House the difficulties that provincial councils have in connection with matters such as Health Year 1979. Since the hon. the Deputy Minister has quite correctly pointed out that this is a matter relating to health, I feel that I have to point out that it is indeed a pity that in this international Health Year, we should have an incident in which an hon. member of this House makes a statement which, I believe, is totally irresponsible. [Interjections.] That hon. member should be reprimanded for making such a statement, because he should realize that we are dealing here with something which is in the national interest I believe this is the appropriate time to mention this incident because we are now dealing with a Bill which has a direct bearing on health matters, in that health is a matter of national interest. I am referring, of course, to a statement made by the hon. member for South Coast. He is unfortunately not in the House this evening. For his statement I refer to The Daily News of 6 June 1979. The caption of this news items is: “Black germs bogy.” Talking about operating theatres the hon. member said—

Order! How does the hon. member tie that up with the Bill?

Mr. Speaker, it has a direct bearing on this Bill. If one looks at section 21 of the principal Act, one sees this—

But the Bill only deals with giving provincial authorities jurisdiction to deal with health matters.

Mr. Speaker, I submit that if one looks at the Bill, one sees that clause 1 seeks to amend section 21 of the principal Act in that it proposes to insert “health” as a matter of national interest. [Interjections.] Clearly, only when health is regarded as a matter of national interest can provincial authorities be enabled to promote it financially. I am merely putting forward a case which concerns health, an incident in which something has taken place which is not in the national interest.

Order! Many things can occur which concern health. This Bill only deals with new powers to be bestowed on provincial authorities.

Mr. Speaker, as it pleases you. This is a matter concerning health, and one would like to see this Health Year, which the hon. the Minister has been emphasizing, conducted in such a way that health is, as is indicated in this clause, considered to be a matter of national interest. The feeling was that the provinces had no powers to conduct proper promotion campaigns, and that is why we are having this Amending Bill. I therefore appeal to the hon. the Minister to see to it that as far as possible all functions that are held and all matters to do with health are handled in such a way as to be in the national interest, because, after all, it is the hon. the Minister who has now decided that health is in fact a matter of national interest. The provinces are expected to launch campaigns to promote this, and I therefore hope that in this particular case we shall, by the end of the year, have conducted a campaign which will have been a credit to us all and will have been in the interests of the nation as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the support which hon. members opposite have given to this legislation. It is not by its nature a contentious measure. How on earth the hon. member for Durban Central could therefore drag a speech or utterance of the hon. member for South Coast, which I did not hear, into this matter to give a political connotation to this aspect, is simply beyond me. [Interjections.]

Order!

I do not want to argue with the hon. member about this because I do not think it is at all in the spirit of the proposed legislation. I shall react in the same spirit as that which the hon. member displayed in the other things that he had to say, the spirit with which all of us here are inspired in our attempt to make a success of this Health Year. That is also the reason why we want to grant the provinces the powers, in terms of the legislation, to spend funds.

The hon. member also asked why we are only now, in the middle of the year, introducing this enabling legislation. Many things under the Financial Relations Act are not always so clear that the provinces immediately realize that they can or cannot do certain things under the relevant provisions. On the other hand the provinces obtain their funds predominantly from the State, the Treasury, and that is why the State, on its part must also exercise control, and how else can it so do if it does not lay down clear guidelines? With a large part of the year already behind us, the State Law Adviser is of the opinion that it will not be possible to authorize the expenditure in this connection in terms of existing legislation. With this Bill, therefore, we are merely granting that authority so that those things which the hon. member for Sandton and the hon. member for Durban Central want done can in fact be done. I should like to see that we pass the legislation in this spirit.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill deals with a large variety of matters of which I shall mention only the most important ones here.

Hon. members will notice that in clause 2 the powers of commissioners are extended to enable them to enforce their authority and the dignity of their courts irrespective of the race or colour of the transgressor.

Clause 3 provides for the fines which are recovered to accrue to the institution charged with the implementation of the provisions concerned. This clause is linked to clauses 4 and 9.

The new scales which are decreed under clause 10 are based on existing income tax tables applicable to married persons with a family of three children. The average married income tax payer has 1,7 children. After the annual tax of R2,50 was abolished in 1978, this is another step towards achieving the Government’s aim of eliminating any disparity in taxes payable by people of different population groups.

The Black States are already recovering considerable amounts in general sales tax in their territories on behalf of the Government. As the taxes are being paid almost exclusively by Blacks, it is right that this money should accrue to the Governments of the Black people concerned.

The amendments in clauses 13, 14 and 15 have become necessary to give meaning and content to the granting of functions to community councils. The provisions contained in clause 16 have become necessary because it has appeared that regulations promulgated for all the community councils in the area of a particular Administration Board create problems in the case of new boards established after the date of promulgation of the regulations. The amendment ensures the stability of bodies which were established in a proper manner.

†I wish to mention that this is the first occasion that the new name of the department is written into a Bill. From 1 July this department will be known as the Department of Co-operation and Development Having moved the Second Reading of this Bill, I want to express the hope that we will really have co-operation and development for the sake of all our people in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly have no quarrel with the last remark made by the hon. the Deputy Minister. We all naturally hope that the department’s new name will be put into practical effect and that there will be both co-operation and development in that department.

I am afraid that we in these benches do not agree with the rather superficial analysis which the hon. the Deputy Minister gave us of this Bill, because he omitted any mention whatsoever of the clause which we consider to be of great importance and that is clause 5. He has not mentioned this clause at all in his brief introductory Second Reading speech. This Bill contains 18 clauses. It amends no fewer than nine different Acts. Normally one would say this is really a Committee Stage Bill and one would simply voice one’s objections at the Committee Stage. We certainly considered this when we discussed how to handle this Bill. However, in the end we decided that one of the clauses was very offensive as far as we were concerned, namely clause 5, the clause to which the hon. the Minister has made no reference whatsoever. There is another clause which we have difficulty with. Although it does, as the hon. the Minister has said, narrow the difference between the taxes payable by Black people, White people and people of other races, for that matter, since Asians, Whites and Coloureds all pay tax under the same overall taxation measure, we feel that at this stage of our development in South Africa we should be doing away altogether with any differentiation in taxes paid by the Black people and the taxes paid by members of other races. For that reason we are going to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill. I wish to move the following reasoned amendment to this effect—

1. (1) perpetuates and exacerbates the system of influx control by greatly increasing the penalties imposed upon employers who employ unregistered Black persons in the urban areas; and
2. (2) continues to impose on Black persons a tax system which differs from that applicable to other population groups.”.

I now propose to motivate our amendments by discussing the two clauses that are affected. The one is clause 5, as I have mentioned. This is the clause that raises the penalty for the employment of an unregistered Black under section 10bis of the Blacks (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act of 1945 from a fine not exceeding R100 to a fine not exceeding R500 on a first conviction, or imprisonment for a period not exceeding three months, and on a second or a subsequent conviction for a like offence in the same prescribed area within a period of two years, to a fine of “not less than five hundred rand” or, in default of payment, to imprisonment for a period of “not less than three months” or to both such fine and such imprisonment or to such imprisonment without the option of a fine. One would think it is a serious crime to employ a person who does not have a permit to be in an urban area in South Africa. One must realize that this affects South African citizens. Presumably, it will also affect persons who fall under section 12 of the Blacks (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act since they are foreigners. However, as it stands at the moment, it is section 10bis which is being amended. That provision, of course, applies to South African citizens who have committed the heinous crime of coming into the urban area without a permit in order to seek work. It does not apply to vagrants or to people who are idle or undesirable, but to employers of people in the urban areas. They can be fined this enormous sum of money or sentenced to a term of imprisonment. As I have said, it does not affect idle, undesirable people, vagrants or people who are simply in the urban area for the purpose of causing mischief, but people who have been employed by persons who take them on without the necessary permission.

No doubt the hon. the Minister will tell me that this is one of the recommendations of the Riekert Commission. Paragraph 4.159(h) on page 159 of the report of the Riekert Commission reads as follows—

I dispute that last sentence, of course, because in other Western countries no citizen is fined for looking for work in an area outside of his original domicile. It applies only to foreigners who come in across the border illegally from other countries. Therefore I dispute the truth of that statement in the Riekert Commission’s report. But there is no doubt that they recommend that high penalties be imposed on employers who take on unregistered Blacks in terms of section 10bis of the Urban Areas Act However, where we go wrong, is that the Riekert Commission recommends that a number of positive steps be taken at the same time, one of these being that those persons who are illegally in employment shall at the worst be repatriated. In other words, there will be no punishment meted out to the people who have taken employment without being registered. The onus shall be placed on the employer. So what we are doing is to impose the penalties which are recommended by the Riekert Commission on employers without at the same time withdrawing the penalties which presently rest on those persons who are illegally employed.

If my memory serves me correctly, we amended the Urban Areas Act a couple of years ago and we raised the maximum fines up to R100. The present tendency, I am told, is to fine people who are found to be illegally in employment, anything between R50 and R80. There is nothing in the law which is before us today to show that those persons who are illegally in employment are simply going to be repatriated. All the strictures presently resting on them under the Urban Areas Act remain, and I put it to the hon. the Deputy Minister that if he is going to impose stricter penalties on employers, the least that he could have done, simultaneously, was to see that there was some amendment to the Urban Areas Act which removed the heavy penalties against those persons coming into the urban areas illegally.

I had better make it quite clear at this stage that hon. members sitting in these benches are against influx control in principle. We know, of course, it cannot be abolished overnight and we know that a number of steps have got to be taken pari passu with the abolition of influx control, the most important of which, of course, would be the building of thousands of houses to accommodate those people already in the urban areas, let alone those who might still come in. Secondly, we believe that all restrictions on employment in the urban areas would have to go and that there would have to be a massive attempt at providing jobs in the urban areas. But, equally, we believe very fervently that imposing influx control on Black people who come into the urban areas from other parts of the Republic of South Africa—I am not talking about people who come in from foreign countries; I am talking about people who come in from other parts of South Africa, from the Black rural areas and from the White rural areas to seek work in the urban areas—should not be turned them into technical criminals merely because they are looking for work. We believe, equally, that pushing these people back into the areas from which they came, areas where there are no jobs, may I add, does not solve the problem which is a basic problem of unemployment and a poor-Black problem, not dissimilar from the poor-White problem that this country faced in the ’twenties and which was solved, not by a back-to-the-land movement, but by a process of industrialization, by education and by training. As a result we have very little left of the poor-White problem today. We believe that that is the way in which to solve the poor-Black problem as well. We know it will take time, we know that it is not something that can be solved overnight, but we are absolutely convinced that the way in which to solve the problem is not by the imposition of heavy fines on employers who give employment to these people; not by the imposition of heavy fines on Black people who come into the urban areas to seek work and who get arrested to the tune of something like 250 000 every year and clutter up our gaols for the technical offence of looking for work. We believe that that is not the way to solve this problem.

I want to make a special plea to the hon. the Deputy Minister because I happen to know a fair amount about this from consultations with people who come to me almost daily, people who are in trouble over their passes. They are the sort of people whom I send to the advice offices of the Black Sash all over South Africa; Cape Town, Johannesburg and wherever the Black Sash have their advice offices. These are insoluble problems for these people, because simply to say that they must go back where they came from, does not help them at all. Many of these people are women—and I am putting in a special plea for the women now—coming to the urban areas after having been deserted by their husbands, or they are not married but have children, or they are widows or divorcees who have nobody to help them support their families who are literally starving in the homelands.

Are you referring to employers or employees?

I am referring to employees now, but I shall deal with the situation of the employers in a moment, because, obviously, if one imposes these heavy fines on employers, they are not going to employ these people. At present in respect of every major city in South Africa—and that virtually applies generally to all the prescribed urban areas in South Africa—women are not allowed to enter them from the rural areas. There are, however, a few exceptions. They are allowed to come, for instance, into Sandton or into Johannesburg. By and large, however; women are forbidden to enter the urban areas; but they come in nevertheless. They are employed by the thousands in all the urban areas for two main reasons. In the Cape they are employed because the Coloured domestic labour—this area is a Coloured labour preference area—is simply not available in the required numbers. Most Coloured women do not want to take on sleep-in domestic servants’ jobs.

One should not need anybody to sleep in.

Well, then one will have to provide sufficient housing, accommodation and transport. If that is done, I am with the hon. the Deputy Minister. If he provides transport and everything else for these people, they will be able to live at home with their families. The point is, however, that that accommodation is not available and that the Coloured labour, for which this area is reserved, is not available. Many White working housewives who need domestic help, have taken on Black labour, and those Black women have been in their employment illegally for many years because other labour is not available.

If this fine of up to R500 for a first offence, and not less than R500 for a second offence, is levied, one can be quite sure that those people are going to lose their jobs. The working women will not have any help, and South Africa will therefore be deprived of the services of many highly qualified White women who are at present in employment and who are contributing to the gross national product of this country—I want to point that out. What I want the hon. the Minister to do is to see whether it is not possible to do what was done in the case of the illegal workers from Zimbabwe Rhodesia, and Malawi if I am not mistaken. In other words, he should declare a moratorium, allowing people to register if they have been in employment for any length of time, for example for six months or longer, and are vouched for by their employers as being hard-working and conscientious people doing a job of work. Unfortunately, I cannot put the plea any higher than that, because I know what the Government’s policy is in relation to this particular matter, but I would ask the hon. the Minister at least to allow those women who are at present employed and who are supporting families in the homelands, to register legally and to stay with their employers who need them very badly indeed. That is one plea that I want to put to the hon. the Minister.

I want to make it quite clear that we disapprove entirely of the principle of this Bill of not allowing people to seek work in the market where they can sell their labour for the highest price, which is surely one of the basic elements of the free enterprise system, i.e. the contract made between employer and employee without State interference, with the exception of seeing—here I fully agree with the hon. the Deputy Minister—that people are not exploited or underpaid. In other words, if there is no trade union organization, the State must step in and set a minimum national wage to prevent any form of exploitation. With that, I am sure, we go along, although we believe that the free market action of supply and demand together with trade union organization is obviously the best way to ensure that there is no exploitation of labour. So much for that clause.

I now come to the other clause to which we object. I must admit that we object to it while at the same time admitting that it is an improvement on the existing situation. I want to say that we shall, therefore, not vote against the clause itself in the Committee Stage. We are, however, against the principle, which is being enshrined in this clause again, of having a different and separate taxation system for Black people in South Africa. We in these benches have never been able to understand why that is necessary. Surely, each man pays according to his ability to pay. If a man is earning well, he must pay a higher tax. If we had a good Government, nobody would of course object to pay these higher taxes, because we would know that the money was not being wasted on all sorts of projects, such as a highly expensive apartheid system, not to mention The Citizen and other little ventures like that. However, let us leave that to one side.

We believe that everybody should pay according to his ability to pay and that there should therefore be no differentiation between Black people paying taxes when they earn a reasonable sum of money and White people, Asians and Coloureds paying the same taxes. To my surprise, I see that the explanatory memorandum, which was issued by the department—I thank them for that—states in respect of clause 10, which is the operative clause—

Quite honestly, I do not know where they get that from. I have examined the scale of taxes which is laid down in the budget for this year, and it by no means equals the scale which is going to be paid by Black people. I have been examining the two scales as given in the paper which gives information about what one pays and what one will pay. The figures are taken directly from taxation tables. The explanatory memorandum states that the scale will be the same as that for a White married person with three children. However, if one looks at the scale for a White married person with three children, one finds that such a person only starts paying tax when he earns R4 000. Then he pays R42 per annum. According to the scale which is laid down in this Bill—and it is quite different—the Black person at a high level in fact pays more, but at a lower level he also pays more. Therefore, it is a different scale altogether. However, what is not taken into consideration is that the White man with three married children gets rebates for those children.

Other examples will prove exactly the reverse. [Interjections.]

Did I say an unmarried person? I meant a married White man with three children. He gets very considerable rebates which no Black person gets. A White person, married or single, is allowed to offset certain medical expenses and he is allowed abatements for retirement and annuity fund payments, none of which is allowed to a Black man. The scale is therefore quite different.

There is also a difference in the scale of the tax paid by a White person over the age of 60—that is, if in the case of the woman, she is unmarried—and a Black person. This is another differentiation which is very noticeable. Therefore, I do not know where the explanatory memorandum gets its figures from. As far as I can work it out, a married White man with three children only really begins to pay tax when he earns R4 000. However, a Black man begins to pay at a level of R1 200. There is no comparison. The disparity is still very considerable. In any case, we are in principle against the application of different tax systems for people based on the colour of their skin. For those reasons, although we do not find anything offensive in the remaining clauses of this Bill, we shall oppose the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Houghton indicated that the official Opposition would be opposing this Bill because of the provisions of clause 5 and clause 10. Earlier today the hon. member for Green Point emphasized the fact that the Government had not fully accepted and implemented certain recommendations in the report of the Riekert Commission in terms of the Bill which was under discussion at that stage. That was the In-service Training Bill. And now that the Government is accepting certain recommendations in the report of the Riekert Commission in the present case, the hon. member for Houghton is objecting again.

The Riekert Commission recommends that job opportunities and available accommodation will be two important instruments in the future whereby influx control will be applied. For that very reason, and also to bring about order in the labour field, the registration of employees is absolutely necessary. Furthermore, the registration money which has to be paid with regard to employees is an important source of revenue for administration boards. Illegal employment, which frustrates these two objectives, must of course be penalized heavily. It has been proved to us in the past that a fine of R100 is not a deterrent for employers. Therefore it has become necessary that the fine, which has to serve as a deterrent, should be increased drastically, in order to give effect to the two objectives to which I have referred.

It is a real Hitler type of measure.

Furthermore the hon. member also objected to the fact that no provision has been made in the legislation for repealing the provision that employees who are illegally employed should be repatriated. She wants that provision to be deleted. It is of course true that someone who allows himself to be employed illegally is an accessory. It is essential, of course, that there should be a penalty provision for him, as well, so that both employer and employee will henceforth be careful not to allow illegal employment.

With regard to clause 10 it is true that the inequality which has existed discriminated against the Black man. In the past, Black people started paying income tax on an annual income of R360, as against R1 200 in the case of Whites. This clause now seeks to eliminate the inequality which has existed. Therefore, even though small differences still exist, such as those to which the hon. member for Houghton referred, I believe that the spirit and contents of this clause will be accepted by the Black people as a very great concession, because it will improve their position considerably. I shall explain how this will happen. It is estimated that this concession of a higher income tax limit will cost the State approximately R30 million in income tax annually. Therefore, if the State receives R30 million less in revenue, it means that the Black employees will have R30 million more in their pockets. This is a considerable amount which is being added to their purchasing power. In other words, this is a very great and real concession on the part of the Government to Black people.

Black States that have an interest in the payment of tax by Black employees in White areas—Black people belonging to certain Black States—will not experience any loss in their own revenue as a result of this loss of R30 million, because the Government has undertaken to make up this shortage in the statutory allocations to Black States. Therefore I also believe that this provision will be welcomed by the Black States.

I now want to say a few words on the other clauses. In the first place I want to refer to clause 10(3), which provides that there will not be any refund of tax to Black employees who have already paid tax. This clause has been inserted for practical reasons only, because it would be a totally impossible task to find hundreds and thousands of people who paid a few cents per month in tax and to refund the money to them. Therefore this specific clause has been adjusted in this manner. The fact—and the hon. the Deputy Minister explained it very well to us—that we want to ensure that the sales tax provided for in clause 11, which is generated in Black States, is returned to those Black States, is proof of our good intentions towards the Black States, proof of the fact that we have no intention at all of gaining unfair advantage out of any action or transaction which may take place in Black States. I think this is proof of our good faith towards the Black States.

I now come to clause 13, which deals with the powers of community councils. However. I want to refer to another aspect of the power of community councils and to bring this to the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister. It is something I should like him to follow up. I have it on good authority that administration boards are loath, and in fact often refuse, to delegate to community councils powers which are required by law to be delegated to them. This is not only contrary to Government policy, but also has a hampering effect on the activities of community councils. I think it also detracts from the status of community councils. It also causes the Black people to criticize the Community Councils Act unnecessarily. It causes the Act to be called a poor Act, when in fact it is an Act which, if implemented correctly, affords the community councils of Black communities the opportunity of developing into independent, autonomous local authorities. I am told, however, that this objective is frustrated by administration boards that refuse to delegate the powers to the community councils. Therefore I wish to appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister to see to it that those Whites who are serving on administration boards and who are reluctant or who refuse to implement the policy of the Government in this manner are dismissed from their positions. We must then find other people there who are prepared to delegate the powers which the Act prescribes, in the interests of the Black people. If the hon. the Deputy Minister would give attention to this matter, I believe that we should be making a great and real contribution to community councils and Black communities.

I should like to say a few words about clause 17, which deals with the change of the name of the department. I want to congratulate the Deputy Minister on the change of the name of “Department of Plural Relations and Development” into “Department of Cooperation and Development” as from 1 July 1979.

If you fail the first time, try, try, try again.

The present name afforded people the opportunity of behaving in a disparaging and humiliating way towards Black people. What is the mentality of some of our Whites that they deliberately want to behave in a disparaging and humiliating way towards Black people? I want to refer to two examples. I have already referred to one of them on a previous occasion. I am referring to a publicity pamphlet of the municipality of Oudtshoorn, a pamphlet in which a Black woman in traditional Zulu dress is referred to as a “plural”. In the second place, I have seen a photograph in Rapport which shows that a bottle store in Port Elizabeth indicates the entrance for Black people with the words “Plurals/Plurale”. [Interjections.] I detest this type of behaviour, not only because it insults and humiliates people, but also because it can create points of friction between White and Black. The change of name of this department was, therefore, essential. [Interjections.] I do not know what the joke is that the hon. member for Berea sees in this. [Interjections.] A change of name was, therefore, essential, for we have enough situations of conflict in South Africa over which we have no control, because of the composition of our population. There are enough people and bodies who have set themselves the task of creating friction between White and Black. What is more, there are people who are seeking polarization between Black and White. Therefore I want to repeat that it is a good thing that the name of the department, which could lead to tension, is being changed. Most of the Black leaders have indicated their joy and are eagerly looking forward to the co-operation and development implied by the new name of the department.

This Laws on Plural Relations and Development Second Amendment Bill contains a number of important corrections of existing matters which required correction, and therefore I want to support it wholeheartedly.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Parys must really be one of the prize stars in the NP firmament of jokers as far as this session is concerned. He complains bitterly that there are people in South Africa who can be so “onbeskof” that they refer to Black people as “plurals”. He regards this as being an absolute insult. But from where did the name come? The name for the department which was previously known as the Department of Bantu Administration and Development was changed to the Department of Plural Relations and Development by a Cabinet Minister of the NP.

You are a plural yourself.

Of course I am a plural. I am a White plural. What kind of plural is the hon. member?

You are a singular plural.

That is right, I am a most singular plural. The whole joke was forced upon the people of South Africa by a Minister of the NP who was so absolutely “dik, dom en toe” that he did not understand the plural debate which was going on throughout the world. The whole question of pluralism, which is the “in” debate in political science circles throughout the world today, is about the relationship between different groups. For that reason I say that I am a plural, because in South Africa there are groups of people. The situation of pluralism in South Africa relates to the various groups of people, the White, Coloured, Indian and Black groups, being members of a plural society. Through the inefficiency and stupidity of the governing party, one of their Ministers gave the Department of Bantu Administration and Development the name of “Department of Plural Relations and Development” and forced it upon the whole of the Black population of our country. It does the hon. member for Parys a great deal of credit and honour that he should feel that this was an insult to the Black people of South Africa, although it originated from the heart of his own party through a misreading of the situation by one of its own Cabinet Ministers. I think that if it was not so serious, it would be absolutely laughingly funny. As it is, it is tragically funny that the hon. member should have made the speech which he did.

The hon. member for Houghton indicated …

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether he realizes that when he says that he is a plural, it means that he is describing himself as someone who is a member of a community consisting of people of mixed blood, of various population groups, in one person—in other words, he is not a pure member of a race. Does the hon. member, therefore, realize what he is saying?

I used a specific term which relates to a political science concept and which is far above the mentality of the hon. member. I want to ask him please not to try to understand it because he will hurt himself. The answer to the hon. member’s question is …

Order! That concept is not under discussion.

Mr. Speaker, if you will not allow me to answer the hon. member’s question, I shall answer it at another stage when I have more time. The hon. member for Houghton has indicated that the PFP is going to oppose this Bill. We, however, shall support the Second Reading of this Bill. The reason for the opposition to this Bill is clause 5, which we shall oppose. I want to say a few words to the hon. the Deputy Minister about that. The point has been made by the hon. member for Houghton that the PFP opposes the concept of influx control. I want to say that we shall support the Second Reading of this Bill since we believe that the system of influx control is something which has to be maintained because it is in the interests of the established group of Black people in South Africa who are established in the urban areas that their rights to housing, employment, occupation and those kinds of things should be protected.

In the urban African set-up, which we have included as one of the elements of our federal proposal, they themselves should have the right to say who should be admitted to the area. A group of people who are established and who have employment and housing—and there is obviously a limited availability of housing, a limited amount of employment and a natural increase of people in that area—are justly entitled to say whether or not other people should be allowed into that area or not. This obviously imposes an obligation on the country and on the Government to provide employment in other areas and to make sure that there is not this demand for people to move continuously into the metropolitan areas, thus leading to the need for influx control. However, let me tell the hon. the Deputy Minister, in the light of the present times in which we find ourselves, and with clause 5 of this Bill in mind, that it is absolutely unthinkable that any government should take steps to harass people who have employment. I say this because every Black person in employment in South Africa today is carrying a burden of friends and relatives which is out of all proportion to his earnings and to the normal demands for support made in the extended family system pertaining in the African society we know so well. I should like to join the hon. member for Houghton in asking the hon. the Deputy Minister to consider a moratorium to allow people who are employed but not registered, to be registered, because in the situation in which we find ourselves today we cannot allow people who are gainfully employed to be kicked out of that employment, harassed and fined an amount of R500 in terms of this clause. I believe it is totally unthinkable for us to allow such an idea to prevail. At least let people who are working help to bring about an improvement in the economy so that the burden on those people can be lessened, thereby reducing the burden of support which the working people among the Black population have to give to their families and to the extended families of which they are members. In the Committee Stage we shall therefore move an amendment to delete clause 5 altogether.

What about the housing?

There are so many things we can talk about. I am talking about clause 5 which deals with the increase in the fine which it is the intention to impose upon the employer and the employee.

I also want to raise the question of clause 10 with the hon. the Deputy Minister. Clause 10 relates to the tax scales. I am not going to argue with the hon. the Deputy Minister, however, about the tax scales. There is an improvement as far as clause 10 is concerned. However, I want to raise a question with the hon. the Deputy Minister in relation to the proposed subsections (2) and (3), which appear at the top of page 10 in the English version of the Bill. Subsection (2) states—

In other words, on 1 March 1979, in terms of this Bill, assuming it is passed, it is deemed to have come into operation and from that date the new scales will apply. Those are the scales which now start at R1 200. Therefore, there are a considerable number of workers from whom, by direction of the hon. the Minister’s department, the employers have deducted tax at the old scale. This has happened for the month of March, April and, I understand, May. It may be that a direction cannot go out to employers until this legislation is passed, so that, if it is passed at the end of June, for the month of June, too, tax will be deducted from the salaries of employees in terms of the old scale while the new scale is deemed to have come into operation on 1 March 1979. The proposed subsection (3) states that—

In the Committee Stage I shall move that the word “not” be deleted, so that persons shall be entitled to a refund. This legislation will make the new scale retrospective to 1 March 1979 and tax will already have been deducted by employers to which the State has no right in terms of the legislation which we are now considering. I therefore make an appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister to consider this matter. I shall move in the Committee Stage that that shall pertain for the months of March, April and May and, if it is going to go on into June, I shall ask that June also be included. There must be some sort of a cut-off date. The hon. the Deputy Minister can tell me whether it will be at the end of June that the current system based on the old scale will be cut off and the new one will be introduced in fact, having been deemed to have taken effect on 1 March 1979. I believe that people who are in that situation are entitled to a refund. I can see that there may be practical administrative problems in establishing who the people concerned are, etc. But somebody has deducted the tax— in this case employers on the instruction of the department—and I believe it is perfectly feasible for that money to be refunded. I make an appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister to look at this matter and to consider it sympathetically, because it will be a considerable amount of money spread over the working Black population from whom this tax will have been collected.

Then, for my own satisfaction, I want to ask one further question in connection with something in the Bill I do not quite understand. In terms of clause 13 section 5 of the Community Councils Act, 1977, is being amended by the addition of certain subsections, of these, the proposed subsection (6) states—

That we can understand, but that is followed by—

There is a clear obligation on the Minister to publish any decision of the council which is required to be published to give it the force of law. It is, however, specifically and categorically stated that the community councils shall have no powers to make regulations. As I understand it that matter is taken care of further on, in clause 15. I would be grateful if the hon. the Deputy Minister could explain the position to me because there appears to be a contradiction. I can understand that no regulations shall be made, but why is there then a proviso which says that, in the case of anything which requires publication to give it the force of law, the Minister shall be obliged to publish it? I would be grateful for an explanation.

We shall support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Mooi River said this evening on behalf of his party that they are going to support the Second Reading of this Bill. In the course of his speech, however, he advanced no reason at all why they intend doing so …

[Inaudible.]

On the contrary. This is a special occasion, for the hon. member for Houghton and I apparently agree that the hon. member for Mooi River did not advance a single reason why his party wishes to support the Second Reading of this Bill. From the beginning of his speech to the end he opposed the Second Reading of the legislation, but to my mind there is a party political reason for that.

You are dumber than you look.

In the course of his speech the hon. member for Mooi River said that his dwindling party is also in favour of our maintaining influx control in South Africa. He said this because he and his party are very well aware of the grave consequences it would have in South Africa’s present setup if we were to abolish influx control completely. In the same speech, however, the hon. member goes on to say that his party is in favour of our having influx control in South Africa and, I suspect, that we the authorities should have the power to enforce it, but then he adds in the same speech that they are going to move in the Committee Stage that clause 5 of the Bill be deleted.

It relates to the fine of R100.

Clause 5 is that clause in the legislation which sanctions the State to apply influx control…

It increases the fine from R100 to R500.

… to restrict people who violate the influx control measures.

You are wrong.

I do not think it is worth arguing any longer about this matter with the hon. member for Mooi River.

As far as the official Opposition is concerned—that is the hon. member for Houghton and her lieutenants—there is a basic difference between us on this side of the House and the official Opposition. I believe this is a generally known fact and I do not wish to debate this with the hon. member for Houghton. The hon. member for Houghton and, I think, the hon. member for Mooi River as well, pleaded tonight that the Government grant a moratorium to transgressors of the provisions of the Act in this regard. I do not believe there is a single Black man in South Africa nor a single White man in South Africa, due to our special circumstances, who is not fully acquainted with the requirements of the State dispensation in South Africa in this regard. All people, including Blacks and, even more important, Whites, who transgress these provisions, do so deliberately to challenge the authority of the State.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

My time is very limited. Nevertheless these hon. members continue to plead that people who deliberately transgress these regulations, should be further accommodated.

It is also a known fact that the Government has on many occasions repeatedly warned people who transgress in this regard that transgression of the influx control regulations in our particular circumstances can no longer be tolerated. Consequently, if people do not want to listen, and if they deliberately challenge and defy the State’s authority in this regard, there is no alternative to the method for which provision is made in clause 5 of the Bill, i.e. that drastic measures be taken against such people.

The official Opposition is now very piously alleging that we are here encroaching upon the field of the law of supply and demand in regard to labour. The hon. member for Houghton has told us in heart-rendering terms that the Whites who now want to employ these unfortunate Black people in our urban areas, are actually rendering a service to those Black people and are doing them a favour. [Interjections.] In the same breath she said that it is the duty of the State to provide accommodation for these Black people who enter the urban areas in an unorganized and illegal manner. [Interjections.] I have never yet heard a plea by that party, addressed to the big White financial interests, in which they say that they too have a duty …

Punt, do something about this guy. Switch him off.

… to provide accommodation to those Black people whom they want to employ for their particular benefit. It is not pointed out to them that it is not primarily the duty of the State to provide accommodation to these people, but the duty of the employer who wants to employ those people. [Interjections.] I do not want to say much more about that matter.

What is strange, however, is that the official Opposition is now also protesting against the provisions of clause 10. Surely it is generally known, and I think the hon. member for Houghton and the official Opposition know it, that the hon. the Minister of Finance has already also spelt it out in his budget speech that as far as the inequality in the tax scales between Black and non-Black is concerned, a committee has been appointed to investigate the matter. This disparity will be eliminated over a period of three years with effect from 1 May 1979. What we are dealing with tonight, is only the first phase in the elimination of that disparity between Black and non-Black as far as income tax liability is concerned.

We just wish to appeal to the official Opposition not to become over-hasty in their excess of zeal. There are practical problems on which I do not want to elaborate tonight. However, in the first place, the hon. the Minister of Finance has given notice in the budget speech of his intention of seeing to it that the disparity which still exists, will be eliminated completely over a period of three years.

With respect to both Opposition parties, I therefore wish to allege that none of them have advanced any real reason why the one party is going to vote against the Bill and the other party is going to vote for the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, when one listens to the hon. member for Barberton one is filled with fear and remorse at the sentiments expressed by him. He seems to forget that we are dealing with human beings with feelings and responsibilities, who have to be fed and who also have the responsibility of feeding their families and children. I do not know whether the hon. member for Barberton understands the meaning of unemployment, understands what it means not to be able to get work, to earn a living and to feed one’s family. If he did he would not speak in this House, in such a cold and calculating manner, about the masses of people living in South Africa today.

It is a callous disregard.

Yes, it is callous disregard. [Interjections.] There are many aspects of this Bill which have not yet been touched upon and which I should now like to touch upon. I want to support the reasoned amendment moved by the hon. member for Houghton on clauses 5 and 10 involving fines and taxes. I shall refer to them in a moment. Hon. members may perhaps call it a more positive side of the Bill. We do not say that the Bill is all bad, but we do say that clauses 5 and 10 are so bad that we are obliged to move a reasoned amendment, as we have done. However, it is necessary for me, on behalf of hon. members on this side of the House, to mention some of the clauses of the Bill. I will do that in passing, and I will be referring in particular to clauses 5 and 10.

First of all I must mention that I do find it peculiar that—and I refer to clause 2— section 9 of the Black Administration Act, 1927, should be amended. It seems as though there is some doubt about when actions actually constitute contempt of court when such actions bear references to a commissioner court. The present Act has been in operation for more than 52 years, and I am just a little bit amazed to learn that a commissioner has never before had the power to fine someone for contempt of court Perhaps the hon. the Minister will be kind enough to explain to us why, after 52 years, it has now become necessary to amend the Act in order to provide for contempt of court. Of course, I do agree that the commissioner should have the power to impose a fine for contempt of court. I do not dispute that at all. A commissioner’s court is a very important court because it deals with so many aspects concerning Black people, and it is also has very wide powers, as we all know.

I now want to deal with clause 6, in which it is sought to amend, inter alia, section 38 of the Blacks (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act, 1945. In this respect the amendment is aimed at enabling the urban Blacks council to take part in the control of—

This, of course, is a measure with which we agree. What surprises me, however, is why this should be linked with the knobkierie provision. What this has to do with knobkerries I do not quite know. Paragraph (nA), which is to be inserted after paragraph (n), in section 38(3) of the Act, is to stand in a rather awkward place in the Act, because paragraph (n) reads as follows—

Why this particular paragraph should be made (nA) is not clear at all. Surely, paragraph (o) deals with the question of tariffs of fees and charges. I would suggest that the proposed new paragraph, seeing that it deals with the supply of electricity and water and the fees attached, is not in its correct place. I feel it would have been more appropriate had this particular stipulation been inserted after paragraph (o), as paragraph (oA), instead of (nA). However, I am only mentioning that in passing. Nevertheless, this remains a very necessary provision, because it provides for Black urban councils to gain control over the supply of electricity and water in their own residential areas.

It is my conviction that the supply of electricity to an area such as Soweto is of paramount importance. In view of the vast population concentration in Soweto one finds it hard to understand why, after all these years, that township still has to make do without electricity. One can just imagine the insecurity and sense of lack of protection that have to be endured by all those people who have to live in total darkness night after night. It is my contention that the unlit streets of Soweto is a major contributing factor to the incidence of crime in that township. I do remember the Government approaching the Johannesburg City Council, quite a good many years ago, requesting them to initiate an electrification programme of Soweto. I think the main reason behind this request by the Government was to promote the idea of the introduction of television into that area. I believe it is important that the people of Soweto should be enabled to enjoy the privilege of television. This will only be possible once electricity is being supplied to them. Television will not only serve as a medium of entertainment to them, but— and this is what is really important—will bring them into contact with the rest of the outside world.

I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us why the electrification programme of Soweto has been delayed for so many years. We know that private enterprise was prepared to tackle the problem by way of an initial reticulation system that would have cost approximately R60 million. However, the Government dragged its heels and ultimately turned down the offer made by private enterprise and other institutions. As far as I know, with prices having soared in the way in which they did, it will now cost something like R115 million to embark on a programme of supplying electricity to Soweto. I think the hon. the Minister owes us and the country an explanation in regard to this.

I also want to refer to the clauses dealing with community councils, and I am referring to clauses 13 and 14. Here I have the same difficulty as the hon. member for Mooi River with the word “not”. I do not quite see how the word “not” brings about the effect that the hon. the Minister says he wants, and that is to remove the doubt as to whether or not community councils have the authority to make regulations. I would say that in terms of section 5 of the Community Councils Act, 1977, they have been so empowered and have made regulations. If, however, there is a gap in the law, we shall obviously support any effort to close such a gap. It is very necessary for us to stop treating community councils as stepchildren. It is necessary for us to give the maximum powers to community councils elected properly and by democratic process on a ward basis. They should therefore be given teeth. They should be given every power to run their affairs as local authorities and to fit in with other local authorities. We should like to see them having the same powers and functions as those of Johannesburg, Springs, Benoni, Durban, Cape Town or anywhere else. We should like to see them functioning on a regional basis. We should like to see them have representations on regional metropolitan boards like any other local authority. We should like to see their members properly trained in local authority matters and we should like to see them represented on the United Municipal Executive and municipal associations, playing their full role.

Although this may be a step in that direction, I do not think it goes far enough. The hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and Development, who is not in the House at present, has I think made certain promises. There are also committees that are studying this matter. In addition to this it is time for adequate planning to be provided in these areas, for the very reticulation we are talking about, on proper town-planning lines so that it can be developed as a city and play its role and so that the people there can live under far better and happier circumstances than they are living at the moment.

Let me just mention the question of the department’s new name. The hon. member for Parys was a little shocked at the word “plurals”. I think his objection has been answered. However, I accompanied certain hon. members in this House aboard a certain frigate. We saw the naval exercises being very efficiently carried out by our Navy. I was talking very casually to one of the officers on board, and I noticed that there was a gentleman who was not White. I asked whether the crew members shared facilities and whether they got on well together. His reply was: “Oh yes, Sir, we have no problems. We have 34 Plurals on board.”

He was a Prog. He must be a Prog.

I now want to come to the issues in this Bill that have caused us to oppose the Bill and to move the relevant amendments. Firstly I come to the question of raising the fine in terms of the amendment to section 10bis of the Blacks (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act. I quote the existing section 10bis which reads as follows—

This brings us to the proposed new section 10bis(2) which is inserted by clause 5 of the Bill before us. The relevant fine is being raised to R500. I wonder if hon. members on the Government side realize the extensive implications and the serious nature of what is being done here. A fine of R100 is already a very stiff fine and should of itself control the situation, but in his address to us today the hon. the Deputy Minister said that it is necessary that the matter does not get out of hand. In their speeches, however, not a single Government speaker has told us in what way the matter has got out of hand. How has the matter got out of hand? How many prosecutions, can the hon. the Deputy Minister tell us, have taken place, thus indicating that the matter has got out of hand, so much so that it is now necessary to raise the fine to R500 for a first offence, and for a second offence a minimum sentence—no maximum sentence applies—of R500. By providing such a minimum sentence for a second offence, one is now circumscribing the discretion granted to any court. This is a very high fine which has been provided for. What is the result of this going to be? The result is going to be that one is going to frighten the employer into not employing people. What are those who are in employment at present going to do? It will upset the whole business, the whole household and the farms where the people are working. Where they are in a prescribed area, one will just have to dismiss them and tell them to get out.

I had a case in the Cape about which, I think, I told the hon. the Deputy Minister during a debate in the Other Place. It concerned a person in the Cape who wanted to employ a Black man as his chauffeur. He had known him and his family for something like 12 years. The person duly applied to be able to employ the Black man and he was referred to the Department of Labour because there is a kind of job reservation in favour of the Coloured people in the Western Cape. The Department of Labour turned down the application, this person was not allowed to employ the Black man as his chauffeur. Is that fair?

What is going to happen to those Black people who cannot be employed? This applies not only to the Western Cape, but also to Soweto, the area I know so well. There are one million people living there. I want to invite the hon. the Deputy Minister, and any other members—and I am aware that many hon. members have been there—to pay a visit to Soweto so that they can see the hundreds, if not thousands, of young, idle people who are no longer at school and who are unemployed. What are those people going to do to earn a living? They will turn to crime. There has been an increase in the crime rate. There is large-scale unemployment, and unemployment is the most dangerous factor facing the security and future of South Africa. Unemployment breeds discontent and discontent leads to other things which hold very serious implications for this country. We dare not risk a situation whereby we are going to increase unemployment. Yet, that is precisely what the hon. the Deputy Minister is doing in this Bill. That is why we feel so very strongly about the principle contained in clause 5.

If a White, Coloured or Indian wants a job, he does not have to go through this whole rigmarole to gain employment. He can offer his labour anywhere in the market; he is not confined to certain areas. We are, however, confining the Black man to a specific area, and having done this, we then place the burden on him of having to obtain such a permit, which nobody else has to obtain to work. How does one explain that to the world? Is that not unfair? That is why we feel so strongly about the actual principle. What is more, the Government is exacerbating the entire situation by increasing the fines applicable, which will frighten the very devil out of all the people with regard to this type of employment. This is a very serious matter.

I would venture to guess that there must be thousands of employers in South Africa today who will fall foul of this provision. If they were to be prosecuted today, there would be thousands of prosecutions. That is why the plea made, on behalf of the PFP, by the hon. member for Houghton on moratoriums is more than fair. It is the very least the Government can consider doing to enable these people who are in employment at present to remain in employment. Such hardships must not be created for the very people one has to look to provide the peace and security for us in South Africa.

The other matter to which I want to refer very briefly is the question of general tax. The hon. the Deputy Minister in his Second Reading speech said, inter alia—

He went on to say—

That is explained further in an explanatory memorandum which the hon. the Deputy Minister has made available. In this explanatory memorandum it is stated that—

Can the hon. the Deputy Minister please explain to us where the disparity is reduced and how we are to make a calculation on the basis of the example the hon. the Deputy Minister has given. He has referred to a White married person with three children, but how can we check whether the gap is being closed if we are not told what the earnings are of this White married person? With what scale are we supposed to compare this? How do we know the hon. the Deputy Minister is closing the gap when he does not give us all the facts? If he tells us that a White married man with three children earning X thousand rand is being compared with a Black man earning Y thousand rand, we shall know on what scale to base our calculations. However, on the basis of the example the hon. the Deputy Minister has given us, there is no way in which we can make a comparison.

The next point I want to raise with the hon. the Deputy Minister is that, even if he gave us the figures, there would still be no way in which we could compare the tax assessment of a Black man with that of a White man, for the very simple reason that the Black man, whether he is married or not, is taxed as a single man and so, too, the Black married women is taxed as a Black single person. The whole basis of taxation of a White married person is therefore completely different from that of a Black married person. It is therefore impossible to compare these methods of taxation. In the circumstances, the tables we have been given do not make sense at all. As the hon. member for Houghton has mentioned, the Whites in addition receive various additional rebates. A White married person receives a primary abatement allowance of R1 200, which, according to the hon. the Minister of Finance, is going to be increased to R1 500. The primary abatement allowance in the case of unmarried persons is going to be increased from R700 to R1 000. Furthermore, the primary abatement allowance in the case of people who are over the age of 60 will also be increased from R700 to R1 000. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether any of these abatement allowances with regard to children are incorporated in the tax assessment of Black people. Do Black people receive the benefit of an abatement if they are over the age of 60 years? Are they then also entitled to claim tax rebates in respect of any contributions towards annuity funds, pension funds, insurance schemes, medical schemes, etc.? It is no good the hon. the Deputy Minister making wild statements here which mean nothing, while, on analysis, it is clear that there is the greatest difference in the world between the approach to Black taxation and the approach to White taxation.

If the hon. the Deputy Minister can tell us that it is the Government’s policy to narrow the gap and to put the taxation of Black people on the same basis as the taxation of Whites, we shall welcome that He has the opportunity to do so now. Why does he let it slip by? Clause 10 contains the entire scale of taxation proposed. The hon. the Deputy Minister therefore has the opportunity to bring the taxation of Blacks as much as possible into line with that of Whites and to restructure it. If the hon. the Deputy Minister wants to treat Black married men and women as single persons for tax purposes, he should also consider the pleas which have been made that White married women should be taxed separately. However, that is not the hon. the Deputy Minister’s headache. It can be discussed with the hon. the Minister of Finance at a later stage. However, as this stage I think it is time for the hon. the Deputy Minister to grasp the nettle, come clean and introduce a Bill that we can support As it stands, the Bill is unacceptable to us. Under these conditions we have no option but to move our amendment and vote against this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity of addressing a few words to the hon. the Deputy Minister about clause 5, because I regard the provision in clause 5 as one of the most cynical and disgraceful acts that the Government has perpetrated this session. [Interjections.] I want to tell Government members that in all realism they must understand—and they know—that there are tens of thousands of Black people who are today in illegal employment. This is common cause. We all know this. We accept it. It is because of a crazy ideology that comes from that side of the House that people who want employment, who actually have employment and who have people who want to employ them, are employed illegally. [Interjections.] There are tens of thousands of people in South Africa today who are assisting the economy and who are needed in the economy. My life has been spent in the building industry—in fact, I still have connections in the building industry—and I can tell hon. members that there are many, many building firms all over South Africa, particularly here in the Western Cape, which cannot get Coloured labour and which are struggling every day with the department to get permission to employ more Black people, but they cannot do so.

That is not true.

That hon. member says that is not true. I shall prove it to him, if necessary.

Prove it then.

I am sure the hon. the Deputy Minister knows that there are tens of thousands of Black people who are illegally employed. Is that correct? [Interjections.] In considering the whole matter of influx control, one could imagine some sort of reason behind it if it were a case of somebody who cannot get a job not being allowed to live in an urban area, but this is not the rationale behind it at all. These are people who can get jobs and do have jobs, many of them, as I think most of us know from personal experience, having been employed for years and years. The result of this provision, in all realism, is that those people who are prepared to take a chance for a fine of R100 are now going to say that the game is not worth the candle. Thousands of people are going to lose jobs. This is, of course, the intention of the other side of the House. At present, in a situation of tremendous unemployment, with many people virtually starving all over South Africa, the situation is going to be further bedevilled by this provision. The hon. the Deputy Minister has seen something of the areas these people will have to go back to. He has seen something of the Ciskei, and I am sure he is not proud of that. One can also look at areas such as Zwelindinge and Oxton, where people are dumped down—dumped I say—in the middle of the veld with nothing to do, with no means of subsistence, where starvation is prevalent and where there are no jobs. [Interjections.]

That is untrue.

Have you ever been there?

That hon. member says that is untrue. I can tell him that I would be only too pleased to take him along any time he likes and show it to him.

All right, I shall take up your offer.

If he is prepared to close his eyes to it like all hon. members on that side of the House and to commit immoral acts like this by putting legislation on the Statute Book which I regard as totally immoral, unchristian if you like … [Interjections.] Many members on that side of the House claim to be Christians. They claim to be moral people, but I would say that they are fooling themselves. I do not know whether they do it wilfully or whether they just do not know.

They do it profitably.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Orange Grove entitled to suggest that the members on this side of the House are unchristian? Is that Parliamentary?

The hon. member may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.] I want to tell that hon. member that what that side of the House is doing is immoral, and I speak as a Christian when I say that I believe it is unchristian. [Interjections.] I believe that when people are starving although jobs are available, but are not allowed to come to town specifically to get jobs so that they can feed themselves and their families, it is immoral.

And take the bread out of other people’s mouths.

How do they do that? That hon. member says that they are taking the bread out of other people’s mouths. I again challenge hon. members on that side of the House. There are certain industries at the moment that are forced to employ Black people illegally because they cannot get other labour.

You want cheap labour.

That hon. member again says that we want cheap labour, but I am not prepared to accept that argument either. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must not converse so loudly.

He is a “bitterbek”.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member allowed to call me a “bitterbek”? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Are you ruling that that is permitted?

Yes.

Well, it has never been allowed before.

You are also a “bitterbek”.

Since it now appears that “bitterbek” is an allowable word in this House, in spite of past precedents, I should now like to say I have every good reason to be a “bitterbek” in a situation like this, because I believe that the actions of hon. members on that side of the House are quite disgraceful and dispicable. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must moderate his language.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Previous Speakers have ruled that the word “despicable” is not permissible.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word.

Mr. Speaker, may I address you on this point? Previous Speakers have, on other occasions, ruled the word “bitterbek” as being unparliamentary. In the case of “despicable” I am unaware of what previous rulings were.

Order! My ruling about “bitterbek” is not under discussion.

I shall accept your ruling, Sir.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “despicable”.

We shall see about this later.

I withdraw it, Sir. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether I am getting any protection from the Chair at all this evening?

Order! Is the hon. member reflecting on the Chair?

I am not reflecting on the Chair, Sir. I am asking a question.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that word and continue with his speech.

I have withdrawn the word “despicable” already, Sir, but I am being attacked from other parts of the House, and it does not appear that I am getting any protection from the Chair.

Order! I am warning the hon. member now for the last time …

I have withdrawn the word “despicable”.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Are you prepared to reconsider your ruling in regard to the word “bitterbek” in view of page 169 of the Presiding Officers’ Manual?

Order! No, I am not. Those are not a Standing Order of this House.

In that event, I am withdrawing from this Chamber. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, having withdrawn the word “despicable”, I want to continue by saying that the actions of hon. members on that side of the House are totally immoral.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I am just bringing to your attention the fact that the hon. member for Orange Grove has not yet withdrawn his insinuation against the Chair when he asked whether he receives no protection from the Chair.

Order! I have ruled that the hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member for Orange Grove used the word “immoral”, and I just want to know whether it is permissible.

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

I now want to try to put a more practical point of view to hon. members on that side of the House, and whether they accept what I say or not does not really matter as far as I am concerned.

I know how industries like the building industry are continually bedevilled by their inability to obtain labour that will do the jobs that are necessary for the economic welfare of South Africa. In the building industry something like 20% to 30% of the labour, at any given time, is illegally employed. If hon. members on that side of the House do not believe me, I suggest that they talk to labour inspectors who know it, but frequently close their eyes to it because they know of the situation in which the building industry finds itself. So, because of that side of the House’s ideology and its views on where Black people should or should not be, the economy of South Africa is suffering.

It is blooming.

The hon. member for Bellville says the economy is blooming, but I challenge him to say that to the Black people who are unemployed at the moment. I challenge him to say that in the Ciskei or in many homeland areas where the people are starving, in fact where 12 to 15 people are living off one old age pension. In those areas little pot-bellied children stand in front of houses with nothing to do, no schools, no educational opportunities, while their parents have no job opportunities. They often have no food in their bellies … [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must not converse so loudly.

When I see areas like that and children being brought up in the squalid circumstances in which they are being brought up, I wonder what sort of generation of Black people is being bred in South Africa at this time. I wonder whether my children are going to be safe being brought up together with those Black people in the same country. If I were a Black person in those circumstances, I would be very bitter. I would feel very bad towards the Government. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must now come back to the Bill.

Clause 5 of the Bill relates to the fine in respect of a contravention of…

Yes, but the hon. member is not discussing the fine.

Mr. Speaker, I shall now discuss the fine. I believe, and I make a plea to the hon. the Deputy Minister to realize what he is doing in regard to this fine. The result of his action here is going to be that tens of thousands of Black people, who at present are holding jobs are going to lose them. They might be holding them illegally. I shall accept that. However, they are going to lose those jobs, and the net result is going to be further unemployment, a worsening of the unemployment situation in South Africa, and is going to involve a considerable degree of suffering. My plea to the hon. the Deputy Minister is that he should please grant the moratorium which is being asked by the hon. member for Houghton.

Mr. Speaker, I have just listened to one of the most objectionable speeches I have heard in this House in the nine years I have been here. I want to tell the hon. member for Orange Grove that he is nothing but … [Interjections.]

Order!

… a whited sepulchre. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: An hon. member called this hon. member an “inciter”, which is clearly unparliamentary.

Order! Did an hon. member call the hon. member for Orange Grove an inciter?

Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I withdraw it. [Interjections.]

The speech made by the hon. member for Orange Grove this evening bordered on total and flagrant incitement.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is it permissible for the hon. member to use the words he has just used? He uses an unparliamentary expression and then adds that the speech “bordered on” that. It is exactly the same thing. [Interjections.]

Order! I wish to appeal to hon. members not to abuse one another in this way. We are conducting a debate and the debate has to proceed.

Mr. Speaker, for the sake of stating the facts, for the sake of fairness, for the sake of reasonable debating and for the sake of stating the opposite of the absolutely blatant and irresponsible allegations made by the hon. member for Orange Grove in this House this evening, I ask you to afford me the opportunity to reply to those allegations and to put this matter in fair perspective at least.

The hon. member for Orange Grove spoke this evening as though he and his party had the patent right, the sole right, to Christianity and morality in dealing with Black people in South Africa. This is a flagrant untruth. It is a disgrace that an hon. member on that side of the House accuses hon. members on this side of the House of not manifesting Christianity, piety or humanity in dealing with the Black people in this country. It is a disgrace for an hon. member to tell such irresponsible untruths in this House.

It is because he is a communist.

I do not want to say this behind the back of the hon. member for Orange Grove, but I am telling him to his face that he is a political “bitterbek”.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: An hon. member called the hon. member for Orange Grove a communist. [Interjections.]

Order! Which hon. member called the hon. member for Orange Grove a communist?

Mr. Speaker, I did. But I did not call the hon. member a communist only. I called him a communist blackguard. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must withdraw those words immediately.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw them. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Lydenburg may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, the allegation made by the hon. member for Orange Grove that hon. members on this side of the House had no sympathy for the unemployed Blacks in this country, is an absolute violation of the truth. It is not only an absolute violation of the truth, but also an irresponsible allegation. It is an allegation which incites racial feelings in this country. [Interjections.]

That is what Lorimer wants. [Interjections.]

I submit that the hon. member for Orange Grove is acting irresponsibly towards Parliament and towards the people of South Africa by making such outrageous, racist, inciting, rash, unsubstantiated allegations here in this House. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, let us examine the hon. member’s allegations. The hon. member is opposing a clause which provides for penalties when certain laws and regulations are contravened. We are dealing here with whether or not these should be an uncontrolled influx of Black labourers to the prescribed areas and to employers in the prescribed areas. What is the hon. member for Orange Grove advocating? What the hon. member is advocating amounts to any person in illegal employment being allowed to remain in such employment undisturbed. No action is to be taken against such persons. The hon. member advocates that the influx of Black people to employment opportunities in prescribed areas be allowed in a virtually uncontrolled fashion. These are the facts, the substance of the hon. member’s submission this evening.

Furthermore the hon. member said here with a pious face that this cruel, inhuman, unchristian Government had no sympathy, no humanity, no compassion, that they wished to rob the Black people of an opportunity to work. That is the essence of the hon. member’s argument.

That is what your action amounts to. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Green Point says this is what the action taken by the Government amounts to. With those words the hon. member is confirming precisely what I have been saying all this time. [Interjections.] The solution offered by the hon. member for Orange Grove to the problem of unemployment in South Africa, is that influx control should simply be abolished, that people should not be fined when they employ other people illegally. However, what the poor hon. member does not realize, what the poor hon. member apparently cannot understand, is that when there is a certain number of employment opportunities and there are more work-seekers than employment opportunities, a situation arises in which there is a surplus supply of labour. Surely this must inevitably give rise to unemployment, whether or not influx control is applied. [Interjections.]

The only thing the hon. member for Orange Grove will achieve in this manner, will be to move the unemployment problem from wherever it may exist—possibly in the backward areas—to the metropolitan areas of South Africa, and, of course, with worse results than those caused by the unemployment situation in the backward areas. The hon. member for Orange Grove did South Africa and the Black people as well as race relations in this country a disservice this evening. He told the Black people— and in so doing he told them an untruth— that there is a solution to this problem of unemployment, and that the solution can be found in abolishing influx control. Surely we know that this is not true. All he will achieve, is to move that problem to the metropolitan areas of South Africa. That is what that hon. member wants. He does not want only one Crossroads here in Cape Town; he wants 20 Crossroads here. This is precisely what he will be creating by persisting with that policy of his.

This evening the hon. member for Orange Grove advanced the most illogical argument I have ever heard in this House. [Interjections.]

It is because he is too stupid to know any better. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, since this is the first occasion on which I am dealing with a Bill in this House in my capacity as Deputy Minister, I should like to express my sincere gratitude on that score. I also want to express my sincere gratitude for the incorrect arguments and the incorrect train of thoughts which came from hon. members on the opposite side. Similarly I want to express my sincere gratitude for the correct arguments and the correct train of thoughts which came from hon. members on this side of the House.

In my task there is one thing which is priority No. 1 to me. That is to keep in mind at all times that when I speak of the Black people, they are going to listen to what is said. For that reason I want to express my strongest dissatisfaction with certain ideas expressed by hon. members of the Opposition. When we speak in this House of oppression, of unemployment, of starvation, and the like, when we speak of morality, of unchristianliness and of cruelty, and the Black man reads what the White people say of them, we should be absolutely ashamed of ourselves for those thoughts.

Two aspects in particular emerged from the discussion of the Bill before us. They are the provisions of clause 5 and clause 10.

With regard to clause 5, the hon. member for Orange Grove had a great deal to say in connection with the building industry. I want to give the hon. member a practical example, in all sincerity, of what exactly is involved here. A few years ago, when there was a strong upward trend in the building industry, a building contractor admitted quite openly to me that for economic and business reasons he added, say R2 000 to his tender price for building a house so as to cover his fines for using illegal labour. He did this for the sake of his own personal financial gain. We know, of course, what happened afterwards. That building contractor suffered a set-back along with the whole building industry. Up to this day, however, that building contractor does not care at all about what happened to those people whom he had employed illegally. Nor does he care about what became of their families or where they found a livelihood. He was an exploiter par excellence.

The allegation was made here that the Government was supposedly acting callously towards people. I am going to quote another example which will serve as a reply to the arguments raised by the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Hillbrow. As part of my task, I visited the labour bureaux and aid centres last year. Now I want to refer to a single case. In doing so, I want to illustrate the full spectrum of the legislation. I visited an aid centre in Pretoria. I found approximately 200 Black people at the centre, people who had been admitted to the centre because of certain problems. As I was walking about in the centre, I saw a Black man who appeared reasonably intelligent to me. The poor man was, however, obviously frustrated. I asked him to tell me quite frankly how he had come to be there. His words were: “Sir, I came from beyond Marabastad, from the region of Hammanskraal. I came from there. I came to visit my brother here.” He is, of course, entitled to be in the area for 72 hours. “My brother and I went to the café where we bought fish and chips. The café owner asked me whether I wanted a job. He gave me a job and I worked for him for one week. He was going to pay me R10, but when I asked for my money at the end of the week, he told me to get lost, as I did not have any papers. As I was walking in the street they picked me up.” It is that café owner who has no respect for people, who has no morality or feeling for Black people. It is that type of person who does not care whether the Black man has work, a home or a family. [Interjections.] This legislation has been on the Statute Book since 1945. Two years ago, because of this type of irregularity, the then Minister and the hon. the Minister of Justice issued a joint statement to the effect that a fine of R100 should be imposed, that no admission of guilt should be accepted and that each employer should testify personally. This was done because of the fact that people like that have no sense of value and order and do not care for human relations but is only intent on exploitation. The increase in the fine underlines this fact, but the hon. member did not refer to this.

Now I should like to quote a few passages from the Report of the Riekert Commission in an attempt to clarify certain matters.

†I refer hon. members to page 155, paragraph 4.152, under the heading “Findings”—

1. (a) The unlawful employment of Black workers …

What is at issue here is not the employment of Black workers. The accent falls on the “unlawful” employment of Black workers—

*This is the crux of the whole matter. What is at issue here is not unemployment but unlawful employment. [Interjections.] I have never said that if a man has a job or a home, we should take those things away from him. I can give hon. members the assurance that I do not begrudge a man a job of work, a home and a family. All that is asked for in this proposed legislation, is that one should not act unfairly towards people for whom one is actually responsible. People are so fond of referring to the Western Cape, but not one of them will say a single word about the 4 000 heads of families who are here legally at the moment and who are unemployed. Is this not our first priority? Is this not our first priority as regards illegal influx, lower wages and the exploitation of the Black man? [Interjections.] Not a single cent is contributed to the welfare of those Blacks, not one cent to his livelihood and social structure. He is exploited, virtually like an animal that only has to render a service, like a person who has been taught to bring the “madam” coffee at six o’clock in the morning.

That is Prog policy.

Now I should like to deal with a few aspects concerning clause 10. We can discuss this further in the Committee Stage. The hon. members for Houghton and Mooi River asked me why there was still disparity in the tax system. The hon. member for Barberton made it very clear that the Government abolished the R2,50, the old so-called head tax, last year and that Black tax on a low level was substituted for it this year. There are certain phases that have to be passed through to make the tax system uniform, and the Government is engaged in doing this. In the tax system for Whites single persons are taxed at a higher rate while thousands and thousands of Black people who are single, are taxed as married couples with three children. The tax base for a married Black with three children was taken as the median line. Now one finds a small group below the median line and a small group above the line. The whole idea is to make this equal. But there is another facet as well. If we now have to bring the income tax on an individual basis for 3 million Blacks into line with that of the Whites immediately I want to ask the hon. member for Houghton whether she thinks we have the machinery to send complete income tax assessments to 3 million Blacks as we do in the case of Whites. Does she think we have the machinery to check the personal income of each Black person.

But that is what you are doing.

In this case we have a tax in respect of the Blacks which we gradually want to bring into line with that of the White man, as we are able to do so.

The hon. member for Mooi River asked me about the refunds. Personally I have great sympathy with this. Tax is, however, determined on an annual basis by the Treasury. Our biggest problem is to eliminate the two months and to determine how much we have to refund to each person. The big problem is that administratively it is impossible to research every case. There are a few who are prejudiced, and I admit that openly, but to pay back the deductions for two months, is an impossible task. The two months fall away simply because the tax year covers the period from March to February, and unfortunately we have to do this. We do not like this criteria ourselves, but it is simply because it is physically quite impossible to make refunds now because both employee and employer might have changed, and then we will simply start discriminating and encounter major problems.

Can we take the matter a little further in the Committee Stage?

We can discuss this further in the Committee Stage.

I should like to thank the hon. member for Parys for that which he said about community councils. I want to admit to him that there are officials and even leaders of administration boards who still do not really understand what the Government’s intention is in granting full autonomy and full local government rights to the community councils. I want to say that if this is so, those people will have to think the matter over soon, and if they do not do this, they will have to offer their services somewhere else. I agree wholeheartedly that we cannot tackle something half-heartedly.

I am very sorry that the hon. member for Orange Grove got up to speak. I do not think he intended speaking. I want to suggest to him rather not to read his own Hansard. I think he should rather forget about it.

I will be very happy to read it.

The hon. members for Houghton and Orange Grove dealt with the question of the moratorium. This Act has been in force since 1945. The Act does not deal with anything else. The Act only applies to those people who do not want to take the trouble to register their employees and to assure that their employees are allowed to be in the area. I have given hon. members the assurance that we shall judge those cases on merit. However, those people should take the trouble to make an attempt to have their employees registered. If they are employing someone illegally, they can simply pick up the telephone and ask whether something cannot be done to register the people who are in their employ and to whom they are able to offer accommodation. This is a matter which, also according to the Riekert Commission is of the greatest importance. The report refers to the two pillars of labour. The first is the question of accommodation. I quote from paragraph 4.152(e)—

Therefore I am afraid that the onslaught of the PFP is aimed at one thing, and that is to overthrow the entire system—an hon. member of the PFP admitted this—of influx control, labour control and control of people so that the poor can flock to these areas and unrest can be caused. I want to tell that party that they are trying to overthrow the Government by creating unrest and anarchy, by exploiting the employment situation and by inciting people. We are not going to allow this.

The hon. member for Mooi River referred to the new name of the department. I agree with the hon. member for Parys that there cannot be such a thing as a “plural”. One is either this or that. One cannot be plural if you are single. [Interjections.] I do not begrudge the hon. member for Parys the story which he made up about the remark.

These few general observations will have to suffice. There are certain statements made by hon. members to which I did not reply and I can give them the assurance that when it comes to the Committee Stage, I shall give specific replies to those statements. I should also like to thank all members, particularly the chairman of the commission of inquiry. I appreciate the commission’s share in the investigation and the discussion which they had with the Department of Finance on behalf of the department.

Mr.

Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.