Mr. Chairman, I ask for the privilege of the half-hour.

Since we last met to discuss this particular Vote several developments have taken place and I should like to mention them very briefly. First of all there was the appointment of the Manpower Commission, which we heard about in the debate last year, a commission headed by Dr. Reynders and Prof. Van der Merwe. I think it is in order for us to congratulate both these gentlemen on their appointment. There is also the appointment of the president of the industrial court, Prof. Nic Wiehahn. This is also a very senior and strategic appointment, and I shall have a little more to say about that a little later in my speech. Then, of course, there was also the appointment of Mr. Jaap Cilliers as one of the Directors-General in terms of the new approach adopted in the Public Service. It is a very well-deserved promotion, and I should like to pay tribute to him and his staff, in fact the department as a whole, for the courteous and efficient way in which they have responded to questions I have tried to put from time to time.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister of Manpower Utilization why it is that we have yet to have sight of the Wiehahn Commission’s second report. I understood from Prof. Wiehahn himself that this report had been handed to the State President some several weeks ago. If that information is correct, I am wondering why such an important report should be delayed. So I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether, in the course of this debate, he would give us some information, if he is able to, about when this report will be tabled. I should also like to ask the hon. the Minister whether or not it is contemplated that there will come, before this House, legislation arising out of the second report of the Wiehahn Commission.

I should now immediately like to move on to basic premises, as outlined in the first Wiehahn report. Time will only allow me to focus on two of these, but I do believe that they are both central, and for the sake of a meaningful debate this afternoon and this evening, I hope that the two items I am going to raise now will be referred to by hon. members on both sides of the House.

First I should like to refer to an objective stated in the Wiehahn report to the effect that industrial peace should be preserved and promoted. One often overlooks the fact that South Africa’s labour history, e.g. between 1880 and 1920, was beset with labour unrest. Those who know this period will understand that the relative labour and industrial peace that South Africa enjoys can only be traced back to about the middle of the 1920s, rather than to the very beginning of industrial development in this country. So when we look at 1979, we see that by South African standards this was not a good year. Official statistics of work stoppages indicate that more man-days were lost in 1979, viz. 67 099, than in any other year in the ’seventies, of course with the exception of 1973 and 1974, which were very unusual years, as the hon. the Minister knows. Quite clearly the mineworkers’ strike, involving White mineworkers, contributed substantially to the increase in man-days lost. However—and I think it is important for the House to take note of this—in addition the number of work stoppages involving Blacks increased, as did the duration of some of the stoppages, and I am sketching this in relation to earlier years, with the exception of 1973 and 1974. We can, and indeed must, recognize that the days of the so-called passive Black worker are over and gone forever. This means that management itself requires much more skill at the interface than has been displayed heretofore. In addition I would like to suggest that we must give far greater attention than we have to what I would call, for the purposes of debate, shop-floor mechanisms, because I believe that is where the conflict will come, if it comes at all. The Wiehahn Commission understandably, up to now at least, stressed the legal framework and the key role of the industrial council system, but I hope that the commission itself has given, and will be giving, specific attention to the shop floor.

White trade unions in the past have not been all that strong on the shop floor, at the interface. Obviously there have been and still exist shop stewards, but in the main at that interface level between worker and management direct and now between worker and worker, sometimes between Black and White workers operating in the same area, in the same job, there is, I believe, a vacuum, and any vacuum can be dangerous. I believe that one of the reasons why specific attention has not been given to this in the past is that White workers have had enormous advantages going for them. I am, however, prepared to forecast today that this is going to change for all workers, and we must be ready for it.

I want to suggest several ways in which we could improve this situation. Firstly, I am convinced that the way out of this dilemma is to beef up or strengthen works committees. I want to stress immediately that these works committees or works councils at the local level must be organized, and the election supervised, by management and the trade union concerned in partnership. I have referred many times in the House to the two-tier system in Germany which has such an outstanding record. For the works committee or council at the local level to have teeth and to assist in the maintenance of industrial peace, it must not be seen as an institution in place of the trade union, but rather as an expression of it, as a part thereof, provided the constitution and the organization are worked out between the trade union, or labour, and management in partnership.

Secondly, another way of approaching the promotion of industrial peace at the interface is to take another look at the industrial court. I feel very strongly—and this is not the first time I have said it—that this court ought to be part of the judiciary and that, therefore, its president ought to be a judge. Labour relations is something that has enormous potential for good but also for conflict. Therefore the industrial court must be seen to be concerned not merely with interests, but with rights. In this House and publicly elsewhere I have always stated my profound respect for Professor Wiehahn, but I do not believe that his appointment as president of the industrial court was a wise one. If one by way of comparison looks at the situation in Germany, at the industrial tribunal in Great Britain or, even nearer home, at the labour court or the industrial court in Kenya which has been working very well, one sees that the industrial court in all of these countries is part of the judicial system. I am persuaded that that is how it ought to be for us also. I put it to the hon. the Minister that this would assist the industrial court in its very necessary and vital work. When one considers the number of cases and the variety and intricacy of the cases that will come before the court, it seems to me that I do not have to motivate this argument any further. In any event, over and above that suggestion, I believe the industrial court must publish as soon as possible its rules and procedures. It may be that they have been published already, but I certainly have not seen them and I hope the hon. the Minister will tell us when one can expect that. There must also, without delay, be a clear definition given of what constitutes “unfair labour practices”. If we do not have that, it seems to me that the industrial court cannot really even begin to do its work. There is a lack of clarity surrounding this court, which in some instances has led to suspicion. I watched Prof. Wiehahn being interviewed on television and I gained the impression, perhaps quite wrongly, that one of the assurances given to White workers who are concerned about the developments that are taking place, was that if job reservation was going to be scrapped, for example, they should not worry, because they would be protected by the industrial court. I am not saying that that is the intention, but I am saying that there is considerable suspicion at the moment amongst trade-unionists, particularly Black trade-unionists, who believe that this may be used against them. That, of course, strengthens my argument of why there should be a judge, rather than someone who is actually part and parcel of the Department of Manpower Utilization itself.

Where did you get that information?

I cannot hear what that hon. member is saying, but even if I could, I would not bother to answer.

Another way in which we can reduce the conflict at shop-floor level and elsewhere is, I believe, to strengthen, and not to weaken, Black trade unions. I say that because I believe that one must have strong management and strong labour if one is going to have a healthy partnership. There is nothing worse than a weak manager or a weak trade union, and instead of some people trying to weaken the trade unions, whether they be White or Black, one should rather ensure that they are strong so that they can maintain the necessary discipline over as many workers as possible. Here I am not merely referring to the need for sensitivity and for training, but also and particularly to the need to avoid the scurrilous pamphlet which was issued by the hon. member for Sasolburg in his capacity as secretary of the Government’s Manpower Study Group. This pamphlet, entitled “Ons is Bekommerd oor Swart Vakbonde”, reflects a hostile, suspicious …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon. member speak of a “scurrilous pamphlet”?

Order! The hon. member for Pinelands may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [Interjections.] I am actually understating the case. This pamphlet, which was distributed very widely on the Reef and perhaps also elsewhere, reflects a hostile, suspicious attitude towards Black trade unions and will certainly not fill any of the leaders of the union movement with any confidence at all. This pamphlet is, I believe, political, a sop to right wing White workers, and I hope that the hon. the Minister will, during this debate, dissociate himself from what I can only describe as a negative and destructive approach.

The final point I want to make under the heading of preservation and promotion of industrial peace, is the need to accept the Wiehahn recommendation relating to freedom of association. It seems clear to me that a fairly general use of ministerial exemption indicates that Government policy is moving towards the acceptance of “mixed” unions, for want of a better word. However, the acid-test lies ahead, namely the application of Black unions for full multi-racial status, including the right to have racially mixed branches and racially mixed executives. I want to urge the hon. the Minister as strongly as I can to move ahead, not merely by exemption, but also by enshrining in the laws of the land the concept of the freedom of association. I can see nothing more damaging to the prospect of industrial peace in South Africa than having two competing, racially defined unions in a single enterprise, and the recent events at the Ford Motor Company, are but a single example of this. The second major point I want to make with regard to the preservation of industrial peace, is to take yet another sentence from the Wiehahn Commission’s report, something which has my full support, and that is—

We have a grim story of waste and neglect of precious human resources in South Africa today. That is the harvest we are reaping. The blame for this must be shared by the private sector on the one hand often hiding behind the Government, or behind White trade unions or its White employees, often finding it more profitable in the short term to employ so-called cheap Black labour in abundance, and on the other hand the Government more especially by its educational policy and its restrictive legislation which is nothing short of naked racism. However, now the harsh economic facts have caught up with South Africa and there is general agreement that training of the total work force is one of our major priorities. In this one is greatly encouraged by the hon. the Minister and his department’s initiative with regard to “Manpower 2000”. Unfortunately I do not have the time to dwell on this. It is something very new, we are looking at it and I hope that we are going to hear a little bit more about it and its objectives from the hon. the Minister or from hon. members on the other side of the House.

I am also encouraged by statements made recently by the hon. the Minister, in particular by a speech which he made at a conference in Natal. In essence that speech made it clear that the Government had no objection to both the training and placement of skilled Black workers in so-called White areas. Despite this there are any number of hindrances to the adequate usage of the total work force. I want to list some of these briefly. Firstly, I believe that the attitude of some employers remains negative. It is an attitude which I have experienced at first hand and which can be spelt out as follows: In a boom period, when things are going well, the employers say that there is simply no time to train workers at all as they have to get on with the job. When, on the other hand, there is a slack period they say they cannot afford to train workers because the situation is working against them.

This is a vicious circle, and I believe that it must be stopped. In this regard I am wondering about the significance of the statement made by the hon. the Minister of Finance in his budget speech when he referred to “a central training fund to ensure that the financing of all training functions is coordinated.” I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether this means that we can anticipate what could be called a pay-roll levy or charge on the wage bill of all companies to ensure that education and training are adequate, or what other plans does the hon. the Minister have in this regard? I believe that the attitude of some employers is one of the limiting factors on training in South Africa.

Secondly, I want to refer to the attitude of the bureaucracy. There have been numerous complaints from management stressing that red tape is strangling many genuine attempts. Some officials seem to delight in giving management representatives what I can only term a real “run around”. The situation is so serious that only six of the 96 schemes proposed since October in terms of the In-service Training Act have won final approval. One prominent managing director of a company said only recently that the rebate in terms of this Act applies only to formalized training schemes and not on-the-job training, which of course is so vital and important. Sometimes approval has to be gained from not only one Government department, but two or three. In addition the documentation required is formidable and places a heavy administrative burden on companies that want to be involved in training schemes. There are those managements that are prepared to do this, but they have a major reservation. Rightly or wrongly, some of them seem to be of the opinion that the training rebate will be stopped in the near future or will be cut down. I would appreciate the hon. the Minister’s comments on this aspect.

I also believe that the attitude of some White trade unions is restricting training. It is very understandable that some of them are confused, suspicious and sceptical because of the emphasis being placed on Black training. They are not altogether sure whether management, in particular, is just using this as another way to secure cheap labour. I believe that it is up to management and Government to give the necessary assurance to White workers that their jobs are not at risk and that reverse discrimination will not take place. The fact of the matter is that there are jobs for all in South Africa, if only Black and White would co-operate. Co-operation is needed between management, labour and the Government and between Black and White workers.

Finally, a further hindrance to training is the basic educational standards. There is no question that again and again a company wishes to take a group of Black trainees only to find that they simply lack the basic fundamentals. So anything one does in training has to give attention to the basic educational system in South Africa. There are suspicions amongst Black workers and leaders that Blacks will be drawn into the artisan level, even to apprenticeships, but that they will be on a second-class level. In order to off-set this suspicion I believe that all workers must enjoy freedom of movement, that training of artisans should be done together, that all technikons should be open to all races and that standards, opportunities and rewards must be equal. Blacks who are trained must, like any other worker, be afforded first-class status, otherwise Government statements and management intentions will be seen to be nothing more than a gigantic fraud.

Mr. Chairman, it is very clear that the hon. member who has just resumed his seat was not present last year when we discussed the Industrial Conciliation Act and the amendments thereto. Unfortunately he was in hospital when the debate he wants to conduct today was concluded last year. In the second place, the hon. member is now referring to the strikes we had last year. Unfortunately this is true, but the hon. member is just as aware as any one in this House that they were illegal strikes caused by Mr. Arrie Paulus and others. The hon. member is therefore using an extremely poor example.

The hon. member for Pinelands opened the debate in a very calm way today. Last week, however, he made quite a scathing attack on the Government and on the hon. the Minister of Manpower Utilization in the budget debate. The hon. member singled out two points in particular, namely the issues of unemployment and the shortage of skilled manpower.

Are they not important?

The hon. member also referred to the paradox that we have unemployment and at the same time a shortage of skilled manpower. I say this is important, and I am still coming to that. What is not important is the accusation made by the hon. member that this side of the House, the Government, in particular the hon. the Minister, did not do what they ought to have done to prevent unemployment and promote the training of manpower in South Africa. It is for that reason that I am taking the hon. member to task, and why I want to spend some time dealing with him.

Very well, carry on.

Let me say this: The training of manpower in South Africa is a problem. The hon. member for Durban North, who is a responsible member, made the projection here that we can expect a shortage of 50 000 skilled workers by the year 1984. I agree wholeheartedly, but what has the Government done as regards the training of manpower in South Africa that it should be accused of doing nothing? We need only look at our latest budget and the amount voted for education and training in South Africa, and add to that what is spent by the provinces on the education and training of our youth, to see that it amounts to a sum of R1 720 million, whereas five years ago it was only R964 million. One cannot therefore accuse the Government of not having done its duty as far as education and training are concerned. Surely, however, it was also this side of the House which, some years ago, allowed tax concessions relating to the training of manpower. I do not want to say that this had the desired effect. There may have been problems in that regard. I, too, have my reservations about that and I am coming back to that. However, the Government went further. Who was it who came up with in-service training schemes, pre-in-service training schemes, the training of adults, improvement of artisan training and the curtailing of the period of training of an artisan? It was this very Government. However, the Opposition comes along with these accusations. Who appointed the Wiehahn Commission? The NP appointed it. What did it give rise to? It was on the basis of the recommendations of the Wiehahn Commission and in terms of the legislation we passed last year that a National Manpower Commission was established under the chairmanship of prof. Hennie Reynders. I want to congratulate him on his appointment, because I do not think we could have had a better or more suitable person to perform that task. The terms of reference, the function, of that National Manpower Commission is to investigate these very issues of the requirements of our manpower, the training of our manpower and also the utilization of our manpower. Thus the Government has taken positive action.

Now, however, I want to deal with the shortcomings which, in my opinion, exist and which contribute towards the shortage of skilled manpower that we have in South Africa. In this regard I asked a very responsible firm to perform some research for me. I refer to Iscor. Iscor’s Pretoria works signed up and employed 700 apprentices this year. To train an apprentice costs R12 000 over a period of three years. He has to do practical work for 93 weeks; that is two years. His study time consists of a further year. In other words, he is in one’s employment for three years. For one-third of that period he is totally unproductive. It is calculated that his productivity over the three years in which he is being trained, is worth R5 000 to a firm. In other words, to train one skilled man over a period of three years means a financial loss of R7 000. Therefore, if a firm had an intake of 700 artisans in only one of its industries, that represents a financial loss of R5 million. I therefore maintain that the concessions available to industrialists to obtain tax relief are inadequate.

Now I want to point a finger at the private sector. They are the people—and I do not mean all of them—who complain from morning to night and blame the Government for the fact that the country does not have trained manpower. Surely it is their task, too, to train people, but unfortunately we in South Africa are in the position that people who want to expand their workshops are engaged in despoliation on the biggest scale ever. What do they do? They wait until a man is trained, and they then pay him a few rands or a few cents more per hour, and he is poached. Basically those people in the private sector are not doing their rightful share. You level the accusation that the Government has not done its share.

I talked about the private sector.

Yes, wait, I want to mention this to you. Last year a total of 9 800 apprentices were signed on.

Order! Hon. members must address one another as “hon. members”.

I am sorry if I did not do so. Last year, 9 800 apprentices were signed on and 1 200 of them went to the Railways. That means 13% of them. Then those hon. members still accuses the Government of not doing its share as far as training is concerned. The S.A. Railways, the Post Office and the city councils all train people, but they cannot get those tax concession, because they are not tax-payers. Therefore the taxpayer has to contribute towards making up the losses of those people. The taxpayer has to pay to get those people trained.

I therefore want to make a very earnest plea in this regard today and propose that we will only be able to solve this position in South Africa if we give serious consideration to imposing on every one in industry, every employer who does not train people, a levy of R20 to R30 per month per artisan in his employment. If he has had that man in his employment for 20 to 30 years, then he will have contributed compensation of at least R7 000 towards the other man who trained him. Then we could distribute those funds we obtain from those people who do not train, back to the firms that are prepared to train people in South Africa. [Interjections.]

We must consider our future in South Africa, and I believe we can maintain a 5½% growth rate—and we must maintain it, because by the year 2000 we shall have to create almost 8 million employment opportunities. I say this here today very frankly and without hesitation. If we are to man this country properly, and if we want our Black national States to develop properly and evolve towards autonomy, if we want to develop our border industries, we shall have to make use of the people of colour and train them as artisans. We shall have to do so. We shall have to electrify Soweto and other places.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, I am speaking about everyone. One cannot expect of the Whites to carry out the construction work in those homelands as well. We have enough work for those people in the White area of South Africa.

There is a second issue which I regard as a problem, viz. the issue of the young men performing military service. I want to say to hon. members that I am not pleading for exemption or postponement of national service, because I think it is the duty of every young citizen of South Africa to do his military training. However, there is concern about many of the young men performing military service who have not matriculated. When he has completed his two years military service … [Time expired.]

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

Thank you very much. I am discussing those young men who perform military service. After that young man has completed his compulsory military service—others, perhaps, need not perform compulsory military service—he has leeway to make up. He may then go and do an ordinary operator’s job in a factory because that gives him an immediate financial benefit. We shall also have to give very serious consideration to ensuring that that young boy is trained as a properly skilled artisan after he has completed his military service. I now want to deal with the unemployment to which reference was made. I am the last to say that we should be indifferent towards unemployment. Unemployment poses a threat to any country in which it occurs. It creates problems. But surely it is not only South Africa that is faced with an unemployment situation. The whole world is in a state of economic recession. It is cause for gratitude that we are moving out of it. It goes without saying that unemployment had to increase in recent years. When we consider the growth rate, which dropped to 1,5%, we can surely understand why we are faced with unemployment.

We should really begin by looking carefully at the real unemployment situation in South Africa. According to the figures at my disposal, towards the end of February 1980 there were 25 000 unemployed among the Whites, Coloureds and Indians. This represents a meagre 1,1% of the economically active White, Coloured and Indian population. That is minimal.

You are living in a fools’ paradise.

Towards the end of February there were 168 000 Black registered unemployed workers in the White areas— unfortunately those are the only people about whom we have details. That is disturbing. The hon. member for Pinelands included the Black states in his figure of 634 000 in regard to 1978. I do not dispute that. Projections are being made varying from 500 000 to 2 million. Everyone works it out his own way. The question is, who and what is an unemployed person? However, we cannot be indifferent to it. Has the Government been indifferent to it? On the contrary, the Government has done everything in its power to create employment opportunities in South Africa. We debated the matter the whole of last week. It is a pity to have to talk about it all over again, but sometimes one has to do it two or three times to get it into some people’s heads. As far as State expenditure is concerned, the Government has cut its budgets to the bone over the past few years. There has been no real growth in Government expenditure. The Government has curbed its expenditure, but has nevertheless done everything in its power to providing incentives specifically for the industrialist, the private sector and the individual. In the year 1978–’79 more than R1 500 million was replaced directly in the hands of the private sector. What happened then? Over that period of two years our growth rate increased from 1,5% to 3,75%. In the latest budget the Government is making R1 560 million available—an amount equal to both the amounts for the previous two financial years, and is putting it back in the hands of the private sector. Clearly, now that our growth rate has increased from 1,5% to 3,75% in the course of two years, and now that we have stimulated the economy to the extent we have done this year with an amount equal to the amount spent over the past two years, we must expect our growth rate to increase more rapidly in the coming year. Therefore we need not be so pessimistic as far as unemployment in South Africa is concerned.

There is a company that carries out surveys regularly in this country and publishes projections with the aim of ascertaining the employment potential in South Africa. Very recently we received the report of Manpower which arose out of the 16th quarterly survey they carried out. What was the finding? Those peoples’ finding was that in the quarter April to June this year the situation will be rosier than ever before as regards the employment of people, and in any event better than in the previous 15 surveys they carried out. Therefore I cannot share the pessimism of some people. I believe that in view of the stimulation provided by the budget, the question of unemployment is going to disappear in the future like mist before the sun.

I now come to a third aspect and in this regard I associate myself with the hon. member’s congratulations to prof. Nic Wiehahn and to Mr. Jaap Cilliers, the former secretary who has now been promoted. I also want to deal with the hon. the Minister. This side of the House, under the leadership of the hon. the Minister, is being accused of lacking the necessary planning and of being too shortsighted. Indeed, the hon. member for Pinelands spoke about a comedy of errors. What has the hon. the Minister done? He has shown the initiative to come forward with the idea of “Manpower 2000”. In February I had the privilege of being in Stellenbosch, where the project was launched. The biggest industrialists in South Africa are being brought into the picture, as well as our trade unions and the educational world. The programme was launched on 31 March this year by the State President. The aim is to make every young person, every citizen, whether he be Black, Brown or White, aware of our labour situation in the country. We all have to co-exist here and therefore everyone in this country must work. We must utilize to the full the potential of everyone in this country. To me it is important that the hon. the Minister took the initiative of coming forward with this project. On behalf of this side of the House, I want to convey my sincere congratulations to him on his leadership, in having launching so important a project in the interests of the nation.

Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by telling the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark that we agree with him on many of the factors to which he referred. I am referring, for example, to the question of using people of other race groups to train them as artisans. There are other aspects which he mentioned in the course of his speech with which we also agree. Of course, one may expect that there are many aspects about which we do not agree. I trust that the hon. member will understand that I shall not be able to deal with every aspect individually and to discuss them with him. In the course of my speech, however, I shall have some remarks to make about them.

†My party would very much like to associate itself with the compliments and best wishes to Dr. Hennie Reynders, who has been appointed as chairman of the Manpower Commission, and Prof. Van der Merwe. We should also like to wish the Director-General, Mr. Jaap Cilliers, the best of luck. Our felicitations also go to Prof. Nic Wiehahn on his appointment as president of the Industrial Court. In fact, if one reviews the past year, one will see that in terms of the implementation of the Wiehahn recommendations, these two bodies, with the august people who are leading them, probably represent the most significant change in labour relations and the development of labour potential and employment in South Africa in our short history of industrial development. Allow me now to deal straight away with the hon. member for Pinelands. I should like to indicate to him that we in this party have a slightly different attitude towards industrial courts. It is strange that at the time when the Wiehahn recommendations were made in the report, we did not hear very much about that from the PFP at all. At that stage they did not really reveal their attitude towards the establishment of an industrial court.

We did. We did so in the debate.

I should like to know whether the hon. member for Pinelands has in fact changed his stance in any way regarding the comments he and his party made in 1979.

Go and read the record of the debate.

The hon. member says I should read the record of the debate. I should just like to know from the hon. member for Pinelands whether he has in fact changed his stance at all. I should like to point out to the hon. member that when it comes to the question of multiracial trade unions, we in the NRP feel very strongly about local options. We believe it is the right of the members of a trade union to decide for themselves whether they want a mixed or a uniracial trade union.

The hon. member for Pinelands very strongly advocated mixed trade unions in terms of his argument put forward with regard to freedom of association, and one suspects that he would preferably not like to see local options offered at all, but that he would in fact like to reach the end of the development road before he has even started the process of constructively building sound interracial relations.

[Inaudible.]

I should also like to point out to the hon. member for Pinelands that although one may be aiming for specific objectives in terms of industrial relations patterns similar to those to be found overseas—he did quote West Germany as an example—he should nevertheless remember that we really have a unique situation in South Africa, a situation requiring unique solutions. I believe that with unique ingenuity we can achieve those objectives. I do not believe that the parallel in terms of what had happened in other countries, particularly Western Europe, necessarily applies to the South African scene. There, however, I should like to leave the hon. member for Pinelands. I am not going to say anything more about his speech. All I should like to add is that, like the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark, I do agree with him in other respects.

I think the review of the past few months has also indicated a considerable change in the attitude of the Government, and in particular we should like to record our appreciation of the hon. the Minister’s lifting of certain restrictions formerly existing in the Black Building Workers Act. This is something which will help the building industry in South Africa to a considerable extent. Not only will it help the building industry, but it will certainly also help with the development and the promotion of employment in the skilled categories amongst other race groups. This has been a contentious issue in the building industry and in employment relations for a long time. We are particularly appreciative of the fact that the hon. the Minister has seen fit to change direction in this particular aspect.

We also look forward with interest to the debate which is going to take place during the discussion of another hon. Minister’s portfolio. I am referring to the proposed legislation on physical planning. Without wanting to begin the debate on that particular legislation prematurely I should like to state that we believe that there again we are going to find a change in attitude towards the employment of members of other race groups. I leave the proposed physical planning legislation at that for the time being.

Then there is also the question of the finances provided by the hon. the Minister of Finance, the allocation of the R4 million for the promotion and training of skills, and also the possibility of the establishment of a central training fund. In this respect I should particularly like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will take this opportunity of explaining to the House what he envisages— although he may not yet have discussed it with the hon. the Minister of Finance—in terms of the objectives, the functions and the scope of the central training fund. I think this is important, particularly in the light of what the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark said here earlier this afternoon. We are most interested in hearing from the hon. the Minister what he envisages.

Then, unfortunately, there is also the other side of the coin in the South African labour scene. We have now had a look at some of the positives. We do, however, also sit with negatives. Among these is the increased unemployment. I venture to say—and I should be delighted to give any hon. member the figures should he wish to look at the analysis at a later stage; unfortunately I do not have the time now—that I believe that South Africa’s unemployment currently stands at 1,5 million people.

That could mean, if one looks at the dependency ratios of breadwinners, or money earners, to the people dependent on their salaries, that 25% of South Africa’s total population does not receive a regular income. This is a most disturbing factor—whether the figure is 1 million, 1½ million or 2 million— and will obviously become a top priority item, not only for the attention of the hon. the Minister, but also for the objectives, priorities and strategy to be employed by the manpower commission in its recommendations.

Then there is also the question of underemployment. The mobility of labour is absolutely essential in South Africa, not only geographic mobility, which will be facilitated by the amended Physical Planning Act, but also the upward mobility of labour, which we certainly require. The hon. member for Pinelands has reiterated what I called for in the Part Appropriation debate, and that is the fact that literacy training for existing employees is absolutely vital. In this respect I believe that the Manpower Commission itself will have to consider, as one of its top priorities, literacy training in the companies themselves or in in-service training centres. If we are to fill the skilled positions that we are desperately going to need in the next few years, we are going to have to train existing employees upward and move them up the skills ladder. It has been mentioned by the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark that I have previously mentioned— and the hon. the Minister will concur with me—that by 1984 the engineering and mining industries of South Africa will be short of a minimum of 50 000 artisans. Those are the people who, at great expense, are going to have to be trained in South Africa. The concessions granted by the hon. the Minister of the Interior in regard to immigration can obviously only be a short-term solution. I believe that we must use the vast reservoir of people who have the intellectual capacity in industry by giving them literacy training so that they can take advantage of the skills training available both in the companies, by way of apprenticeships, and also in in-service training centres.

There is also the question of where the jobs are going to come from. Here, in particular, the Manpower Commission has an absolute responsibility in determining and planning the strategy for South Africa in the future, and the future is the next five years, not some distant point of time. When one considers, as predicted by the hon. the Minister of Finance, an expected 5% growth factor in South Africa for the coming financial year, one realizes the desperate situation we are in in terms of trying to create sufficient work for all the people. A 5% growth rate, with the current economically active population, only represents employment for an additional 475 000 people. When one considers that there are over 1½ million people currently unemployed who were previously employed, and that there are 200 000 school-leavers entering the labour market every year, one appreciates that we require considerably more than a 5% growth rate in our GDP. The training of skilled workers from other race groups and the recruitment of workers by way of immigration are, of course, factors of vital importance and must receive the attention of the hon. the Minister and the Manpower Commission. For every skilled worker employed one also creates work for a further three unskilled workers to assist him.

The Manpower Commission will obviously have to take a holistic view of the macro-economic and social situation in South Africa when doing its planning. So I should like to know from the hon. the Minister what has happened so far in terms of the functions of the Manpower Commission. What have the members of that commission done? I know they have met on a number of occasions, but have they issued reports and what are their recommendations, with specific reference to the priorities recommended by that commission? I say this because one finds a disturbing trend in the South African labour market, and that is that companies, due to inflation and pressure for wages, have tended to convert from labour-intensive industry in South Africa, particularly in the manufacturing and mining sectors, to capital-intensive industry. [Time expired.]

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. Whip very sincerely for the opportunity. I know it is perhaps not very easy for him to do something like this, and for that reason I appreciate it.

†The hon. the Minister and the Manpower Commission will, amongst the various priorities, have to look at the shift that has occurred in our manufacturing and mining industries, from labour-intensive to capital-intensive industry. If one only looks at the agricultural sector it will be found that of the 1½ million unemployed I quoted, at least 300 000 farm workers who were previously employed are now out of work because of the decline in the agricultural industry. The number of active farming units in South Africa has dropped by 20 000 in the present day from the over 100 000 units in the past.

I should like to come back to what obviously is one of the most important…

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Von Brandis has badgered me for a long time in many debates on where the statistics come from. I should like to point out to him that there is a little pamphlet available in which things are set out very simply. The hon. member will therefore understand it quite easily if he has a calculator. It is entitled RSA Statistics in Brief—1980.

I am aware of that. But it does not show a decline …

All the figures I am using have been extracted from this pamphlet issued by the Department of Statistics. If the hon. member reads it in conjunction with the short-term economic indicators of January 1980 issued by the same department, he will arrive at exactly the same figures I did. However, if the hon. member has difficulty counting on his toes and fingers, I shall be happy to help him with an abacus.

I should like to move on to something I believe to be of paramount importance as well. I refer to the question of the in-service training centres. I want to relate this particularly to my previous statements that the in-service training centres probably form one of the most vital links in the training of skilled Black, Indian and Coloured workers. We find that there are, however, a number of difficulties related to the in-service training centres. I need not tell the hon. the Minister—we have told him before—that one of the great difficulties is that there are two departments dealing with in-service training centres. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister what he is going to do about a consolidation of the two in-service training laws to bring them under his own department. There are certain in-service training centres which are experiencing considerable difficulty due to the fact that they are only allowed to train Blacks and not Asian and Coloured workers as well. I should also like to mention to the hon. the Minister that, if one looks at the figures for most of these in-service training centres and one sees what occupations people are being trained in, the result is quite disturbing. The Manpower Commission will have to pay considerable attention to this question. In the Pinetown-Durban area there are approximately 130 000 Black workers and only 1,4% of those people went through the hands of the Pinetown in-service training centre. What is very disturbing is that of the 1 531 people who were trained by the in-service training centre only 85 were trained as welders and mechanical fitters. The rest went into supervision, which is also important, into salesmanship, the operating of construction plants, driving, etc. If we are to find skilled engineering workers, it is obvious that we are going to have to pay attention to the critical factors influencing the effectiveness of the in-service training centres.

Firstly, to reiterate, there are legislative problems. The two Acts need to be consolidated. They should both fall under the Department of Manpower Utilization. We shall also have to attend to the other difficulties being experienced: the financing of their building programme, their curriculum and literacy training. They will form a vital part of the literacy training programme. In order to achieve this, we must come down to practicalities. If we are going to train uneducated, illiterate workers in literacy training programmes or in technical-skills training programmes, I believe it is vital that the hon. the Minister’s department should set up a special work force of professional officers who are skilled in the administration and use of aptitude tests. The hon. the Minister has these people in his department. He has psychologists, psychometrists and psycho-technicians, but they pay attention particularly to disabled people, mentally handicapped people and the people who seek guidance.

That is important, but what is equally important is that the hon. the Minister and his department should establish a fairly large work force of people trained in the use of aptitude tests to service industry. They should be able to go into industry and the in-service training centres to assist companies with giving the Black workers aptitude tests. In particular, I refer to those groups spoken about earlier, i.e. those who will benefit from literacy training. These are the people who have already left school and who are probably over the age of 25. They will never return to school but they have the intellectual and mental capacity to benefit from further training. They have, however, never had the opportunity of literacy training. These are the people who must be tested. If we are going to spend a lot of money on training programmes, we must at least find out what the capabilities of those people are. I should like to appeal to the hon. the Minister to pay very specific attention to this very great need. We have tremendous organizations in South Africa who can train these people and provide equipment. The National Institute for Personnel Research of the CSIR is in a very well-positioned situation to assist the hon. the Minister in this regard. I believe it is absolutely imperative that we should have this, and I appeal to the hon. the Minister to devote his attention to it.

I would also like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will consider passing on tax benefits, fiscal benefits and monetary incentives to companies who want to conduct basic literacy training of their workers at in-service training centres or within their own companies. Unless we have some literacy training, it is going to be impossible to get the upward mobility of labour which is so essential in South Africa. I also want to ask the hon. the Minister, as previous speakers did, when the second report of the Wiehahn Commission is going to be tabled. The central training fund is of particular interest to my party as well and I trust that the hon. the Minister will be able to give us some indication of his intentions in this regard.

Regrettably, I must also refer to the deadlock which appears to have occurred in negotiations between the Department of Manpower Utilization and the White Mineworkers’ Union and other unions. We would be interested to know what the strategy is and we would be pleased if the hon. the Minister could tell us what his participation is in getting unions to register in terms of the envisaged objective of the Wiehahn Commission. It is also obviously of considerable concern to us that the White Mineworkers’ Union and the Government seem to be having very limited contact in recent times. These are important aspects for a vital part of our industry, and we would be interested to know what the hon. the Minister’s strategy is going to be in that regard.

Lastly, I want to say to the hon. the Minister that the problem which we have in South Africa is not one of sharing differently the cake that we have. What we must do is to make this cake bigger.

Hear, hear!

If we are going to make the cake bigger, we must make use of the vast reservoir of goodwill and capability amongst the other race groups in South Africa. It is the responsibility of the hon. the Minister, as the key man, to establish a sound foundation for political, social and economic development in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban North will pardon me if I do not follow up on his arguments as I want to give attention to another subject.

South Africa finds itself at an exceptionally interesting and challenging stage of its existence. Consequently the importance of the Riekert and Wiehahn Reports and the attendant White Papers cannot be overemphasized. It can indeed be said that these reports have brought about a new dynamic approach to the utilization of labour. However, it is true that these reports have also placed many disturbing warning signs on the road ahead, in all probability more than in any other period of our history. Consequently it is true that in the rank and file of our White work force, as I see it, there are many reservations on some of the recommendations contained in these reports. However, there are also many recommendations that are commendable, recommendations which, if they had been introduced years ago, would have succeeded in curbing the shortage of manpower.

If we look at the world situation, there are serious misgivings in developed as well as developing countries about the creation of adequate employment opportunities. It is estimated that between the years 1970 and 1980 there will be a shortage of more than 8 million employment opportunities in developed countries, with the result that unemployment will amount to approximately 19 million by the end of 1980 and will be even higher by 1990. However, the situation is even more alarming in developing countries. It is estimated that the shortage of employment opportunities will rise by 17 million between the years 1970 and 1980 and the unemployment figure will amount to 66 million by the end of 1980 and approximately 88 million by 1990. In South Africa, as has happened elsewhere in the world, the increase in employment opportunities has not kept pace with the population growth. The shortage of employment opportunities rose by more than 1 million during the period 1970 to 1977. This shortage does not apply to the agricultural sector and may consequently be regarded as very conservative. What is particularly alarming is that the unemployment problem has intensified considerably among the Blacks. According to estimates that have been made by certain labour economists, there was an increase of 274 000 in the labour force in 1978, of whom Blacks comprised 77% and Whites 9%. It is estimated that the annual increase in the labour market will amount to approximately 430 000 people by the year 2000, of whom Blacks will constitute approximately 83% and Whites 4%. These details form a limited picture of the real challenge which is facing South Africa in future.

We shall therefore have to make it our business in this country to create employment opportunities by maintaining a sound growth rate and accelerating the economic development in underutilized areas. In this regard the reports and recommendations of the Wiehahn and Riekert Commissions are of cardinal importance and lay the foundation stone for a new and dynamic approach to the better utilization of manpower.

We must also take cognizance of the practical implementation of certain recommendations, as well as of certain crucial issues on the road ahead. We shall therefore have to look at the creation of more employment opportunities, the training and retraining of workers and the preservation of industrial peace. The preservation of industrial peace must not be sacrificed when some of these recommendations are being implemented. Consequently I want to make an appeal today to those who are involved in this, to ensure that industrial peace will be accorded top priority.

It is my privilege to represent what is mainly a workers’ a constituency, and after 15 years I certainly ought, by this time, to understand the language of the White worker. I am utterly convinced of the fact that I am interpreting the feelings of my voters correctly when I tell the hon. the Minister that the White worker has serious reservations about certain recommendations of the Wiehahn and Riekert Commissions.

When we come to the training of other population groups, something which is obviously essential, clear guidelines and strong leadership will be required at all levels, so that the White worker need not fear that his survival will be endangered. Therefore the private sector will have to take careful note of this. They will have to bear in mind that it is the duty of every employer, every employers’ organization and every employees’ organization to improve interrelations, to increase productivity and to effect changes in the trade practices with a view to changing circumstances, but with due regard to the preservation of labour peace.

In the past too many employers failed to derive full benefit from all the opportunities that existed within the framework of official policy. Some employers even maintained that the existing policy handicapped them in their efforts to effect changes which they could in fact have effected within the existing policy.

The efforts of the Wiehahn and Riekert Commissions to promote a free market system by means of the elimination of discrimination in the work sphere, will undoubtedly result in increasing competition in the labour market, and this in turn could lead to possible labour unrest, owing in particular to the heterogeneous composition of the labour force in most industries and areas. Consequently employers will have to act with circumspection, particularly in the area of appointments, dismissals, promotions, the introduction of trade practices and the sharing of facilities on the factory floor; all of this in order to ensure that labour peace is preserved.

The sharing of facilities on the factory floor is something in respect of which the White worker is extremely sensitive. This is stirred up by the pride which he as White has in him and which is part of his being. This is an irrevocable fact, because by giving one person a privilege which he did not have before, a privilege is being taken away from someone else.

As far as the sharing of facilities is concerned, the hon. the Minister laid down the following guidelines: Firstly, it is the responsibility of the employer to preserve labour peace at all times in his sphere of industry. Secondly, when employers want to make adjustments in this field, they must do so after consultation with employees or with trade unions, where they exist. The employees must be afforded the opportunity of speaking, and their wishes must be taken into account. Thirdly, no employee may be compelled to accept changes. I address a friendly, yet cordial request to the hon. the Minister to ensure that all employers adhere religiously to these guidelines that have been laid down in order to preserve the labour peace, so that no threat is presented to our economic growth, development and stability.

I should now like to refer to the question of separate amenities and social security, as set out in chapter 6 of the Wiehahn Report. I want to confine myself principally to the Factories Act. As was pointed out by the commission, contemporary development, in the social sphere in particular, has given rise to the gradual relaxation of compulsory divisions between races, in respect of eating and other facilities in factories. These developments could be an expression of the general desire to move away from discrimination and has mostly taken place in consultation with the parties concerned. Some of the practices, however, are in conflict with existing statutory provisions, and consequently an unco-ordinated development seems to be taking place in certain areas which creates uncertainty and constitutes a potential danger to industrial peace.

In the White Paper the Government consequently spelt out its standpoint very clearly. Although the Government accepted the commission’s recommendations, it stated unequivocally that it was not its intention to allow employers to exceed the desired rate of development. If it appeared necessary for the Government to intervene afresh, it would not hesitate to do so. Therefore I should like to request the hon. the Minister in the last respect to ensure that this matter is approached with circumspection and that the provisions of the Factory Act are strictly applied if circumstances justify this.

In sensitive areas where offence could be taken as a result of certain actions, employers will have to act very adroitly indeed. We shall thus have to cultivate sound relations and bear in mind that we shall have to stand united at home as we have very few friends abroad. It is an undeniable fact that a prosperous South Africa will be built on sound labour relations, and I trust that the reports of the Wiehahn and Riekert Commissions will contribute to bringing about a better dispensation in the labour sphere. I am convinced that if all of us are prepared to co-operate and act positively, we can achieve this goal.

Mr. Chairman, allow me a few short moments only to refer to the hon. member for Durban North. There are not many things about which I want to cross swords with him, because he is a responsible member. I see his sense of responsibility is increasing too, because he has come round as far as to separate the concepts of “shortage of trained manpower” and “unemployment”; two things which are really not relevant.

The hon. member for Pinelands referred here to a pamphlet which was ostensibly published under my name by the manpower study group of the NP.

Yes, it is a disgrace.

I want to ask the hon. member for Pinelands whether he has any objection to any of the facts mentioned and stated in this pamphlet.

Are they facts?

Does he object to us saying that R700 000 has been channelled to these people in all sorts of ways?

Where do you get that information from?

That is a good question. We have the information at our disposal. I also want to ask whether the hon. member objects to saying that they join international bodies, which after all is a fact and can be certified.

The spirit of the pamphlet.

Now the hon. member is referring to the spirit of the pamphlet. Surely it is strange that both the hon. member for Pinelands and the hon. member for Houghton are outraged as soon as we touch on people who are pink to red in colour. What makes it more interesting is that a great deal of interest is also being shown in this pamphlet from other regions, and the hon. member for Houghton will probably be very interested if I tell her that the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, specially requested a copy of this particular pamphlet because they are interested in it in America. In the past there has been an unhealthy cross-reference between American interests in South Africa and hon. members of the Opposition. I want to leave it at that.

I want to say a few words this afternoon about the relationships between employers and employees, with special reference to the trade unions, with regard to the extent to which employees are concerned in particular. Trade unionism or the real concept of the trade union is about 130 years old. In about 1852 a farm workers’ union was established in Great Britain—and this is very interesting. It was the first one in history. Imagine: At the moment there is not yet any such thing in South Africa. At that early stage, the then Government of Britain apparently had a premonition of the monstrous proportions which trade unions would assume in Britain, and they banned this union or declared it illegal. They tried these people and on conviction they were sentenced to be deported to Australia. That is how a good number of British farm workers landed up in Australia at the time.

Since the advent of industrialization it has been increasingly important for the worker to organize himself in so-called trade unions in order to protect his interests and to negotiate on his behalf. Trade unionism in South Africa is in fact a direct legacy from the trade union system of Great Britain, but thank the Lord, our trade unions in South Africa, unlike those in Britain, are not obsessed with politics. Great Britain is one of the most glaring examples of how disastrous it is for a country when the trade unions of that particular country manipulate and control the country’s political system. In South Africa, strangely enough, we find that the tendency to political obsession, is only to be found amongst the extremists, the leftists, but in recent times, also in the rightest movement. At the same time, I want to pay tribute this afternoon to the trade union leaders of South Africa for what I want to describe as absolutely responsible and loyal South Africanship in the manner in which they conduct their trade union movement.

I wish I had the glowing language of the poet to pay tribute to these people for the absolute responsibility with which they have fulfilled their task as trade union leaders over the past decades. I can tell hon. members that over the past 18 months it has been my privilege to be able to communicate and exchange ideas on various occasions with smaller and larger groups of leading trade union leaders in South Africa, both English and Afrikaans speaking. One thing struck me throughout and this was the quality of the people, some of them rough diamonds. The quality of their characters, their sense of responsibility and the loyalty of these people towards South Africa, comes first, even before their own interests. South Africa is a very fortunate country to be able to have trade union leaders of this particular calibre. I want to pay tribute to these people this afternoon for the fact that they have freed themselves from the less favourable tendencies of British trade unionism of which they are legacy, viz. political obsession. However, at the same time I want to give these people a bit of advice, and this is that they should free themselves completely from the other error of reasoning in the British trade union philosophy, viz. that the boss, the employer, is the enemy of the trade union or worker, because this is not true. The State, employer and employee form tripartite partnership and are indispensable to one another for ensuring each other’s, and ultimately the country’s, welfare and prosperity in the future. In Britain the idea that the employer is the enemy of the trade union and worker, has become quite acceptable, and this has ultimately led to the culmination of trade unionism in what is known amongst the British as the “closed shop” agreement. I can just tell hon. members that this means that an employer who is attached to such a “closed shop”, may not employ, or keep, any worker who is not a member of the trade union. If a worker quarrels with his trade union and resigns from it as a result, the employer is obliged to discharge him immediately. Can hon. members realize what a sinister hold such an agreement must have over a business?

I also want to give some advice in the same vein to employers today. They must also move away from the old British concept that the two factions, the employer and employee, are one another’s enemies. A healthy reciprocal goodwill cannot but give greater sense, content and meaning to the employer-employee partnership and cannot but stimulate their productivity. I have a practical example in my constituency that I should like to mention to hon. members. One of the biggest businesses there, which has an affinity for the British system, also had such a closed shop agreement. As a result of their practical, sympathetic approach to the worker, the management ultimately proceeded to establish new liaison machinery, more or less along the lines of the works and liaison committees. The whole thing functioned so rewardingly and so satisfactorily that the workers ultimately went to the management and said: Sir, can you help us to get rid of the closed shop agreement? I can tell hon. members that they were successful. They destroyed the trade union and dissolved the agreement and I think I can perhaps say that in this regard Sasolburg once again represents a first in South Africa. I heard about the anomaly. I asked for an interview with the so-called works council of the business. I enquired from them how they managed to succeed. The spokesman who acted on their behalf, sketched the whole history to me and summed it up in the following few short sentences—

We can learn many lessons from this, but I just want to tell hon. members that far be it from me to ask for and defend the further strengthening of trade unions in South Africa, but the fact is that they exist, and that employers welcome them in many cases as a very handy instrument for negotiation and they use them as such. Whether trade unionism is ultimately going to become a monster as it has become in Britain, will depend exclusively on the attitudes which prevail between employer and employee.

I have already pointed out what benevolent behaviour on the part of an employer in my constituency accomplished in this regard. I now want to tell hon. members that this is only one of the first manifestations—and I want hon. members to listen to this very carefully—of a new facet of an industrial revolution which was initiated by the department and the Minister in South Africa. This afternoon the hon. member for Uitenhage already pointed out that the department and the Minister have propagated the philosophy that the employer is primarily responsible for maintaining peace and order on his floors in the industrial world in South Africa to an increasing extent. This is important, because it is a single component of a global and, in fact, enormous organization. It is much easier and more sensible to do it in this way than for a single department to try to control this entire conglomerate and maintain order. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I found the debate so far very interesting indeed, because the sentiments that have been expressed by hon. members on that side of the House who participated in this debate, are so very different from the sentiments they have expressed in past years. It appears to me that at last we are getting somewhere. How times have changed! Today I have heard utterances from the hon. member for Vander-bijlpark I would never have believed possible if I look at the debates of four or five years ago.

You are stupid, man.

Saul of Tarsus. He has been converted.

The hon. member for Uitenhage has talked about a dynamic new situation. I have heard words in praise of trade unions and trade union leaders coming from the hon. member for Sasolburg. It is a very different situation from the past and something to be welcomed. It appears that there is a degree of common cause in this debate for the first time in many years.

I just want to address one brief remark to the hon. member for Durban North, who has made on the whole a very good speech. He questioned whether the hon. member for Pinelands had changed his attitude to the industrial court during the last year. If he, as chief spokesman of his party on labour matters, cannot remember what happened last year in the debate on the Labour Vote and on the legislation resulting from the Wiehahn and Riekert reports, I would have thought that he would have brushed up a little bit and have read them again before suggesting that we have changed our minds on the matter of the industrial court.

There is one matter I should like to mention to the hon. the Minister. I regret that we have not yet received a report from the Department of Labour Utilization this year. It is unfortunate to have to take part in a debate of this nature without that report. I believe the report of the National Manpower Commission has just been made available. It is in my pigeon-hole at the moment. I wish that we could have had the opportunity to study it before the beginning of this debate.

Has it just been put there now?

It has just been put there.

I want to discuss the whole situation with regard to unemployment, which I believe can in many ways be regarded as the most pressing problem facing us in South Africa today. There can be no argument about it at all that this problem is an enormous one. The hon. the Minister himself has been reported to have described it as a “broeines van onheil”. He himself has assessed that there are more than a million people unemployed in South Africa today. Others, some of them academics, have suggested that the problem is even larger and that as many as 2,2 million people could be regarded as being without work. Whatever the actual figure, there is no doubt at all that the problem is enormous. In what the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark has described as a “paradoxical” situation, South Africa has a shortage of skilled labour and a high rate of unemployment at the same time.

The reason for this is quite clear in that we have an undersupply of skilled labour and an oversupply of unskilled labour. Of course, the way to rectify this is to create the circumstances in which as many unskilled workers as possible can acquire as fast as possible the skills that are so desperately needed. It is common cause that our first economic priority is growth, and I should suggest that the most important reason for wanting growth is to provide jobs to people who do not have jobs. If we are unable to provide jobs, I believe, we are in an extremely dangerous situation. The industrialist Mr. Anton Rupert has described us as sitting on the gunpowder keg of the jobless. Job creation is a pressing need because a man without a job is a desperate man. In this Dr. Rupert is quite right. Those who may wish to incite revolution in our country would find a fertile field among the unemployed. The situation is explosive. It is dangerous. It is getting worse.

Something over 270 000 additional people, largely Blacks, pour into the job market every year, and various economic development programmes have indicated that growth must be in the region of 6% or a little more a year in order to create sufficient jobs to absorb this intake.

I believe the hon. the Minister will probably agree with me that up to that 3% growth rate increase we could probably cope with the skilled labour requirement. With a growth rate of 5%, or even 6% or more, that could create tremendous problems. The training of people takes time. It cannot be done overnight. There is no way, even with the best possible intentions and the maximum amount of money, in which we could possibly train in a short while a skilled labour force adequate for our needs. We are for some time not going to be in a situation in which economic growth can be at its maximum because we are going to be inhibited— indeed badly inhibited—by this lack of skilled manpower. It is already manifesting itself as the hon. the Minister knows.

In this unfortunate set of circumstances, I believe, the responsibility rests on the shoulders of the hon. the Minister to create a situation in which unskilled and semi-skilled labour—and we cannot train them all—can be used to a greater degree. Even if economic growth is at its maximum we are still going to be faced with the problem of what to do with enormous numbers of unskilled workers, and if the population growth continues at its present rate, I sometimes wonder whether we will ever be able to keep up. There are, however, measures that can be taken in order to give incentive to industrialists to become more labour intensive. The first of these measures involves a change of direction in Government policy, and we might be getting this. The stringent requirements of the Physical Planning Act have until now been an active disincentive to employers of labour in urban areas to engage more Black labour. It has been the Government’s policy over a long period to discourage industrialists and others from creating job opportunities for Blacks in the towns. The hon. member for Vanderbijl-park—I see he is not in the House now—said the Government had done everything in its power to create job opportunities. That is not entirely true. They did everything in their power to create job opportunities as long as it was outside the so-called White areas.

I think we also have to accept that administrative procedures involved in the employment of Black people are a great deterrent. The result has been that industrialists have tended, when giving consideration to new projects, to plan for maximum automation and minimum use of labour. I will be the first one to admit that we have had to in the past and will have to automate in future in many industries in order that we can remain competitive in the world economy. On the other hand, however, there are many projects which could well be chosen to be planned as labour-intensive projects. I discussed this recently with somebody who has been associated with the compilation of over 500 capital expenditure plans prepared for some of the largest companies in South Africa. In many of these plans numbers of alternatives were considered, and very often a decision had to be taken between alternatives requiring more or less labour. In many cases the financial return from the alternatives of employing more labour on the one hand and less labour on the other hand were very much of a muchness.

There was not any great difference. He tells me, however, that in most cases the decision was taken to go for the less labour-intensive schemes because management was worried that schemes employing a greater amount of labour might take them over the boundaries laid down by the Physical Planning Act. Employers also felt that there were tremendous potential problems in employing a large Black labour force. It was a tremendous nuisance registering this labour. He added that the same problems were taken into account in considering capital expenditure on work to be done in some of the remoter areas of South Africa. In some cases this inhibited the benefits that might have been obtained from decentralization. There are many administrative problems, too, because of the lack of mobility which will be talked about by other hon. members in these benches. I think that the hon. the Minister and the Government as a whole must ask themselves a very simple question: Is it better to have a large number of Blacks gainfully employed in the so-called White areas or a vast number of unemployed? Is it better to have a Black population that has work, albeit in towns, than a tremendous number of unemployed who might be in the towns or might be in the country, because situations of unemployment tend to accentuate the flood of people to the towns, in many instances illegally? If this Government is prepared to create the circumstances in which there is advantage, rather than disadvantage, in employing more people I believe that we could see many more labour-intensive projects coming into operation, but I believe that we could see many more labour-intensive projects coming into operation, but I believe that the hon. the Minister and the Government as a whole must go further. Employers must be offered incentives to employ more labour. The hon. member for Pinelands raised this in the Second Reading debate of the budget and had an answer from the hon. the Minister of Finance who said he was prepared to go into the matter. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I found it most extraordinary to hear from the hon. member for Orange Grove that he was speaking, in his party, on behalf of a trade union. I have never known that hon. party at any time giving any thought to a trade union, White worker interests or Black worker interests of South Africa. I find it extraordinary in the extreme. I do not want to digress from what I wish to say, but I wish the hon. member for Orange Grove would stop this over-exaggeration when talking about unemployment. I do not disagree with him about the fact that we have a problem in this connection. Not at all!

Rip von Brandis.

The hon. member for Durban North, too, should not give a Miller interpretation of statistics. The figure he quoted here today I heard the hon. member quoting in the debate on this Vote last year, but he cannot produce any single fact to substantiate a figure of 1½ million. The hon. member for Orange Grove, not wanting to be outdone, gives an unemployment figure of 2,2 million. [Interjections.] Nobody, however, gives any consideration to the migratory labour problem we have in South Africa, or to other factors that are coupled to this. I do not want to state what has been stated so often, in the course of this session and more specifically in the budget debate, i.e. that the single most inhibiting factor in our economy is …

The Nat Government.

… the demand for skilled labour, if we hope to have a growth rate of some 5%. According to a researcher in the Chamber of Mines it is estimated that the shortage of White skilled labour in South Africa in the next 10 years, i.e. in 10 budgets’ time, will be 750 000. There have been other estimates made. This, however, is one I obtained from the Chamber of Mines’ manpower researcher. In all the researches there are indications of the very same trend throughout, i.e. the demand for skilled workers is rising at a much faster rate …

You don’t say.

… than the growth rate in the White population.

You don’t say.

This plainly means that in the producing sectors of our economy alone …

Rip von Brandis.

The hon. member for Bryanston is so thick in the skull that we can rarely get any intelligence out of him in a normal debate. Perhaps he would be prepared to keep quiet in this one?

I am congratulating you on finally waking up.

This trend therefore clearly indicates that the producing sectors of our economy will become more and more dependent on Black skilled labour. This is the case in the mining sector, the agricultural sector and the industrial sector, which are the three main producing sectors of our whole economy and on which our whole economy rests. According to all sources I have researched, less than 25% of our White population are employed in a productive capacity in these sectors of our economy, on which the whole structure rests. The bulk of the White population are employed in the service sectors of our economy, in service categories of our economic, national life. According to statistics as recent as October last year, of the 2 473 000 workers in the mining, manufacturing and construction industries, less than 600 000 were White workers. In quoting these figures, I am not even taking into consideration those employed in the agricultural industry.

I am of the opinion that in terms of percentages too few of our White youths in this regard are entering the skilled labour fields of our economy. Perhaps there are many reasons for that. One can in fact quote many reasons, for example the question of the social status attached to a person who is an artisan and not a white-collar worker. The fact remains that too few of our White youths are entering the skilled occupations. I think it is essential in the national interest that steps should be taken to motivate our White youths to enter in larger numbers into the producing fields of our economy rather than the service industries and that we should look elsewhere in regard to the service fields.

We are, however, faced with economic reality today. We cannot afford to have the economy stand still and consequently face the development of vast unemployed Black masses. Hence more and more workers of other colours have to be absorbed and trained. As far as the country’s labour situation is concerned and as far as the economy is concerned, we are in fact engaged in a race against time in South Africa. We have now for years worked on the old system of apprenticeship and training in which from time to time, as the occasion has arisen, we have effected some changes. The fact remains, however, that in regard to the training of non-White workers there are stumbling-blocks in our existing legislation. To a large extent they are stumbling-blocks in the way of the further training of Black workers in South Africa. I think this is clearly indicated when one has to read in a prominent newspaper in our country, namely The Star of Johannesburg, of 15 January 1980 the headline: “The First Three Blacks Break the Apprenticeship Barrier.” While we have been talking for the last 15 to 18 months of the absolutely urgent need to train non-Whites in skilled occupations, only in January this year do we read in a newspaper, as if it is a news story, that the first three Blacks have broken the apprenticeship barrier. I believe we should take another look at the apprenticeship legislation and that this should be done in conjunction with the trade unions. Whether we like to admit it or not, the fear has existed over the years on the part of White workers that the training of Black workers would permit unscrupulous employers to exploit such labour to the detriment of White labour interests. I think that the White workers of South Africa today take another view of the situation. They look at it realistically, because today they see greater security for their position in a booming economy than in a stagnant economy.

With the recognition of Black trade unions, a step taken by this Government, and the recognition by the hon. the Minister of mixed trade unions, also a step taken by the Government, all workers, regardless of the colour of their skin, now share the same interests in the protection of their rights, their wage and their salary scales.

That is music to my ears!

Better late than never!

Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. member for Pine-lands lives in an Alice-in-Wonderland situation. He comes here today as if he has discovered something new. Has he been hospitalized for the past year?

In this regard it is interesting to note the attitude of trade union leaders. I want to quote the attitude of a prominent trade union leader talking about the past fears that were held by White workers. I am not going to quote his whole speech as my time is limited, but he did say, inter alia—

In die huidige opset waar verandering die tendens is, moet ons onsself nie blindelings wend op ’n pad van vrees nie omdat dit maklik met ons kan gebeur dat die vrees vir ’n verandering baie erger sal wees as die verandering self.

He goes on to indicate that there is no need for a White worker in South Africa to fear the urgent training of a Black worker to maintain an economy and a growth rate in South Africa, because it would be economically to the benefit of both the White worker and the Black worker. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that the time has come that the White workers of South Africa are prepared, in the interests of South Africa, to have another look taken at some of the old and out-dated outlook towards the training of labour in skills in industry in our country. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, for the sake of good order and because a few of the matters which were raised are now being disposed of, I think I shall now enter the debate. I wish to extend my sincere thanks to hon. members on both sides of the House who participated in the debate this afternoon. Mr. Chairman, you will allow me to say that it was interesting to listen to the great variety of subjects which were broached and discussed in greater depth, something which indicates that a very great change has indeed taken place here in the Committee as well. I wish to express my appreciation for that. When I say that I say it for no other reason than to emphasize the initiative which the Government has taken in these urgent times to do quite a number of things in this important sphere—and has in fact done them—to bring South Africa into a state of preparedness in the field of labour in the situation in which we find ourselves.

Initially I wish to associate myself with hon. members on both sides of the House who conveyed congratulations through the new faces which we have here in the Officials Benches today. I am referring to the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman of the National Manpower Commission, i.e. Dr. Reynders and Prof. Van der Merwe. Both these gentlemen have been actively involved in the activities of this organization since November last year. I wish to extend a cordial welcome to them and thank them for the exceptional zeal which both of them have displayed since their appointment last year.

Since mention has been made of an annual report which did not appear, I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that it is very difficult for the department to publish annual reports in time for the debates because our annual reports contain an enormous quantity of statistics that have to be processed and for which the department is dependent on other organizations. However, we have before us today the first report of the National Manpower commission, and hon. members will agree with me that not one of them expected to have a report. I did not expect one either, because the National Manpower Commission only began its activities at the end of last year. I wish to thank the hon. gentlemen for having brought out a report at this stage in any case. I understand that they would very much have liked to have tabled it earlier. Unfortunately it could not be made available to hon. members earlier, but the fact that we have it to hand today is in itself an exceptional achievement for which I express my thanks.

With reference to the question of what the commission does, I wish to point out that if hon. members were to look at the report, they would realize that it was worthwhile appointing the commission. Its targets and work programme are contained in the report. Every member of this Committee will, if he pages through the report, be left with the profound impression that as regards its own targets, its work programme and also what it has already done, the commission signifies much that is good for South Africa. It is an ambitious plan, but it is being set out with very great enthusiasm, in this publication as well, and for this we are very grateful.

I also wish to associate myself with the congratulations conveyed to Mr. Cilliers, who accepted the appointment as Director-General.

Before I proceed to deal with the matters broached by hon. members, I should like to dispose of two matters, which I think should be disposed of at the beginning of the discussion; and also because I undertook to discuss them today. The first is concerned with a matter which has not yet been raised here. Although it could be referred to later, I feel that I should say something about it at this stage. I am referring to matters concerning our third level of government, and more specifically to the municipalities and the Organization for Municipal Employees, the organization which is known as SAAME.

I should like to refer to this organization because a query-mark has been placed against it as one of the trade unions. That question has been widely discussed, and I should like to clear it up, pursuant to an assurance which I gave a short while ago when I opened the congress of that organization. I told them that they need not be afraid that the Government or I myself intended, at this stage or within the foreseeable future, to deny the organization the right of negotiation under the Industrial Conciliation Act. It would be wrong to take such a step. We are dealing here with a vast organization, with a trade union which has more than 40 000 members. If one were to take it out of this machinery, one would be creating a void and there would be great confusion. Before we go any further I am now repeating the reassurance which I gave them.

The other matter to which I wish to refer is in connection with something that has already been broached in the course of the discussion. I am referring to the issue of White trade unions and the question of what the position of the White man, who will experience keener competition in future, will be. The speeches which were made indicate o will have to be greater training and greater employment as regards the many people who are already in the country and who will be here in future. They will be trained in a strong economy and within a situation in which the White component will become smaller simply because its numerical composition is of such a nature.

Hon. members will understand if we say from these benches to South Africa that there are many more people who have to participate in the great economic machine of the country. It is expected that, up to the end of the century, several million additional people will have to enter an economy which has to produce a gross national product three to four times the size of what it is today. South Africa is on its way to becoming a great power, a great industrial country, but what is to become, within this constellation, of the competitive position of the older component, the more established component, i.e. the White component, those people who were the first to operate in South Africa as industrialists and workers? Naturally the Coloureds also counted among the first industrialists. This older section has a very great fear in its heart for what its position is going to be in future in the light of keener competition.

I think a comment was made in this connection, but although I have spelt it out in the past, I shall gladly do so again so that it may be placed on record. I foresee a serious shortage over many years to come, and whatever we do, there will for many years be a serious shortage of trained people in this country. Even a supreme effort on the part of the Government as well as the private sector to train people and to conduct them through the process of many years of training until they are prepared and can be employed, will not easily alleviate the position. Any person who becomes a trained person does not do so in a day. It takes several years before that has been achieved. With the shortages which exist in South Africa it must be a very poor workman who cannot maintain himself in this country.

But apart from that, the principle which we have laid down is that many more will be allowed into the industries, which does not mean that anyone need be afraid that his position will be threatened. No person who does his work will be in a threatened position in this country. After all, legislation has been introduced for that purpose. Our trade unions need not have any fears in this connection either, because my reason for referring to this is that it is constantly being said that the White man is now being threatened. But no White man is being threatened, no Coloured person is being threatened and no Asiatic person is being threatened. No one will be threatened in his work situation. To tell the truth, those who already occupy skilled and semi-skilled positions in industries will in fact have to be placed in a position where they are able to undergo further training. That is why we are creating new institutes to provide people who are employed with further training and also to provide adults with further training, if they so wish. In other words, the tendency is forward-looking, not backward. The tendency is to afford people further opportunities, not to endanger them in their positions. If we can arrive at a situation in South Africa in future where we have trained everyone whom we wish to train and are able to find positions for them in the industries— and there are great shortages—then our macro-problem is in fact in the other direction. I just wish to give the assurance in general that no one need be afraid. Our legislation is aimed at the protection of those who are there, and also at further training in future. No one need be afraid that he need feel threatened in his work situation.

While I am referring to these two matters now, I wish to refer to the question put to me by the hon. member for Pinelands about the tabling of the first part of the Wiehahn Report. Surely it is understandable that all of us would like to have it. Actually it is a question of whether we should have produced the report piecemeal. I think I discussed this last year as well. I have of course received the additional report but I received it in an untranslated form. It had to be translated, and has been delayed. I hope to be able to table it within a week or two, when an accompanying White Paper will also have been prepared and printed. I have already perused the report and I do not think hon. members need think that because the report has not been tabled now, there is legislation which could have emerged but will not now emerge. I could also mention in passing that there will in fact be further legislation this year. I would very much have liked far more comprehensive legislation to have emerged, but we are waiting for the rest of the Wiehahn Commission’s reports, which I hope and trust will be in our hands within the next few months so that when we come back next year we will be able to dispose of all the legislation emanating from those reports early in the year.

I think the two matters which occupy the thoughts of everyone in the labour sphere are the issues of unemployment and training. I found it very interesting to hear the speeches made in this connection, and I wish to predict that further speeches will be devoted to these subjects because it is indeed true that it is in this labour sphere that one finds South Africa’s two greatest problems. Let me begin with the unemployment issue. On previous occasions I have argued and adopted the standpoint that we should be very careful about simply accepting a figure, in the context of the Republic of South Africa, when we argue about unemployment. It is not that easy. Our definition in South Africa is perhaps a more difficult definition than that in other countries of the world. We are differently structured, and our progress is different. In fact, South Africa simply presents a different aspect. Hon. members must allow me to say a few things about this and to argue the matter afresh. The first thing I want to say in this connection is that we must not adopt the standpoint that, in spite of our population structure, we have a situation here which is difficult in comparison with that in other countries. On the contrary. That is not true. Let me annumerate the figures quickly for hon. members.

Before I do that, however, I just wish to tell this House that there are three ways in which one obtains a figure. The first is by means of our registration bureau’s. In South Africa, however, the bureau’s function is primarily to work out unemployment benefits and not to serve as an instrument to give an indication of who is unemployed and who is not unemployed. The bureau’s are not yet functioning effectively as far as this is concerned. The figure which we have for all population groups registered with us, is still less than 200 000. Surely it is obvious that this is too small. Surely we know that it is more. Consequently they are not a good source. The other source is that of the ongoing statistics which are being recorded. It is not as though these were merely a small sample. They are a proper sample. They are a sample taken on a regular monthly basis of 10 000 Black families and 3 000 Coloured families. In terms of these figures it is, statistically speaking, adequate enough to be very close to the mark, because they are well distributed. The figures are that we have approximately 10 000 unemployed Whites. This is a very small figure. In fact we have major over-employment. There are approximately 3 500 Asiatics who are unemployed. Approximately 60 000 Coloureds are unemployed, as determined on this basis, and approximately 486 000 Black. If one adds all these figures together, it is still less than 600 000. Thirdly, we can determine the figures on the basis of estimates, and I have warned against estimates. There is no university which is not working out estimates. There is no organization active in this sphere which is not working out estimates. Then we found ourselves faced with a definition of who and what an unemployed person is in the South African context. First of all I just wish to say that the employment figure in general, when we add these figures together, is 6%. In the South African context, is 6% a good or a bad figure? Let us compare it with the rest of the world. The facts are as follows: The figure for the USA is 6%; for Britain it is 5,8%; for Italy, it is 8,1% and for Australia it is 6,4%. Those are the facts. Therefore South Africa, even with its difficult population structure, is not in a poor position. In fact, our achievement is an excellent one.

I come now to the second point, i.e. what the definition is. On a previous occasion I said that if a person has been looking for work for a week and was unable to find any, or has been unemployed for a month and is prepared to accept any work offered to him immediately, he is an unemployed person. That is the definition which we have to apply. But we must be careful now, for in the South African context, when it comes to the question of the definition of unemployment, we must just understand that if one lumps together all persons who are unemployed in all sectors, one arrives at the figure with which I furnished hon. members a moment ago. But we must also understand that there are great variations and fluctuations in South Africa. For example we can take cognizance of the fact that there are no unemployed persons in our agriculture sector. Hon. members can ask any farmer whether there are unemployed persons walking around on his farm. There are none. Even in the agricultural area of the homelands, there are no redundant people who are sitting about and who one can call unemployed in this context. Furthermore we must, in our circumstances, be careful because extreme variations occur. There is for example the difference in respect of population groups, in respect of ages, for example, the under-20 and the over-50 age group. There is a very big difference in this regard. There is also the difference in the unemployment figure in respect of men and women, even in respect of young women and married women. These things vary tremendously.

I want to tell hon. members that there are many kinds of unemployment. In the first place there is cyclical unemployment, which is the result of unsatisfactory conditions in the economy. This runs parallel to cyclical movements in the economy. Then there is structural employment, i.e. people who cannot work even though they want to, because they have not been trained. So, too, there are other kinds of unemployment, even discriminatory unemployment. Not the kind of discrimination at which some people prick up the ears so quickly, but discrimination in the sense that an employer discriminates against one kind of worker in favour of a worker who makes fewer demands of him. There are also people who are unemployed because they decided to be, or because they are finicky. If they have to work at night or have to move from Cape Town to Paarl in order to find work, they prefer to remain unemployed and prefer to live with their children or whatever the case may be. In our context we must therefore be very careful how we define the subject.

There are droughts as well, which cause unemployment from time to time.

Precisely. I maintain that what the South African economy has achieved, was achieved in spite of a prevailing recession and in spite of our difficult population structure. In spite of these factors we attained the position in which we are able to say today that measured against all norms the South Africa achievement is an exceptional one. I am not including the continents of Africa and Asia in this comparison, because they cannot be compared with South Africa. I am comparing South Africa with countries such as the USA, the big countries, and not the weaker ones. Then our achievement is an exceptional one.

I want to issue a warning. If one listens to the clever people it sounds as though it is the easiest thing under the sun to conjure up figures and arrive in a trite at a figure of a few million, but in our circumstances it is not realistic to adopt such an approach here. I cannot calculate another figure. A great deal of trouble has been taken to calculate the precise figures. It is not a good thing to use the wrong figures when we speak of unemployment.

The second important matter which was referred to and which dominated the debate was the question of training. The question which arises is what should one do with those people who fall into the category of structural unemployment and who have to be trained. I just wish to state that if a country wants to be an industrial country and wants to develop in future, it must remember that the mere fact of training with a view to the improvement of services in future can make a major difference to the gross national product. There are many people who do not wish to argue in this way and who do not wish to accept this fact. They argue the other way round. Hon. members would be astonished to hear who these people are. The mere fact that the USA, between 1955 and 1956, spent more on training than on anything else, made a difference of 42% per capita to their gross national product. The fact that, from 1960 to 1980, they paid greater attention to training and to the improvement of the worker made a difference of 40% per capita to the gross national product. Do hon. members know what a tremendously important fact this is? In other words, if one can succeed in schooling the people in the country better so that they become more serviceable people and are able to increase their production, then in that way alone, without taking additional factors into account, one increases the gross national product. Hon. members can now begin to make calculations with our population figures and calculate what it would cost to invest in training. They will then find that one of the best investments a nation can make is to provide its people with better training. An untrained person is of no use to anyone. Who wants to employ him. The hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs does not want him, for what must he do with him?

Definitely not.

What must I do with him. Nobody wants him. A farmer does not want him either. In other words, the best investment which an individual himself can make is to help ensure, of his own accord, that he is trained, because it is in his own interests, since his earnings will be increased.

The Eenheid vir Toekomskunde at Stellenbosch is looking into the situation and has told us—and we accept this—that during the next 20 years we shall witness a certain phenomenon. This phenomenon will be that South Africa will on the one hand, if nothing much is done about it, have in the region of up to 1,8 million people who are unskilled or semi-skilled, in other words people who—and this is why I am quoting the figure—will have a low potential as against, on the other hand, a demand for people who are not there. What is our task therefore? One knows on the one hand that one has them and one knows on the other that one is going to need them. If one knows it is going to pay, there is only one thing to do, and that is to ensure that they are trained. That is why it is so imperative that everything we do is bolstered up by training, training and more training, so that we can do the things which have to be done.

I do not wish to repeat the figures which are already known, have been quoted here and have been published. There are many figures. Hon. members can look them up and scrutinize them again; they are still true. The fact remains that we are going to require a tremendous number of trained people in future. The next questions are: Who should train them? What is the policy? Where are we going?

I should like to reply at this juncture, while I am on the subject, to the hon. member for Durban North on the question of training. The responsibility of the State is to take people through school, to provide formal training, but only up to a point. In other words, this is the educational part. It is tof a point. In other words’ this. The State trains people in the responsibility of the State. The State trains people in the primary and high schools, universities, technikons, etc. However, we arrive at a point at which the responsibility shifts to the industrialist who requires that worker. It is being argued a great deal today—the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark also discussed this, and it is a very important matter—that the responsibility should be accepted by the industries of South Africa, as for example in a specific industry for which I have very great appreciation. The people from my department and I spent a whole day looking at how the private sector is doing what it is not asking the State to do, but decided to get stuck in and do itself. We saw an enormous training programme of its own, of which it had informed no one. It did so in its own interests. In one year 37 000 people were trained and millions of rands were spent. It was worthwhile seeing that the very best and latest training methods were being used. The products of this training were then being funelled into all the industries, services and mines over which the industrialist has control. I am referring to one of the biggest concerns in South Africa, which can afford it.

I do not have much time. I shall have to make haste and tell hon. members that there is a whole variety of schemes. I do not wish to discuss this any further at the moment. Inter alia, hon. members will find these in the documents of the department. There are great opportunities for in-service training, and of course for other training as well. In-service training is of the utmost importance. We shall have to do so in the service, but—and this is the point I should like to make in the debate today—I myself place a query-mark against this training. Are our training methods and standards correct? I do not know. I place a query-mark against these methods and standards. I think many of the training periods are wrong. I think the standards are wrong. I think all these things should be revised. We could modernize many of these things in future, and it is the task of the National Manpower Commission to look into this whole question of training. That is its responsibility, and consequently it is engaged in doing so. I also want to say that if one looks at the programme one will see that it has divided itself up into seven different divisions. Hon. members can go and have a look at them afterwards. I am sorry that the report was tabled at such a late juncture. Hon. members will find in the report that there are seven divisions, inter alia, those which occupy themselves with the major issue of training, and then the following question was put to me in this connection: What are we going to do? Are we now—and this is concerned with the question of the fund to which the hon. the Minister of Finance referred—going to impose a tax or levy on all industrialists in South Africa? It is not for me to say what should happen. All I can tell hon. members is that I am pleased about such a nest-egg. To this nest-egg a contribution has to be made by the private sector and by the State. Hon. members must remember that we made a start with this only three or four months ago. We really cannot get everything out of the pipeline within three months. All I can tell hon. members is what the rate is. The rate is at a point which indicates that we must obtain far more funds, from the State as well as from the private sector, to be able to accomplish this task, for we can no longer continue with the kind of policy where an industrialist tells one: “It is cheaper to buy than to train them”. That is nonsense. One cannot allow a situation where they buy workers away from one another.

In any case, that is not in the interests of the country. We cannot train people only to have them lured away by others. One cannot in this way make progress in South Africa, for we will eventually reach a situation where there is such a shortage of workers that the wages which they receive are far higher than the intrinsic value of such wages can possibly be. Nor is it a good thing for a country’s economy. Therefore the whole question of training, and where we are going with it, must be seen against this background.

I just wanted to make these two matters, and the principles involved, clear here so that hon. members can understand where we are actually going. Now I shall have to make haste in order to come to the specific matters to which hon. members referred in their speeches.

The hon. member for Pinelands maintained that we had had less labour peace last year than in the previous year. That is true of course. Matters do not take the same course every year. But the hon. member must take the facts into consideration. Even with the strikes we had last year—hon. members know about them—the South African achievement in this field is still streets ahead of the best in the world. It can be tested against the achievement of any other country. The overall labour peace which prevailed last year could of course not continue indefinitely. To have expected anything like this to happen, would have been totally unrealistic. What are the facts? The number of work stoppages per annum, from 1974 to 1979, were in chronological order: 374, 274, 245, 90, 106 and 104. In the South African context, last year’s figure of 104 is completely insignificant. Let us take cognizance of the number of workers who were involved. Despite the fact that we think we had enormous problems last year, they were really so negligible that the figures are very interesting. The number of workers involved in strikes between 1974 and 1979 were, in chronological order: 59 000, 23 000, 28 000, 15 000, 14 000 and 22 000.

In this connection I should like to repeat something I have already said before. I do not know whether it was here in this House, but hon. members must please pardon me if I say this here for the second time now. Recently, when I was in Germany, I paid a visit to the Volkswagen factory there. The day I walked into the factory there happened to be a count of strikers in progress. Someone told me then that there were 50 000 people employed in that factory. During the lunch break I asked what had become of the count, whereupon I was informed that the count had been positive, that it was 83% and that they would therefore go on strike the next day. I was then able to tell those people in Germany that the situation in South Africa, the country in which they thought labour dissatisfaction was prevailing, the situation was entirely different. I was then able to point out to them that if that factory, with its 50 000 employees were to go on strike from 8 a.m. the next morning, they would by 10h20, in that single factory, have lost a total of just as many man-days as the Republic of South Africa, with its 5,5 million people in 31 000 factories. That is something which no country can beat.

That is why I believe that even that is an exceptional achievement, an achievement which we are trying to maintain. However, there is only one way in which we can do so. That is by trying, on the shop floor itself, to preserve sound relations at all costs.

The hon. member for Pinelands also spoke about the “shop floor mechanism”. I want to point out to the hon. member that this is in fact the reason why we still have the Labour Relations Act. In future legislation we shall probably come forward with a plan for the creation of a system which will no longer be dualistic, but which will also be expanded to other spheres. Furthermore, the hon. member also referred to the Industrial Court and said that there seemed to be a problem. I know about the problem. I read in the Press, and it was also brought to my attention, that a problem had arisen over the definition of an “unfair practice”. Of course I have already stated here that when we make a start with something new and subsequently discover that we made a mistake somewhere or that we did not formulate things correctly, we shall try to rectify it at the first possible opportunity. That is true. After all it is a fact that we are starting here with a new court, a court to which we have allocated new standards, issued new instructions, and can then only watch to see how things work out in practice. I am aware that a problem exists there. I know about it because our law advisers informed me of it. Consequently I am aware of it. We shall rectify the matter as soon as possible. So hon. members need not have any problems with it.

I think I have said enough about the training of people in South Africa and I think I have replied fully to questions in connection with the central training fund. I want to thank the hon. member for Pinelands for his contribution. I have finished replying now to the points he raised.

I want to thank the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark very sincerely for his contribution. He made it unnecessary for me to reply to many of the arguments put forward by the Opposition members. I want to thank him for his contribution on training, but I also wish to thank him very sincerely for his contribution over the years, for he takes a specific interest in this very important problem and has over the years played a very major role in this sense that he has helped us with the formulation of policy.

The hon. member also referred to a second aspect, and that is the Manpower 2000 programme. I want to say a few things about this programme. We have come forward with certain targets. We have stated what our policy is and we now know what our destination is. We have also established a commission which is occupying itself with creative and formative work for the road ahead. In spite of these aspects there is nevertheless one important aspect, which is this: How does one tell 25 million people about the things which have to be done? The answer is that one does so in a perfectly normal way by allowing them to participate. That is why a programme was launched in which all of them can participate, the private sector as well as the public sector. They are both participating in a programme of promotion on the road ahead. I am also very pleased that the schools are participating in this, and also have their own programme. If we can succeed, with one imaginative programme, in telling every schoolchild in this country— Brown, Yellow, White, Black, all of them— that he must think this year about how he can work better, more effectively and harder for South Africa to produce more so that we can withstand the threats from outside, we will already have achieved a great deal, and every schoolchild can try to find an answer to this question. One of the school programmes conveys this idea: How can we all co-operate to help make South Africa prepared for the future so that in the year 2000 we can be a great, strong country without any need to fear the future? I thank the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark for his comment on this subject.

The hon. member for Durban North discussed labour mobility. Of course it is not possible for one to have industrial development in a country if one does not have upward and lateral mobility among the workers. This will happen. I just wish to furnish a few figures here. Any country, particularly an industrialized country, has a specific relationship between the top structure and the rest of the population. One cannot have a country with highly industrialized undertakings, for example the USA or Switzerland, if there is not such a specific relationship, in other words if there are insufficient entrepreneurs or leaders at the top. In the USA the relationship between leadership, in other words highly-skilled persons—in our country it will be those who have attained the matriculation level of development or a higher level—and the lower levels is 1:6. In Japan it is 1:15, in Australia, 1:11 and in South Africa, 1:42. What does that tell us? It tells us that if we wish to involve an increasing number of people in an industrial community in future more people will have to rise to the executive position at the top—and this applies to people from other race groups as well. The entire question of how they are going to be accommodated is a question which I have argued with hon. members on a previous occasion. This has to be decided on by the three components: The State, the employer and the employee. They must reply to this question: Who works where, and at what price? Once we have found that formula, a formula which we have in our opinion already obtained, on the shop floor, we have indeed obtained a sound formula.

That brings me at once to the hon. member for Uitenhage. He said that the work force hears about these things and has reservations. I replied to that right at the outset, when I spoke about the fears in the hearts of people. Of course we must give them a reassurance, and that is why I gave the White worker of South Africa a reassurance when I rose. He can also tell his voters that we shall retain the Factories Act. We shall have to try, at all costs, to preserve peace on the shop floor, according to the four guidelines I have laid down. These four guidelines have up to now given us an exceptional measure of peace.

Is any hon. member in this House aware of any major problem which we experienced on the shop floors of South Africa, and bear in mind we have more than 30 000 large factories in this country? Do we have major problems there? No, for with these four sets of rules which we have laid down, we have always been able to control the situation so that there has always been peace. I want to give the reassurance that if things were to happen on a shop floor which indicated that certain people were browbeating other people, that employers were being unfair to employees and were forcing employees to do things which they did not want to do, we would act immediately. We have an industrial court which has an understanding of unfair practices and which can intervene.

The hon. member for Sasolburg paid tribute to our trade unions. I want to tell the hon. member that I agree with him. If we did not have the sense of responsibility which has been an integral part of the work force of South Africa for generations, we would not have been able to build up this country to where it is today. I wish to associate myself with the hon. member and say that we must just remember that on the road ahead, when competition will increase and the situation will become more complex and more sophisticated, it will also be necessary for our own people to be better trained. They must be better trained. This is also one of the recommendations of the Wiehahn Commission, and we are laying down guidelines to improve the training of trade union people as leaders. If we do not do so we shall find that some of the Blacks will flee to Lesotho to be trained by leftists there. They will also go to Maputo or America and be trained there, not as leaders, but as agitators. We must try to prevent this at all costs.

Reference was also made to the question of closed shops. I just want to tell the hon. member that I do not wish to discuss this matter now because we are in the process of looking into it further. The best example which there is in South Africa of a difficult task in which we have succeeded—and I wish this can be said to everyone in the country— is that we have succeeded here in bringing together a group of employers and employees, and that it was said on that occasion: “Let us create relationships of trust and let us forget the closed shop and similar issues.” This is an excellent example of what ought to happen in future.

I think I have already, in the course of what I have said, replied to the speech made by the hon. member for Orange Grove, or is there something to which I have not yet replied? He referred to the annual report and I have replied to that. He also referred to training.

The hon. member for Von Brandis discussed the question of apprentices. We are also looking into the training of apprentices. Let me say that one of the reasons why we do not have enough apprentices and trained people is that the apprenticeship committees are sometimes selfish and hold people back so that they are unable to undergo training. Consequently I have decided that if employers become recalcitrant and oppose some of their employees receiving training as artisans, and cause the situation to miscarry in this way, I shall not hesitate, if it is in the interests of South Africa, to refer the matter to the Manpower Commission and to ask it to look into the matter and see whether it is fair to prevent these people from receiving further training, and what the effect of such action will be on the economy of the country. After the commission has advised me in this connection, I shall, if necessary, introduce legislation and act in the best interests of South Africa if it so happens that there are people who are being wilful.

With this I think I have replied to the questions which were put to me.

Mr. Chairman, to begin with I just want to convey a word of hearty thanks to the hon. the Minister for the exceptional way in which he guides us as head of this department. I think we are all very grateful for that.

One of the undertakings contained in the preamble to the constitution of the country is “to further the contentment and spiritual and material welfare of all in our midst”. It is true that this idea has been included practically word for word in the constitution of the NP, as a clause relating to principle. Nor is it any wonder that the Government directed an investigation by the Riekert and Wiehahn Commissions to determine a manpower strategy for the Republic in good time via the established Manpower Commission. As a result of that, a special committee of experts are involved with an in-depth study of our country’s training requirements.

Then we also had the idea of Manpower 2000, which is the brain-child of people who are approaching the period of progress and advancement that is awaiting us, with realism, with key objectives of which I want to mention a few. They are the nationalization and promotion of vocational guidance and training, the improvement and stimulation of productivity, retraining and in-service training, the creation of more employment opportunities, the promotion of labour peace and the generation of confidence in the future of the country.

The Government does not want a repeat here of conditions in other parts of the world, where starving people are yearning for a roof over their heads. The Government quickly realized the obvious truth that greater growth creates more employment opportunities for more people and that labour peace then remains part of the labour pattern. When we talk of growth, we mean growth in which all the inhabitants of the country will be pleased to share and when we talk about manpower utilization, we know that we do in fact have the manpower at our disposal, but that Whites, Coloureds, Blacks and Asians will have to serve in the country in an orderly programme. When we talk about peace on the labour front, it is the peace after which not only the White man is striving, but the people of colour too, because if labour unrest becomes part of the labour pattern of the country, no one will escape the consequences of it.

What will the programme need in order to be able to ensure peace and progress in the labour sphere? Training, retraining and inservice training from the person in the highest management position to the unskilled labourer. A recent piece of information is that the general conclusion of a study by the HSRC on the demand for and the supply of manpower, is that the education system has already produced a trained labour force amongst the non-Whites. We may not stop education at the secondary school level, not for the Whites or the people of colour. If we were to make this mistake, a state of stagnation would follow which would lead to frustration and labour unrest. As a country develops economically, a need arises for a labour force with a variety of skills, and we must bear this in mind in the advance planning for the rationalized training programme.

When Dr. Simon Brand was recently asked whether the RSA could maintain a growth rate of 6% which would establish the essential employment opportunities, he said: “Yes, but on certain conditions.” The conditions were not a lower rate of inflation or improved world conditions in the first instance, but that we should have people in our country with exceptional managerial skill. In other words, the training must be carried through from the highest to the lowest positions. It is necessary to note that the total annual growth of the labour force will amount to a ¼ million units. I am mentioning this because I think we can expect the Black leaders to tell this to their people too and to inform them in this regard, and that it will be their aim to train their people, ultimately to provide services within their own ethnic context and in their own areas.

In 1948 there were 500 000 motor vehicles on our roads and now we are almost approaching the 5 million mark, of which 1,5 million belong to people of colour. Therefore, it is obvious that a motor mechanic can fulfil a special service in the homelands if he is trained in that line, to mention only one example. It is just as important to note that the basic cause of the problem lies in the particularly high growth rate of the Black and Coloured population in particular, which exerts an unhealthy pressure on economic growth. On the long term, economic growth cannot be thought of as a solution to the problem and it is absolutely essential to limit the growth. Black leaders may also do well to bring this to the attention of their people.

It is the right of every person to live comfortably; it is his right to be comfortably housed. It is his right to be well fed and well clothed. This will be possible if we can have labour peace here. Labour peace will be possible if every person in the country has the maximum opportunity to be trained for the employment opportunities that there will be, but then the worker must take his place willingly, intelligently and honestly and with a sense of responsibility towards his country.

Mr. Chairman, in my opinion the speech of the hon. the Minister was a ray of light in this House, because it was an indication—and I think that the discussion thus far has been on a very positive level—that the Government has complied, at last, in our opinion, with the requests which the Opposition has been addressing to the Government over the past few decades already with regard to the removal of apartheid measures in the labour set-up in South Africa, and the training of all workers in order to improve the productivity ability of those workers. Now we must congratulate the Government on the fact that positive steps are being taken at this stage in order to implement these ideas. We foresee that this will make a tremendous contribution not only towards improving the productivity of our industries in South Africa, but also to ensure a better livelihood for all South African workers as well as bringing about better race relations between the various racial groups.

I want to break a lance for a certain group of workers. These are workers who are injured or die as a result of accidents at work, and who do not succeed in claiming the compensation which is due to them. Therefore, I want to ask the hon. the Minister to investigate this matter once again. I know this has already been done on several occasions and I also know that the department has already taken various steps in the past to improve the situation.

For instance, it is interesting to note that in 1977 there were 906 Whites, Coloureds and Asians who did not claim their compensation and that in 1979, the figure had dropped to 594. However, as far as the Blacks in South Africa are concerned, the figure was 8 796 in 1977 and in 1979 it was 7 444. If we look at the sums of money that were not claimed, it was R83 901 in 1977 for Whites, Coloureds and Asians and R42 379 in 1979; i.e. there is a definite improvement in the situation there, but not for the Blacks. There the amounts were R623 808 in 1977 and R507 995 in 1979. Consequently, we cannot detect the same improvement with regard to the Black people. I think it is obvious why this is the situation. It is because the Black people are not as sophisticated as the Whites and the Coloureds and perhaps do not have the ability to follow all the directives which can be followed in this case.

In reply to a question of mine, the hon. the Minister gave an explanation of the steps which the department is taking in order to see that these compensation awards can in fact be claimed. The full procedure is explained in it, and I feel that one can say that the department is in fact taking all possible steps on its part.

There is no other reply than the one the hon. member has.

Yes, but I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to take further steps. From his point of view, I feel that the steps that the department is taking, are adequate and I feel that they are acceptable too. However, I do nevertheless feel that there are further steps that can be taken by the department and that can oblige the employer to see that he will also ensure on his part that this problem is solved and that those who have to receive compensation awards, can in fact claim them.

For instance, the department says, which also learned as a result of inquiries that I made, that the forms which the employers have to complete for each employee, are seldom if ever completed. The information that is required in them, is not always indicated. For instance, it is often found that only the first name of the employee is indicated on the form, or that there is no address for the employee, or for instance, that his beneficiary or his next-of-kin are not mentioned, in the event of his death. It is one of the most common errors that the forms are not filled in correctly, that all the information that is required, is not provided.

I feel it is the responsibility of the department and its inspectors to insist that employers provide all the necessary information, and that they complete the forms correctly. The result of neglecting to do so, is that the employee who is injured, cannot exercise his full rights and that he cannot claim that grant which is due to him. Then it is not his fault; it is often the fault of the employer.

For instance, where Black people are involved, one often finds that the Black employees disappear after they have been injured, or that they do not return to the same employer. This can be prevented if, when an employee is appointed, certain particulars about him are recorded. For instance not only his address, but also that of his next-of-kin and of any beneficiary can be recorded, should he be injured, as well as perhaps the address of certain members of his family who do not reside at the same address as the employee. If this is done, if the employee’s reference number and other information is carefully recorded, such information can be presented in case such a person has to be traced to present a grant to him.

It is also found that in many cases there are long delays with regard to the report which the employer or the medical practitioner has to present. It is alleged that in some cases months or even a year may pass before such reports are sent in. As a result of that delay, such an employee can disappear in the meantime and it may be impossible to trace him. I feel that here too it is the responsibility of the department to ensure that such delays do not take place, and that the employers, the medical practitioners and all the others concerned, should fulfill their responsibilities in that regard properly.

I believe there is inadequate guidance for employees. There are industries that appoint public relations officers who have a training programme and who ensure that every new employee is fully informed about all his rights. However, this is not the case in the vast majority of South Africa’s industries. New employees are not fully informed about their rights or what they should do if they have to exercise those rights. I feel that it should be the obligation of an employer to see that every employee is fully informed as to his rights and what he should do if he wants to exercise those rights.

I want to raise another matter.

†I should like to refer to those people who are unfortunate enough to find themselves in sheltered employment—I should like to know whether the hon. the Minister is listening, because this is rather an important matter—in institutions either operated or subsidized by the State. I should like to be assured by the hon. the Minister that as far as these institutions are concerned, everything in the power of the department and these institutions is done to ensure that the people who find themselves in those institutions, are given additional training and are assisted in rehabilitating themselves in order to put themselves in a position to earn adequate incomes. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to elaborate on or react to the speech made by the hon. member for Bryanston. I think the hon. the Minister will reply to it thoroughly. If I am not mistaken, the hon. the Minister has already furnished him with a three-page reply in respect of those unfortunate persons who cannot be traced so that the claims owing to them can be paid out to them. I just want to tell him that the position is not as bad in the case of the Whites and the Coloureds. However, a tremendous problem is being experienced among the Blacks. In any case, the hon. the Minister will deal with it.

This year is Manpower Year 2000. I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on this. Like the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark I want to express my gratitude to him for the invitation to the inaugural meeting in Stellenbosch which I had to honour of attending. It was very instructive and fruitful. It was also enlightening to see what co-operation the hon. the Minister received in this fine effort from all the important organizations in this country.

The training of our manpower is one of the major tasks at which we shall definitely have to work hard. Heavy demands are going to be made. I do not want to elaborate on this at length, except to say that the Opposition, as I deduced from their statements, are only concerned about the training of the Black man in our industries. I want to dwell on this. It is essential. I also want to express my gratitude for the exemption which the hon. the Minister has granted the Black man, enabling him to work in the building industry in certain parts of our country. I know that from both sides vehement objections are being raised by people who do not agree with this. However, I shall come back to this later.

The primary task as far as training is concerned, is school training, and this is the responsibility of the state. But what is being done for that White or Coloured once he leaves school? I want to dwell on the position of the Black man too. What is expected of him once he has completed his primary school training, in which he received assistance from the State. There is today a tremendous demand for such persons. We, the Government, and the various independent Black states, will have to co-operate to see what we can do, because I see it as the success with which our efforts for the sake of the development of the independent Black States and the others that are still striving for independence have been crowned that some of their people are being trained to do the work in the homelands which at this stage is still being done mainly by Whites.

The Black man’s assistance and labour will have to be harnessed to assist in the electrification and building of houses in a city like Soweto. Thank goodness that as far as the training of builders or bricklayers is concerned, we started many years ago. The houses standing there were for the most part built with the manual labour of trained Black artisans, but Soweto requires the Blacks themselves, just as they work in their own police station today, nurse their own people in their hospitals and are active in many other spheres, should do their own construction work, electrification and road building. Enough of them will have to be trained for that purpose. By the year 2000 the Blacks in South Africa will already own more than 2 million motor-cars. Who is going to repair their motor-cars? The Whites have to do it today, and I am being very frank when I say that one finds very few young White men today who are interested in being trained as motor mechanics. Today the small group of Whites still have to look after the Black man’s motor-car as well. Let me tell hon. members that one does not find White artisans in the building industry, and only a small number of Coloureds who enroll to be trained in that industry. I feel that, irrespective of what various people or certain trade unions are saying, such artisans are necessary.

If we dwell on the homelands for a moment today and see what large cities, including capitals, are being planned for every homeland, we ask who is going to build these cities. I say the Black man must be trained to build cities, and not only houses. The Black man must be trained on the administrative level as well. That is why Manpower 2000 has a tremendous task today to meet the needs. This will contribute to a reduction in unemployment as well.

However, I want to add that the fear felt by the Whites is that they are going to be supplanted by cheap labour. Now I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that I am not ashamed or afraid of plastering or laying bricks on the same scaffold as the Black man if he is as well trained as I am and receives the same salary.

And lays the same number of bricks.

The White man’s fear, his concern, is that he will be supplanted by cheap labour, and if the Black man has the same qualifications as I do and stands on the scaffold with me, and he too earns his R100 and R150 per week that the White bricklayer receives today, and lays the same number of bricks and has the same qualifications, I am satisfied. However, I as White must not be trained for five years as an electrician, or fitter and turner or plumber, whereas the Black man need only receive one year’s training in the same trade. Then I object. If my training lasts for three years, his must last just as long. If I have to write an examination, he must write the same one. When I have to work for R80 or R100 per week, the Act must stipulate that he too must receive his R80 or R100 per week. Then I do not fear that I will be ousted or overwhelmed by his numerical superiority. Then I believe it is reasonable and fair. Then it is also reasonable and fair that I compete with him, and do so on separate levels because I am then affording him the opportunity of competing as well. Consequently it is unnecessary for the White man to be so reticent. After all, he will receive protection in terms of this proposed legislation.

I often have to hear that the mineworkers are agitating. I am a former mineworker myself. Surely it was mineworkers who trained the Black man to practise mining today. He need not still be trained for that. Four or five years ago I lodged certain objections with the previous Minister of Mines. The Secretary of the Mineworkers’ Union, Mr. Arrie Paulus, wanted to lynch me. He told me to keep my nose out of his affairs. However, what has he done in the meantime? He has been training Black mineworkers. Today he is afraid of something he created himself. At that stage I warned him against it. Today he is afraid of what he himself has created.

If the Black man has the same qualifications as the White, I believe he must also receive the same remuneration for the same work. Let us now be frank with the general public. In this way alone, I believe that only in this way will the idea that the White man can be supplanted by cheap labour be nipped in the bud. But if, we do not make a start with this training now, there is another danger which exists. The programme of the Chamber of Mines for the next two years does not amount to millions of rands. It amounts to several billion rands. But today they do not have the workers at their disposal to make a start with those large-scale planned projects. What is the point of undertaking a large-scale project when one has to rely on the knowhow and the labour of people who have been trained elsewhere? Consequently that is why I want to advocate that the courses at our universities and technicons should be drastically revised. How are these people being trained? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with what was said by the hon. member for Stilfontein. I think he broached very important aspects here. He also cleared up much of the confusion prevailing in the building industry at the moment.

The hon. the Minister issued a Press statement on this matter on 10 April. Subsequently, on 13 April—it was a Sunday evening—the secretary of the Building Workers Trade Union, Mr. Beech, appeared in a television interview. I believe that his conduct on television was very disappointing. It created a great deal of confusion as well. He displayed real ostrich tactics with regard to the question of the utilization of skilled Black labourers in the building industry. There is no point in our saying in South Africa that this cannot be or that the figures are incorrect. Nor is it any use refusing to accept the situation, let alone refusing to believe when we are confronted with facts. All of this does not benefit us in any way.

Let us just note for a moment what really happened in this case, what made the hon. the Minister decide to take this step. Representations were made to the hon. the Minister over a long period. In all quarters the building industry and other individuals discussed the serious shortage of labour and the tremendous magnitude of building programmes awaiting us. They also pointed out the widespread problems in this industry. The hon. the Minister was very responsible and held the representations in abeyance. At the request of others he brought together the various building industries and trade unions and discussed the problem with them. He went out of his way to obtain agreement on this matter. The hon. the Minister pointed out to them that as a result of this problem an agreement had already been negotiated in terms of which, for example, 80% of the work in the Transvaal is being done by Black people. He pointed out that the economic upswing in the building industry would aggravate the shortages. He also pointed out that there would be a 25% increase in building activities and that as far back as March 1979 the shortage in the building industry was 10,3%. The negotiations reached a deadlock, but once again the hon. the Minister consulted with the trade unions, although the negotiations were unsuccessful. He pointed out to them that there was protection for them in terms of the industrial conciliation agreement. He also pointed out to them the recommendations of the Wiehahn Commission in connection with building activities. After he had once again pointed out that the shortage was increasing, and that this was causing delays and suspensions in the building industry, the Minister proceeded to take this step, a step which is fully justified in the circumstances.

I personally know of a case in my constituency which I should like to quote. There was a considerable revival in building activities as a result of the construction of the Richard’s Bay line and the development of mining activities in Northern Natal also caused a considerable revival in the building industry at Vryheid. Because there are no Indians in the part of the country from which I come, and because there are very few Coloureds, only Blacks are used in the building industry. As a result of the fact that no Whites were available, strong representations spontaneously arose in my constituency, pointing out that there were building activities amounting to approximately R12 million last year which simply could not be carried out. In one month a sum of almost R2½ million was involved. The hon. the Minister was urgently requested in the representations to reconsider the question of Black people in the building industry while the fact of the matter was that the people were in fact being used illegally in the building industry.

One has only to consider the situation in Newcastle. There was a great revival as a result of the coming of Iscor. Black people were used illegally to do the construction work, and if the inspectors arrived, the people simply paid the fines. Black people were used on such a scale that the inspectors eventually decided to remain on the building sites, because each one had a good look-out to warn him of the arrival of the inspectors. When the inspectors began to stay on the building sites, the building industry began to suffer serious losses, because the plaster began to dry out, as did the various mixtures that had been prepared. However, some of the clever builders circumvented the problem by not handing the Black people trowels, but giving them a similar instrument. The same situation arose in my constituency. In any event, costs in the building industry are simply being pushed up, because builders are obliged to employ look-outs to warn them of the arrival of the building inspectors. If a person resembling a building inspector arrives there, all building activities come to a standstill. As a result of this, of course, the houses that are being built become unnecessarily expensive. We must definitely bear in mind that this is the year 1980. We must take into account the fact that between 3 500 and 5 000 apprentices have to enter the trade annually, whereas only 400 are entering at present, only 200 of whom are Whites. We must take into account the fact that almost no bricklayers and plasterers are entering the industry, and I have said, concessions have already been made in this regard in the Transvaal.

South Africa definitely does not have enough Whites to do all the work. The population of South Africa was 5 million in 1904; in 1970 it was 22 million; and it is estimated that at the end of the century it will be 74 million. We must take into account the fact that the Blacks will constitute 73% of the population by the end of the century, as against the 12% to 14% of the Whites. We must also take into account the fact that 43,3% of the Black population is under 15 years of age at present and that they will have to be provided with work in future.

South Africa has a very large labour force at its disposal, but a strong economy is indispensable in our case. For this reason, economic growth, manpower, employment and training are of vital importance. For this reason, too, it may rightly be said that South Africa has the potential to become one of the economic wonders of the world if we can lift our heads out of the sand.

Finally I just want to say that the hon. the Minister has shown great initiative. He foresaw the shortages and had the courage to tackle this major problem of South Africa. I want to express my sincere gratitude to him for doing so.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. members for Stilfontein and Vryheid have succeeded in highlighting the problems that are being experienced in the building industry. They have very clearly stated their attitude and also that of the Government in this regard. I am specifically referring to this because the building industry is so important in the overall economic set-up in South Africa. It is to be welcomed that this changed attitude has occurred. I just wish to point out to the hon. members that the policy of the NRP has always been that the same wage should be paid for the same responsibility. We find it encouraging to see that the NP is now moving in this direction which we have been advocating here for years.

I wish to tell the hon. the Minister that it is actually a pity that the report of the Manpower Commission was delayed. Last year we had the problem that the First Report of the Wiehahn Commission was late and we were not able to discuss it in the debate on the Vote of the hon. the Minister. We would have preferred the debate to be postponed rather than to have had to conduct a debate without reference to this excellent report. We trust that in future, and particularly next year, the hon. the Minister will take this consideration into account when it is decided when this Vote is to be discussed.

I just wish to come back to the replies the hon. the Minister furnished in his speech. Unfortunately, there was one matter I raised, which he did not deal with. I refer to the question of in-service training centres.

†I should like to stress this and I hope the hon. the Minister will see his way clear to providing me with some answers regarding his attitude and the attitude of his department towards the problems being experienced by the in-service training centres. The hon. the Minister will remember that last year the In-service Training Act, Act No. 95 of 1979, was passed here. This new measure, which all parties in the House supported and which came into operation on 1 October 1979, provides for the promotion and regulation of training of all persons other than Blacks. For this there are tax concessions which are made available to employers in terms of the amendments contained in the Income Tax Act, Act No. 104 of 1979. I am sure that many of the in-service training centres, particularly the one in Pinetown, has found that this is causing them considerable difficulty because their sanction is governed by Act No. 86 of 1976, in terms of which it is only possible for them to train Blacks. But the need in Natal, in particular, is for the greater training of Asian and Coloured workers as well.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister specifically whether he will let us know what the attitude of his department is towards changing the legal position in order to make this possible. I appreciate the fact that the one Act is administered by another hon. Minister in another department while the other one is administered by the hon. the Minister of Manpower Utilization, but in practice we find Asians, Coloureds and Blacks working together shoulder to shoulder; yet they have to go to separate in-service training centres. This is causing considerable difficulty. Not only are we reducing the through-put of people in each of the training centres, but there is also—the hon. member for Pinelands also made this point—a suspicion in the minds of the Blacks that the training they are receiving at their specialized training institution is second grade and not equal to that being given to other race groups. It seems totally ridiculous, not only from a cost point of view, but also from industrial peace point of view, that people of different race groups who work together shoulder to shoulder have to be separated for training purposes and sent to separate training institutions. The in-service training centre at Pinetown is doing a magnificent job. I took the trouble to go see how they are operating, and they are really doing a first-class job. However, they have a problem in that the demand for services in Durban is disproportionate in terms of the ratio between Asians and Blacks to what one finds in other provinces. I am sure one would find exactly the same situation with the in-service training centres in the Cape, where they would have to cater for the Coloureds and the Blacks and one would have a disproportionate relationship because of the numbers of these population groups. This does cause difficulties. I seem to recollect that the hon. the Minister indicated in his Third Reading speech when the Act of 1979 was introduced that he and his department would attempt to see what they could do to bring about an amalgamation, or at least to make it legally possible for members of different race groups to be trained at the same in-service training centre, and I have already asked the hon. the Minister during my first speech in this debate whether he would comment on this aspect.

I now want to come back to literacy training. I have not had a reply from the hon. the Minister on this although he admitted that literacy training was obviously very important from an in-company training point of view. But what about the in-service training centres? Can the in-service training centres not also be used for basic literacy training and will the tax concessions available, in terms of the Income Tax Act, also be made available for literacy training? The argument has been used for quite some time, because I know representations have been made in this respect, that it is not the function of the Department of Manpower Utilization to do educational training, but I want to reemphasize that we are talking about existing employees. Their average age is probably well above 25. These people are unlikely to ever have the opportunity to return to school. The blockage in developing the underemployed people lies in literacy training, and one is cutting down severely on the number of potential candidates who would be available for further skills training at the in-service training centres, because these people lack basic literacy—the three “r’s”: reading, writing and arithmetic. If the hon. the Minister, through his powers, policy and attempts, could make it possible for the tax concessions which are available for skills training to be made available for literacy training he would be going a long way towards solving the problem of underemployment and the mobility of labour. That is not a function of education. For historical reasons these people never had the opportunity for formal training at school, but they have the intellectual capacity and the aptitude to do the job. I want to impress upon the hon. the Minister how important it is that his department should apply their minds to that specific area.

I also want to ask the hon. the Minister whether in terms of the Manpower Commission’s terms of reference and objectives they will also be concerning themselves with the better utilization of manpower in the Defence Force. In this regard I am referring specifically to the national serviceman who goes through a two-year training period.

I think this matter has also been raised by the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark, but I would like to know from the hon. the Minister whether his department will also concern itself with that two-year period during which a man is doing his national service, in terms of offering advice to the military services on the better utilization of manpower. The bulk of the male youths of South Africa are sitting in the Army at any one time for two years, and on many occasions it has been reported to me that they sit there for a two-year period, receiving no training which can help them in their future careers. Perhaps in an investigation by the Manpower Commission it will be possible for them to advise the military on how to use those people in terms of their training facilities, etc. The question is: Does the Manpower Commission have the responsibility and is it part of their terms of reference to look at that specific matter?

We are attending to that matter at the moment.

Thank you.

In conclusion I should just like to say that as far as the unemployment figure is concerned, I know it is always a problem to determine scientifically what the extent of unemployment is in South Africa. But if the hon. the Minister or the Manpower Commission is working on a figure which is unrealistic in terms of what is happening outside, in the working place, then I am afraid that the strategies which are going to be developed are going to be inadequate. Last year the hon. the Minister maintained that the figure was 650 000 while I said that it was one million. At the end of last year the hon. the Minister admitted—I saw a report in a newspaper—that it probably was one million. We do not want to make political capital out of this, but we are sensitive to the issue and we are concerned about the terms of reference of the Manpower Commission. Are they using the right figures, a realistic figure in terms of the number of unemployed. If they are not using a realistic figure, then the strategies which they develop will be ineffective.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban North referred amongst other things to the question whether there was sufficient liaison between the Defence Force and the Manpower Commission. He will recall that the Wiehahn Commission specifically stated that very strong representations were made by the Defence Force to that commission for the establishment of the Manpower Commission. He will also recall that Gen. Boshoff is a member of the Manpower Commission. The hon. member can therefore accept that there is a very good and effective liaison between the Defence Force and the Manpower Commission.

The hon. member also mentioned the question of in-service training. I am quite sure that the hon. the Minister will reply to that aspect of his speech.

At the beginning of his speech he said that he was very pleased to see that the NP was now also in favour of the payment of higher wages to, amongst others, masons, a matter that was raised by the hon. member for Stilfontein and the hon. member for Vryheid. Surely the hon. member knows that no National Government ever limited the right of anybody to pay wages. Only a minimum wage was stipulated, never a maximum wage. The hon. member is therefore quite wrong if he talks in that fashion.

Equal pay for equal responsibilities.

The hon. the Minister once said that labour and labour matters should in future be approached with just as much earnestness as Defence Force matters. I think the pivot on which labour matters will turn to an increasing extent, is the activities of the National Manpower Commission. In passing, the hon. the Minister referred to the establishment of this commission, which has already begun its activities.

On 30 March 1980, with the launching of “Manpower 2000”, the State President envisaged that from then to the year 2000, 1 600 employment opportunities per day would have to be created in the Republic of South Africa to satisfy the growing demand for employment opportunities if we wished to maintain our present growth rate. On page 22 of the National Manpower Commission report we see very interesting figures in respect of future manpower needs. It is stated here—

Consequently it is an enormous task which awaits the Manpower Commission to ensure that South Africa in its planning to become an industrial giant in Africa does not forfeit the opportunities awaiting it; that it does not miss the bus of progress which is approaching. The Manpower Commission was established on 1 November 1979, and it is interesting to note that by 16 November 1979, this commission had already met, and on that date 38 of its 42 members were present. It is also interesting to see that the members of this commission consists of persons who are experts in their own right in some field or other of labour matters, or any combination of such fields.

If we consider only a few of the activities of the Manpower Commission, in these few minutes during which I am speaking, I think it would perhaps be advisable for us to confine ourselves in the first place to the preservation of industrial peace. There are probably few beacons of achievement in South Africa, under the NP Government, which are comparable with the establishment of the Industrial Conciliation Act. It ensured labour peace and promoted economic growth and stability. In terms of the Act Black trade unions are also being recognized. A consequential task which flows from this is that the art of negotiation on industrial level ought to be acquired, furthered and refined.

Only this morning I read in the newspaper that there is tension in the ranks of the metal workers’ trade unions. Apparently Black people are dissatisfied about the establishment of parallel trade unions. Yet it seems to me the obvious course to adopt in order to make these people proficient in the sphere of trade unionism. Their objection is that they are controlled by non-Black trade union members. It ought to be reasonably easy to solve such a problem. No problems ought to be experienced in obtaining co-operation on the workshop floor for the improvement of everyone’s positions. The General Secretary of the Boilermaker’s Union was correct in stating that there are many areas of co-operation which can be outlined and developed.

What arises from this is that managers as well as employees should be thoroughly trained in disciplined and well-planned processes of communication. It is important that there should be consensus among employers in a given sphere in regard to policy and procedures according to which industrial relationships ought to be arranged.

Finally I should like to refer to a speech by Dr. Gouws. He is associated with Freight Services, and is also the Vice-President of Staff Administration in South Africa. Dr. Gouws arrived at the following conclusion in a speech in Manila—

Time does not allow me to elaborate further on the various activities of the Manpower Commission. Suffice it for me just to say at this stage that the good wishes of this side of the House accompany Dr. Reynders, Prof. Van der Merwe and their colleagues in their enormous task in the present, dynamic South African set-up.

Mr. Chairman, I should very much like to associate myself with the hon. member for Brakpan, who broached various matters. He referred, inter alia, to the National Manpower Commission, and in this regard in particular I want to agree with him wholeheartedly.

Probably every country in the world today desires a strong economy because we are living in a dangerous world. One of the corner-stones of preparedness is a strong economy. Disreali rightly said, “There can be no economy where there is no efficiency.” Efficiency embodies a world of ideas one can express on this matter. Efficiency is probably the watchword particularly when we approach the economy and when we want to attain a position of power as far as the economy is concerned.

Consequently it is a very pleasant privilege for me to be able to say something about the idea of Manpower 2000. Hon. members will recall that some years ago, during the discussion of this Vote, I said that it should be our ideal in South Africa that capital and labour become partners and that there would be closer liaison and a much better relationship between management and worker because this was so important for the economy and prosperity of this country.

The hon. the Minister has come up with this wonderful idea. I think that if one had to praise this idea, one would be able to say a great deal about it. The entire population has been involved in Manpower 2000. Everyone feels that they are involved in this matter. If one takes a quick look at this, one sees that commerce and industry, representing capital, all kinds of workers, and the education and training sectors, from the primary up to the tertiary level, including the academic and technical spheres, are being involved in this matter. One could continue in this vein. Actually one has only to say that the entire population is being involved in Manpower 2000, the objective of which is the development of the economy of this country. This is the second corner-stone of the preparedness of a country.

I wish the hon. the Minister everything of the best in this effort. I not only hope, but also believe that the launching of Manpower 2000, in co-operation with all the branches of our economy involved in it, viz. management, labour and training, etc., will be a resounding success.

In this debate on the Manpower Utilization Vote I want to say something about the worker of today. We are living in a time in which people feel that the responsibility is everyone’s but theirs. In South Africa so far we have fortunately escaped this to a certain extent. However, it is a world-wide phenomenon that people are making increasing demands for themselves and are less and less willing to work and exert themselves. When I was a child, even when I was a youth, we said that it was a privilege to be able to work, and it is true that it is a privilege to be able to work. Today people say that to work is a right. They regard it as a right. However, they are forgetting that there is another right as well, viz. that when one demands a right for oneself, this goes hand in hand with responsibility. When one says that one has to work and that there must be work for one, then one should also show oneself willing to work, because just as much as it is the factory or industry of the entrepreneur, the person who has to toss about on his bed at night to keep his capital in order, it is my factory too, because it is the place which provides me with food, a roof over my head and clothes to wear. It is the place which provides for my needs, and I wonder whether our workers always see it in that light. If we show that we are willing, we shall also be much better off and happier in our work.

This brings me to a group of people. I want to say something this evening about sheltered labour. This is one of the fine labour schemes we have in this country. Its purpose is spiritual revitalization, to employ people who are physically and mentally handicapped, to give them work which can keep them busy and simultaneously allow them to receive an income of sorts. There are so many people who unnecessarily come to ask the Government for charity, for a livelihood, as though the Government were a tree from which one picked money, whereas the handicapped try to work to the best of their ability to earn their money. One has to respect these people. There are 13 of these factories in this country, providing 2 000 jobs for handicapped people. By 31 March 1979, there were 1 800 handicapped people in the employ of these factories. Looking at their remuneration, I wondered whether it would not be possible to give them a little more assistance. Because the factories operate at a loss—there are only two out of the 13 that do not operate at a loss—this has already cost the State a considerable sum of money, viz. R1½ million per annum. I was wondering whether the starting-point in particular should not be investigated, when the people start to work for sheltered labour. I have calculated that such a person receives R104 after three months. Although he can still apply for assistance for his family from the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, I feel that we should perhaps examine the starting-point for these people.

Hear, hear!

I am sure that we all have sympathy for these people. I must tell hon. members quite frankly that this will probably cost more or less an additional R½ million per annum. Once one starts making contributions from one’s resources, the more one makes the smaller they become. Nevertheless I think it will be worthwhile to re-examine this situation, and I would greatly appreciate it if these people could be accommodated in some way.

Mr. Chairman I want to broach a very sensitive subject this evening, i.e. the practice of closed shop agreements, to which the hon. member for Sasolburg referred and about which the hon. the Minister made a few remarks too. I think the Government was wise in deciding not to accept the majority recommendations of the Wiehahn report, but in fact to follow the minority recommendation in terms of which the extension of the practice of closed shop agreements is prohibited. As a result, in the process the ball has been placed in the count of the employer and employee to negotiate with a view to getting rid of this undesirable practice.

The provision that no further agreements will be allowed is, however, somewhat vague and confusing and also leaves room for differing interpretations. The first possible interpretation is that no new agreements are allowed, but that, after expiry of the agreement, the closed shop provision is once again negotiable. What the second interpretation amounts to is that further negotiation is prohibited after expiry of the term. What a third interpretation amounts to is that with the entry of trade unions into existing industrial boards, these new trade unions will not be entitled to the closed shop provision and that there will in other words be people within the industrial board who may utilize the closed shop clause and others who may not do so. A fourth interpretation is so wide that it even entails that mixed trade unions may not be allowed to avail themselves of this practice, because this would amount to an extension of the closed shop principle to include Blacks as well, whereas this has traditionally been restricted to Whites only. However, it is not my intention at this point to attempt to give an interpretation of what is correct, and in this way perhaps anticipate the industrial court or even recommendations of the Manpower Commission. However, I do want to issue several warnings to those who advocate its retention, and specifically the Afrikaner trade union member of whom Mr. Arrie Paulus is the symbol.

The closed shop had its origin in the industrial revolution in Britain. It was designed to protect the conditions of service of the worker and to exclude all outsiders from the place of work before he became a member of the trade union and, inter alia, also undertook not to accept less favourable conditions from the employer. In practice this means that a member of a trade union who is out of step can lose his membership immediately, can be dismissed at once and might also have to summarily vacate the house his employer has made available to him and consequently end up on the street.

There is another very important aspect which I should also just like to point out. This is the practice which arises in which these agreements are by implication extended, in that when an application is made to employ a Black man, it is approved by the trade union on condition that he becomes a member of the parallel trade union that exists for him. This is something which requires attention too. However, I now come back to the Afrikaner trade union man, a person about whom I am indeed concerned. In this respect I want to refer to a book by Louis Naudé. The title of the book is Dr. Albert Hertzog, die Nasionale Party en die Mynwerker. People who are central figures in this book allege that Dr. Albert Hertzog wrote it himself. In it he warns against the danger of the closed shop agreement. Let me just quote a short extract—

I think that the history of the establishment of the “Afrikanerbond van Mynwerkers,” as a counter to the Mineworkers’ Union—the frustration that was felt, its powerlessness and the eventual swing of the action so that the Afrikaner was able to take over the Mineworkers’ Union from within—is also a piece of history which the mineworker and the trade union member would do well to consider today. I believe that Arrie Paulus should read this book too. He ought to interpret history and ascertain where he is heading.

We cannot allow the closed shop to end up in the wrong hands. This is recognized by every member of the Committee. To refuse the extension in no way assures protection. Allowing it results in tension and conflict in any plural society. This is why this practice has been prohibited in countries such as Belgium, Switzerland and France. Perhaps it is not generally known that a Black man, a certain Mr. Motha, is organizing a separate Black mineworkers’ union today. I ask Mr. Arrie Paulus whether this is not perhaps Black nationalism’s Afrikanerbond van Mynwerkers. Will he not perhaps take over the Mineworkers’ Union from Arrie Paulus one day, just as Hertzog took over the Mineworkers’ Union from Harris, in a continuation of the present dispensation? This is something he should consider if he continues to maintain his present standpoint.

That is very interesting.

The resistance to the prohibition on the closed shop agreement emanates from the employers as well. Fundamentally there are two parallel philosophies, the one ideological and the other pragmatic.

In the first place there is the philosophy of “divide and rule”. The argument is that if I can divide my employees, I can play them off against each other and can win. It is significant that Kate Jowell refers in a publication to an interview she conducted with Sir Robert Clark, director of British Leyland. He said that Leyland’s downfall had been caused by the very fact that he had had to negotiate with 29 different employees’ organizations. He rejected this philosophy of “divide and rule”.

The second philosophy is of a more pragmatic nature and is almost a diabolical view. The philosophy is to perpetuate what is undesirable if this can be beneficial in the short term. The employer says he is not at this stage concerned about the long-term risk. He is concerned only about the position today. He wants labour peace today and he wants to make profits today. Consequently he will simply perpetuate a certain thing, which he is essentially opposed to and which is undesirable, for the sake of the peace and the profits of today.

What is the answer? I do not think that the problem will be solved merely by placing the ball in the court of the labour components. Accordingly I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to pressurize the employer’s and employee’s factions into negotiating. I know that the Manpower Commission is also investigating this and that the matter probably requires a great deal of study as well. I am not instructing the hon. the Minister, but I am merely asking him with all due respect to consider the full implementation of the principle of freedom of association.

Freedom of association entails the freedom and right to disassociate. Indeed, this gives me the right of organizing among my own people, and no one can compel me to take in anyone else. As a member of an Afrikaner trade union, a White trade union, I can maintain my situation by the very right of free association. I can be exclusive. Mixed trade unions will not be the rule. The Black man is opposed to them as well. The Black nationalism is too strong. It is also interesting that at the September congress of Tucsa, a Coloured trade union leader stood up and warned that there should be no interference in an effort to establish mixed trade unions and that Blacks should be allowed to establish their own ethnic trade unions.

In the second place I want to suggest that the hon. the Minister pressurize the parties, as he did with work reservation, by spelling out the undesirability of certain trends and by saying that the day will come when he will have to prohibit them. The hon. the Minister must exercise pressure on them to negotiate. The equilibrium is not being maintained by two large weights in the scales, of the employee and employer. This is a question of a number of small weights maintaining the balance, and the removal of the small weight of closed shops can be substituted by other small weights that could in conjunction give rise to White security of employment, which can be provided by things like salary increases, improved conditions of service, indemnity against dismissal and guarantees of better training and retraining. The NP cannot allow the White worker to be undermined. Smuts enabled NP men like Hertzog to take over from Harris in his day. We would be disloyal to our White voters if we did not point out to them that they must help themselves. We should be disloyal if we do not help them, to help themselves.

Mr. Chairman, I wish I had more time to reply to the hon. member for Randburg who made a very thoughtful speech this afternoon on the question of the “closed shop” principle. This is something that interests me a great deal and I have had a lot to say about it in the past in this House. I do, however, hope there will be other opportunities. I just want to tell him that the real protection for the White worker is fair competition, proper training, and mixed unions so that he can bargain together with Black workers for better working conditions for everybody.

I cannot help wondering as I stand here this afternoon what we would have been discussing in this Vote today if the Government had over the past 25 years followed the labour policy the hon. the Minister enunciated in Bloemfontein last month when he spoke at the national conference of the Municipal Employees Association. He said then, at the launching of “Manpower 2000”, that the labour forces of all the races in the Republic would have to be trained. I am sure that if the Government had followed that policy for the past 25 years we would not today be talking about the acute shortage of skilled manpower and we would not be worrying about the 50 000 missing artisans the hon. the Minister himself has mentioned. That is the result of the policy the Government has followed and which is diametrically different from the policy the hon. the Minister announces should be followed in the future. We are discussing the legacy of the failure to train Black workers in South Africa over the last 25 years.

As I listened this afternoon, I could not help being wryly amused—and pleased, I might add; because one is always glad to see the advancement of thinking in the House—at the speech made by the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark. I am sorry he is not here now. [Interjections.] Where is he? Oh, there he is. Let him come forward so that I can see him. [Interjections.] Well, why is he skulking in a comer? Let him come and sit where he belongs.

He can sit where he likes.

[Inaudible.]

I was very amused about that, because year after year in the House I have listened to that hon. member playing on the fears and prejudices of White workers. I have heard him telling them that employers were trying to—and I quote him— “twist the arm of the Government and force it to do away with the colour bar”. He said that way back in 1965. I can give him the column reference if he wants it. [Interjections.]

He does not want it.

He went on to say: “In my opinion this manpower shortage of which we hear so much is greatly exaggerated.” Five years later the hon. member was still at it. He then said: “The Government must now allow non-Whites to stream into industries and it must ensure that White workers will not be swamped by opening the flood-gates of Black labour.” He was disgusted with me because way back in 1964 …

I still am.

Well, I am not so disgusted with the hon. member anymore. I think he is coming along very nicely, although it has been a very slow advance. He was disgusted with me because in 1964 I advocated a policy to train non-White workers to meet the bottleneck created by the scarcity of skilled workers. Today we have him and the hon. member for Stilfontein cooing like doves about the training of Black artisans. I am very glad indeed about that.

Fortunately I was able to page through the report of the Department of Manpower Utilization before speaking.

It is the report of the Manpower Commission.

All right; it is the report of the Manpower Commission. The report says on the cover: “Department of Manpower Utilization.”

But it is a different thing altogether.

So it is the report of the Manpower Commission on “Manpower 2000”. It is not my fault if it is entitled “Department of Manpower Utilization”. Anyway, it is the Commission’s report. I want to make a few comments on it. I want to say first of all that it contains some very valuable tables of statistics at the back. They are very useful indeed.

Hear, hear!

It is high time we had some such up-to-date statistics. I have been enjoying myself looking at them.

You had better read it.

I did. On Sunday afternoon.

On page 5 one finds the Minister’s summary of the task of the National Manpower Commission. He said—

All I can say is that that is some nutshell! It is a coconut-shell. It is the biggest nutshell I have ever heard of. I am, however, with the hon. the Minister and if we can do that, we would have achieved an absolute miracle.

I am glad to see that the Commission has decided to recommend that the transfer of the training function in respect of Black employees from the Department of Education and Training to the Department of Manpower Utilization be expedited. I think it is absolutely necessary. It has also recommended that all public training centres should be open to Black people.

And also to non-Blacks.

Yes, to everybody. It should of course not be done by exemption, but as of right. I was also very glad to see that the Commission recommends the reconsideration of the ridiculous policy of reserving the Western Cape as a Coloured labour reserve. [Interjections.] Oh yes, they do. On page 20 the Commission says that this must be reconsidered because it does not fit in with the general labour policy which is advocated.

The population projections are very interesting indeed. Even unto the year 2000, the population projections for the Republic include the populations of the independent States of Bophuthatswana, Transkei and Venda. This is very interesting to me. I thought those were independent territories, yet the population figures for the Republic include the population figures for those territories. We see that the Black population would have increased over 20 years, that is for the years 1980 to 2000, from 71,4% of the population to 75,4%, while the White population is going to decline, the projection says, from 16,4% to 12,9%. Page 22 of the report contains the most interesting statistics of the lot. There it gives the economically active population, and the interesting thing is that the White economically active population will decrease from 20,6% to 16,4% and the Black population, excluding Coloureds and Indians, will increase from 16,7% to 70,9%. Other interesting correlations are the low educational qualifications of Blacks on page 23. These figures are very frightening because they reveal that in 1970 as many as 39,9% of the 1,9 million male Black workers in the urban areas had no educational qualifications. Can one believe that? It has improved since then, but not by a great deal. 22,6% of the 0,8 million female Black workers also had no educational qualifications. I do not believe that one has to be a trained economist or a sociologist to realize how these figures correlate with the low earning capacity of the Black population of this country. Indeed, the Manpower Commission comments on the cardinal importance of education on page 27 of the report. I want to echo what the hon. member for Pinelands said and that is that we are reaping the harvest of bad basic education, which makes it impossible to extend technical training to Black people in the Republic at the present stage. My final comment on the report is to draw attention to the disturbing emigration figures of professional people, artisans and production workers.

I want to end in the time at my disposal by saying that there are a number of other special problems which I hope the National Manpower Commission will tackle, probably together with the Department of Co-operation and Development, because these departments overlap very much. First of all, there is no sign of any implementation of the positive recommendations in the report of the Riekert Commission to increase the vertical and horizontal mobility of Black labour. We have had a lot of punitive recommendations which have been implemented, but no positive ones, and I hope they are going to come very soon. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Houghton gave a reasonably comprehensive analysis of the statistics in the report to which she has just referred, but the hon. member must not think that I am becoming personal when I say that she entered the past for a while. It seems to me that when one reaches a certain age, one goes back to 1964 …

We all get old; even you.

I agree. Since she referred to the chief spokesman of the NP, the hon. member for Vanderbijllpark, I want to point out that the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark naturally has the interests of his voters at heart at all times. I also want to remind the hon. member that they are White voters. It was never a question of the fears of the White workers, but of the interests of the White voters in the constituency of the hon. member in question.

Many people have been congratulated today on positions etc. Accordingly I want to associate myself with the congratulations and in addition, congratulate two people, viz. Mr. N. J. Hechter and Mr. M. Van Noordwyk, two of the most senior officials of the department. I want to express my sincere gratitude to these two people from whom all the hon. members of this House receive information whenever we need it.

I want to dwell for a moment on the speech made by the hon. member for Pinelands. The hon. member surprised us today with the positive attitude his speech revealed. I want to tell him that I agree with him: The maintenance of industrial and labour peace in South Africa is fundamental to the task of the Department of Manpower Utilization. The hon. member began by dealing with that, and I think we all agree. However, the hon. member made another very important statement. He said that we should rather forget about trade unions, etc., but that we would have to preserve the peace on the factory floor. I agree. The hon. member touched on another important matter, something about which he knows a great deal. I am referring to the view that the relations committees should play the part of staff advisory committees, on which there would be equal representation of employer and employee.

However, he then came forward with a discordant note, and I did not know why. He said: But the industrial court, the new creation, cannot work. The hon. member has a fair knowledge of the industrial court and you, Mr. Chairman, will recall that the previous commission, the Botha Commission, recommended a court of law based on either that of Australia or that of Canada, but in its wisdom the Government at that stage decided that we should rather establish a tribunal. Since 1956 that tribunal has been a resounding success in South Africa. It has been such a resounding success that employer and employee have had respect and confidence in its integrity and judgment. I think we are greatly indebted to that old industrial court for the order and peace in the labour sphere in South Africa. However, what is the hon. member doing now? He immediately casts suspicion on the new industrial court…

No.

Let me go on; I want to quote the hon. member’s words. The hon. member said that Black trade unions say that this industrial court is going to be used against them. Why does the hon. member come forward with this discordant note in this House?

You are talking nonsense.

The hon. member must give me a chance now. I did not interrupt him. This court has not even had the opportunity of hearing a case.

Why not?

Because no arbitration has been before it yet.

Why now cast suspicion on a body which was established with every confidence, in all honesty and as a result of certain recommendations and in which everyone, including the hon. member, has confidence? The hon. member has respect for it too. Why, then, introduce this discordant note here? I think that when one comes forward with a new dispensation such as this, and one is basically satisfied with it, it is the responsibility of each one of us who is responsible and who is interested in labour peace to ensure that the image of that new instrument is projected and improved in order to achieve maximum labour peace in South Africa. However, if we in this House are already beginning to undermine the foundation of that body, surely it will be off to a negative start. Surely we cannot then expect positive results. I think the hon. member owes that court an apology. [Interjections.] I do not think the hon. member should laugh about this. This is a very important matter. That hon. member is also attached to large organizations. These organizations, when they want to show a profit, and when they want happy employees, also want to know that there is an independent tribunal or body which can ensure that the balance of interest between employer and employee is preserved. It is of cardinal importance that the trade union, which represents the employee, and the employer, should have full confidence in that body. I do not believe the hon. member has succeeded in giving us that impression.

In the few moments left at my disposal, I just want to say something to the hon. member for Orange Grove. That hon. member said that we should really throw open the urban area now so that the Blacks could obtain employment in the cities. Is the hon. member not at all concerned about squatters, shacks, etc.? It is nice to say popular things if you do not need to implement them. However, if one wants to govern in a responsible way, one must consider all the socioeconomic problems one could encounter.

I now want to turn to a very sensitive area. I do not think there is an hon. member in this House who does not want every employee in South Africa to enjoy a good salary or wage increase. I think all of us want all employees to have a good increase. There has been a fine upswing in the South African economy, the mines have fared well, the gold price has risen, farming has fared reasonably well under a good Minister …

They are complaining that the farmers are faring a little better than they did last year.

Similarly, commerce and industry have also gained momentum once again. However, there is something bothering me. I say that every employee in South Africa who is worth his salt is entitled to lay claim to the golden eggs laid by the goose. I think every employee has that right, particularly in view of the high rate of inflation. However, when certain groups make noises which cause us to come to the conclusion that we must slaughter the goose, we become concerned, because we then gain the impression that certain people are insatiable. One gains the impression that certain people can simply never be satisfied.

I think that, unless the views of groups are being reflected incorrectly by spokesmen, or are being reported incorrectly in the Press, this is the logical conclusion one must draw. I think that because there is at present an upswing in the economy, great discipline and self-control must be displayed, and that goes for our workers too. After all, we know our workers. On a former occasion, when the hon. Minister made an appeal not to ask for more than 70% of the rate of inflation in the form of increases, our workers reacted positively.

Consequently I believe that if we want this upswing in the economy to bring us prosperity tomorrow and in the future, a very heavy responsibility rests on all groups of South African employees to ensure that this economic growth will be a protracted and long term growth. If we do not do so, we shall be killing the goose which lays the golden eggs and then we could find ourselves in the same position as we were in a year ago.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pretoria East will forgive me if I do not react to his speech. I should like to reply to the speech made by the hon. member for Bryanston. The Workman’s Compensation Act has been very severely criticized over the past two years. The hon. member for Bryanston also referred to it. He did so in a very reasonable way, and therefore I shall not quarrel with him. I shall only try to prove to the house that the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner and his officials are doing everything in their power to implement this Act effectively.

That fellow needs workmen’s compensation himself. [Interjections.]

Section 51(1) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act of 1941 provides that when an employee is injured while on duty, it is incumbent upon the employer to report the accident to the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner on a prescribed form or, in certain cases, to the divisional inspector of the Department of Manpower Utilization. On this prescribed form the employer is expressly requested to provide the residential address as well as the identity number of the employee. The notification by the employer is acknowledged by means of a card bearing the further request that the employer should keep the address of the injured workman with a view to the possible payment of compensation to this workman at a later date.

Because Black people are inclined to move around a lot, the workman’s compensation commissioner made arrangements with the Post Office for the money of these Black people to be invested in the Post Office Savings Bank in the case of fairly large amounts. The beneficiary is then provided with a Post Office Savings Bank book which enables him to draw his money at any place in South Africa or in South West Africa. It also safeguards his money. In the case of smaller amounts, a cheque is sent to the employer or to the address supplied by the employer on the form concerned. Usually the employer is also requested to help the employee to cash this cheque. However, it often happens that those cheques are sent back marked “Undelivered”.

I now want to explain the procedure that is followed in such a case in respect of Whites, Asians and Coloureds. The claims file is checked to make quite sure that the cheque has been sent to the right address and to ascertain whether there is not a second address to which that cheque can be sent. If this cheque is still not collected after this, the money is then deposited in the Unclaimed Moneys Account and further attempts are made to trace the beneficiary by means of the telephone directory, by making inquiries at his previous place of employment and also by asking his next of kin. When a cheque becomes stale because it has not been cashed after three months, exactly the same procedure is followed, and only then is the amount deposited into the Unclaimed Moneys Account. When money has remained in this account for 12 months, full particulars concerning the money and the person involved are published in the Government Gazette.

In the case of Black beneficiaries, even more trouble is taken to trace them. In this way, for example, the Reference Bureau is requested to help trace the people, and for this purpose such a person’s identity number is supplied to the bureau. If it is found that a beneficiary has moved to some magistrate’s district or to a commissioner’s area, full particulars are given to these people with the request that they should try to trace the beneficiary and ensure that the necessary payment is made to him. If the beneficiary still cannot be traced, the money is deposited into the Unclaimed Moneys Account.

In the case of stale cheques to Black people, the very same procedure is followed. Once again the tracing method and the Reference Bureau are used, and only when the beneficiary cannot be traced is the money paid into the Unclaimed Moneys Account.

If the money remains unclaimed for 12 months, full particulars are published every three months in the Government Gazette, and a number of copies are made available to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Information so that the information may be published in several magazines read only or mainly by Black people. When the particulars have been published in the Government Gazette, all the relevant identity numbers are again supplied to the Reference Bureau and placed on their search register. All information obtained in this way is then fed back to the Workmen’s Compensation office, which starts searching all over again.

Everything possible is done to trace beneficiaries. Officials of the workmen’s compensation office make a point of requesting employers to stay in contact with injured workers, if possible, so that the people may receive the payment they are entitled to, and not disappear, but because of the fact that Black people are inclined to move around a great deal, even employers find it difficult to keep in touch with these people.

We may expect that with the rationalization of the Public Service, there will be close liaison between various departments, such as the Department of Co-operation and the Department of Manpower Utilization, and that the tracing of beneficiaries will be considerably facilitated. The close liaison between Manpower Utilization and Employment, and the close liaison with the Administration Boards, as well as the freer movement of Black people, will also help to make it easier to trace the beneficiaries. Money that is owing to beneficiaries is not simply deposited into the Unclaimed Moneys Account. When the amount is R100 or more, the matter is first referred to the senior accountant, and in cases where the amount exceeds R1 000, it is first referred to the Assistant Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner (Claims Department), before the money is thus deposited. It must be remembered that when a worker is injured while on duty, he is entitled to compensation. The duty of the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner is to ensure that he receives it. Whether such a worker is in the area legally or illegally is not really important to him.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by congratulating the hon. the Minister and the Department of Manpower Utilization on the great achievements of the past year. We have witnessed major progress with regard to the implementation of the recommendations of the Wiehahn and Riekert reports, and we have also learnt with appreciation of the way in which the hon. the Minister has gone out of his way to create good relations between trade unions and employers’ organizations. We have also learnt of “Manpower 2000”, a project which I believe will mean just as much to South Africa, if not more, as the Water Year and the Green Heritage Year.

“Manpower 2000” already bears the stamp of the hon. the Minister’s enthusiasm, drive and the dedication with which he is serving South Africa. He is determined to turn the labour force of South Africa to the very best account. Because this department has received a new name as well as a new task, I believe, it is also important that we should discuss with the hon. the Minister this instrument which he has created to facilitate the task of the department and of the Manpower Commission. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to react in his reply to my view of the task of our “Manpower 2000”. I agree with the hon. the Minister that if we succeed in fully utilizing South Africa’s available human potential, we shall not only remain the most developed country in Southern Africa, but we shall also succeed in convincing Africa of our good intentions. Then those States forming part of the constellation of Southern Africa will prosper with us and we shall have peace and stability on the Southern subcontinent of Africa. We shall become a constellation of States which will command the respect of the world in the economic, military, educational, sporting, agricultural, mining, transport, energy and almost every other sphere of society. In all those spheres we shall take the lead in Africa. Then, however, we must not sit back and expect “Manpower 2000” to achieve all these things without our having to lift a finger.

In recent years, a tendency has been developing in South Africa which gives cause for concern. More and more often one reads in the newspapers of South Africans who complain and ask what the Government is doing for them. They want to know why the Government is not improving their educational facilities, why their taxes are not being reduced, why they cannot work shorter hours, why the Government cannot favour their profession above others, and why they cannot drastically increase their fees for the services they render to South Africans. In asking these things of one’s Government, one is actually asking them of one’s country. I concede that many people in South Africa have the right to ask these questions.

The teachers have the right to ask them. The policemen, the nurses, the doctors, the men on the border, the warders, all of us, in fact, have the right to ask these questions. Then, however, South Africa can also ask us: “What are you doing for your country?” Then South Africa can also ak us: “What are you doing to be more productive? Is your contribution enough to enable South Africa to compensate these people according to their merit?”

I believe that with the aid of “Manpower 2000” we should encourage and inspire one another to be more productive, more patriotic and less materialistic. Only then shall we succeed in doing justice to all these people in the professions to which I have referred, people to whom we owe so much.

For this reason, therefore, I not only want to support the hon. the Minister in his “Manpower 2000” project, but I also want to appeal to all South Africans not only to read the pamphlet about “Manpower 2000”, but to roll up their sleeves, to take off their ties, to put their shoulder to the wheel and to make a contribution themselves. The hon. the Minister has said that he wants to involve all the inhabitants of South Africa in this project. It is necessary. I agree with him. Only then shall we be able to make better use of our labour force and to increase our productivity. “Manpower 2000” is a project of information and persuasion which aims to create a new awareness and attitude by conveying messages so that this may lead to the desired action.

I understand from the hon. the Minister that “Manpower 2000” is going to function on a regional basis, and I want to ask whether it is not possible that it may function on an even smaller scale. I should like every community in every town in South Africa to be able to establish a committee which can give attention to the utilization of the area concerned. Virtually every profession in that community should be represented on such a committee, and ideas should be exchanged as to how all the objectives of “Manpower 2000” may be realized in the community concerned.

In order to remove the problem areas in the relations between the various populations groups, the Government established relations committees a few years ago. These committees are making a major contribution because they examine local circumstances and find local solutions. For this reason I advocate that local bodies should be involved in the “Manpower 2000” programme. The Government has just proved that it is serious in its intention to rationalize the Public Service, and it has been done with brilliant results. The next logical step is perhaps the rationalization of provincial administrations and then of local authorities. However, why should the one wait for the other, thereby wasting precious time? I believe they should set to work straight away so that everyone may set his house in order at the same time. Then one can ascertain on the local level whether certain matters which fall under provincial departments at the moment should not rather be dealt with by local authorities, or perhaps the other way round. Take, for example, the case of the teacher or the school principal who has to supervise the construction and maintenance of gardens, rugby fields, swimming baths and all kinds of other sport facilities at school. Why can those matters not be transferred to the parks departments of local authorities, for example? These people are specialists who know how to lay out gardens and how to maintain sport facilities. They also have the necessary equipment for getting that work done. One may have a financing problem, but I believe that the provinces could still be responsible for financing these activities.

I should like to mention a second example. Why should a policeman’s time be taken up by inspections in bottle stores to supervise people who sell liquor? Surely this task can be entrusted to the inspectors of the Hotel Board. Ideas such as these can be investigated by the committees of “Manpower 2000”, and I believe this will only be to the benefit of South Africa. I hope that the successes achieved by these committees will be referred to a special central point from where they can be distributed to the rest of South Africa. I believe that many decisions are being taken at various places in our country. If those decisions can be applied all over the country, great savings could be effected. This would ensure that every one would benefit from the successes achieved elsewhere. I want to indicate why I am saying this. Last year I referred to the enormous saving effected by Cape Town through the instalment of its unique mercury vapour short-standard street lighting. What city or town in the Cape Province is following the example of Cape Town? In fact, what city or town in South Africa is following the example of Cape Town? Should success stories such as these not be channelled through the office of the Administrator, of the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs or perhaps of the Minister of Manpower Utilization, so that they may be brought to the attention of other towns, and should there not be someone to make sure that they are implemented all over the country? I have given examples that are of interest to several authorities. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Boksburg dealt with the Wiehahn report and its implementation. We had hoped that the further report by the Wiehahn Commission would have been available prior to the commencement of this debate. We hope that Dr. Wiehahn will be afforded all possible assistance so that the further report may be published and tabled here as soon as possible. For the rest the hon. member for Boksburg made a positive contribution and naturally the hon. the Minister will reply to him.

†Mr. Chairman, there are over five million children at school in South Africa. That means that we have more children at school in South Africa than there are inhabitants in some overseas countries. It takes an enormous infrastructure of schools, universities, technical colleges, technikons, etc., to ensure that the scholars will receive the best possible education and that they all fulfil their potential. It is obvious that when these five million children finish their education it will be absolutely fatal if there are not job opportunities to accommodate them together with other job-seekers who come onto the market. I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me that it is an exercise in futility to educate and train people and then afterwards to have no scope for their abilities in realizing their full potential. It is absolutely essential that employment situations are created so that expectations are not built up and then later remain unfulfilled. In our view the fact that one is educating all these children means that there is a reasonable expectation of their being able to obtain suitable employment commensurate with the education they are receiving.

In addition to what the Government may do, it is absolutely vital for the private sector and private enterprise to play their part to the full. There has been a tendency for private enterprise not to keep pace with its share of the gross domestic fixed investment. For example, in 1946 private enterprise was responsible for 63% of the gross domestic fixed investment while this declined gradually to 46% in 1977. The share of public authorities and public corporations together increased from 37% in 1946 to 54% in 1977. This is a very disturbing trend and that is why we welcome the commitment to the free-enterprise system and to small business as set out in the last budget speech of the hon. the Minister of Finance. In fact, the Government has set aside the sum of R10 million provisionally. If we take this matter to its logical conclusion, we shall require more than R10 million. We should like to ask the hon. the Minister to have this matter investigated thoroughly in consultation with bodies like FCI, IDC, Assocom, the Handelsinstituut and others. This investigation is of the utmost importance if one bears in mind that 90% of individual concerns in countries like Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Japan, Norway, Switzerland and Sweden employ fewer than 50 persons. 95% of the concerns in the USA can be called small although they are responsible for 43% of the gross national product of the USA. Thus it can be seen how important and how urgent this investigation is. I fully realize that large concerns must be encouraged to expand, extend their activities and develop into even larger operations. I also fully realize that we must use every possible incentive to get new industrial and commercial concerns to start up in a big way. I shall come back to the expansion of the large concerns presently. In the meantime I think it is of the utmost importance that, like the countries I have just mentioned, we should do everything in our power to encourage small concerns. More particularly in view of the various population groups we have, it is essential that we inculcate in all the population groups the benefits of the free-market system and of free enterprise.

How can one start better than in a small way, and if it starts amongst all the groups and they keep expanding, we can achieve the optimum results, as we have seen in Austria, Belgium and other countries. My plea is therefore that we should not only create job-seekers. We must also go out of our way to give every encouragement possible to people who want to start small operations and which will employ small numbers of people. If a sufficient number of these people set themselves up in business in addition to the employment opportunities available from large concerns, there will be a possibility of a reduction of the number of unemployed people in South Africa. The hon. the Minister is in the unique position where he can encourage other departments and have consultations with his colleagues in the Cabinet to ensure that they stimulate the economy in order to ensure that more job opportunities are created.

I want to give the hon. the Minister the same example which I put to one of his colleagues a few days ago. Let us look at the motor industry in South Africa. Sales in the motor industry have improved, but now is the time to see whether it is not feasible to go for far longer runs by increasing production and possibly producing motor vehicles more cheaply. If this could happen it would in turn create more employment and we could then even consider exporting on a far greater scale than we are exporting at present by means of more export assistance by the Government. If South Africa could become one of the major motor vehicle exporters it would be one of the best injections we could give the South African economy. The increased production, employment opportunities and exports are all tied in with increased sales. It is in relation to increased sales that I would like the hon. the Minister to confer with his colleagues in the Cabinet and to institute an urgent investigation. The sale of vehicles could be dramatically increased by a reduction of the deposit by 50% and by increasing the instalment period to 60 months. Many people cannot afford motor-cars because the instalments are too high and sometimes the deposits are out of their reach. If this suggestion was found to be feasible and introduced, if the deposits were within reach of most people and instalments were spread over a longer period it would obviously mean a dramatic increase in the turnover of motor manufacturers and obviously it would also mean an increase in the turnover of retailers. This would lead to a far greater investment than there is already in the motor industry, and obviously increased production would lead to the creation of far more job opportunities. The hon. the Minister may well be worried about the fact that the bad debt ratio could increase if one eases the credit restrictions, but I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that the leading financial institutions in South Africa are involved in the credit financing of the motor industry and by the nature of things they operate in a cautious manner. I want to point out further to the hon. the Minister that the retailers themselves obviously would exercise a large degree of concern and caution in the credit which they grant. The granting of credit in South Africa is reasonably well controlled and, as I have said, the motor-car retailers, financial institutions and others would ensure that the bad debt ratio is kept to an absolute minimum. In the present economic situation this is an ideal opportunity to build up a motor-vehicle industry which has the potential of becoming a massive export industry and a major employer for job-seekers in South Africa. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister, who has a vested interest in that his present portfolio is tied in with the suggestion I am pleading for, that he takes a very active interest in the matter and that he and his department give every encouragement and assistance to bring this matter to urgent fruition.

I will encourage it, but what does the hon. member suggest?

My suggestion is to cut the present deposit on motor vehicles by 50% and to extend the period of repayment to 60 months. If this were done it would create a dramatic increase in motor-car sales throughout the country.

Oh, oh!

The hon. member for Umhlanga says “Oh, oh”. I think he agrees with me because he knows the motor industry well and therefore he should agree with me.

I do not. [Interjections.]

There is a further matter I want to raise with the hon. the Minister and that relates to the enormous number of industrial accidents which occurred during the year which ended on 31 December 1979. There were 188 755 industrial accidents, and the amount paid out by the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner was approximately R35½ million. The total period during which injured persons … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I merely rise so as to afford the hon. member the opportunity to complete his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member for False Bay for extending this courtesy to me. I was saying that the total period during which the injured persons were out of work as a result of accidents was approximately 2,2 million days. To the R35½ million obviously must be added the loss of production, the cost of the hospitalization of these people and the ability of the person who returns after injury to be as productive as he was before. The hon. the Minister should consider the whole question in depth and should have the matter investigated because I cannot believe that in a country like South Africa we can afford the enormous wastage of manpower and the costs attached to these industrial accidents. The investigation will indicate what the causes are, what the problems are and what steps should be taken to keep industrial accidents to an absolute minimum.

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to follow the hon. member for Walmer. Generally speaking, his speech was a constructive one, except for the figures in connection with injuries, and in connection with the motor industry. That was somewhat of a phantasy. I do not know where he obtained the figures, but I do believe the hon. the Minister will duly reply on that point. However, generally speaking, we have had a very constructive debate today. We are dealing with labour, with manpower, which is certainly the most important matter in South Africa at present. At the same time, one could compliment the hon. member for Durban North. Even the hon. member for Bryanston took a sympathetic view of casualties and the hon. member for Houghton was also very constructive. Even the hon. member for Pinelands was constructive in what he said about the Wiehahn report. As I have said, I agree with him when he says “jobs for all in South Africa”. Why not? After all, that is the position. We have to strengthen the economy. I agree with the hon. member. Where I cannot agree, however, is when he says: “Why strengthen the work committees?” He says: “Strengthen the Black trade unions.” I am not opposed to trade unions. A trade union has a contribution to make, but why does he specifically say: “Strengthen the Black trade unions?” The hon. member for Pinelands drew comparisons, but I ask him tonight, and he must answer me: How many trade unions are there in Japan? Also, compare the economy of Japan with that of South Africa.

How can can you compare South Africa with Japan? Answer me, now.

We are dealing here with an expert in all fields. But let me give him the definition of an expert, because he pretends to be an expert on everything.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question?

No, sir, I am answering the hon. member. I wish to give him a definition. He is a so-called expert on everything connected with labour. [Interjections.] An “ex” is a “has been” and a “spurt” is a drip under pressure. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Pinelands must please contain himself.

I now wish to come back to the debate. I believe that “Manpower 2000” is going to be an outstanding project. One has to consider the speech the State President made on 31 March. Lets quote one single extract that to me is particularly important. I quote—

The hon. member for Pinelands must listen to this—

Specific objectives have been set in South Africa. To achieve these objectives the availability of efficient, trained manpower, the correct utilization of the manpower resources and the meticulous conservation of the available resources, are essential. That is the cornerstone on which we have to build the future of South Africa. We are living in times of change, times that present exciting possibilities but at the same time demand sacrifices, wisdom and sober action of all of us. Matters relating to the labour set-up must be considered soberly and with insight. An effort must be made to mark out a course, and in this respect every man in South Africa, including members of the Opposition, have to co-operate since ultimately it is going to be in the interest of all of us.

In the South Africa of the future, an economy will develop within the next 20 years that will be four times the size of the present economy. That is the projection of South Africa and its manpower. In this process, we can ask ourselves what the key to the future is. The key to the future is: labour and labour relations. Together we must seek and emphasize bases for agreement and avoid areas of difference. There has to be a spirit of goodwill in which we shall strive for cooperation, because if we do not achieve co-operation, what then? We may ask why there should be co-operation in all fields. The answer is that the future of South Africa is at stake. It is indisputably true that labour relations have today become the most important and most dynamic part of the wide spectrum of relations between the various population groups in the Republic. At the same time, however, it has the greatest potential for conflict and friction among people. Consequently it is going to demand extensive knowledge, understanding and insight on the part of the Government as well as on the part of employers and employees to foster a feeling of solidarity which would have to serve as a basis for further development and progress in the field of labour in South Africa. There is a feeling of uncertainty among our people. It has to be remembered that by refusing to make adjustments, a community runs the risk of losing the very thing it seeks diligently to protect, through its very unwillingness to adjust.

I represent a constituency of workers. I am not ashamed to tell the workers in my constituency that the NP Government is not holding an auction. The NP is not selling out the White worker. [Interjections.] In fact, hon. members still have to show me a Government that does more for the White worker than does the NP. [Interjections.] In the same breath, I wish to say that hon. members still have to show me the Government that does more for the Black worker than does the NP. [Interjections.] I could keep on quoting until the hon. member for Pinelands is blue in the face. I could go right back to 1949 in Hansard and quote column after column to show the hon. member what the NP has done for every Black and White worker in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. member a chance to finish his speech without making so many interjections and talking so loudly.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If we were not to succeed in increasing productivity in this set-up, it would certainly contribute to increased inflation, a slow growth rate and increasing unemployment in our lower occupational levels. Could South Africa afford that? That is the question we have to face tonight. Every worker has to perform the work for which he is best suited and for which he has the necessary motivation. Training is going to be one of the key words of the future; selective employment by means of scientific personnel selection. One cannot indiscriminately place a person in employment if he does not have the necessary skill and training. In that respect I agree with what the hon. member for Durban North advocated this afternoon, namely the optimum utilization of our workers’ corps. The Republic has never yet had a greater priority than the development of its human resources. The State can provide all the facilities and capital—that is what we are doing—create the opportunities and issue the most explicit statement of policy about this, but if employers and employees themselves are not willing to take steps of their own accord with regard to training and development, it will be to no avail. The State realizes its responsibility and is playing its part. The employer and the employees should also realize their responsibility and also play their part in future.

However, in this process we have to be mindful of one thing. There are people who do not have the ability to benefit by training, and these are the children attending special schools. I wish to tell the hon. the Minister with due deference that we have to look after these people, whether they be White or Black. There are thousands of children attending school today who are not able to benefit fully by the wonderful future, owing to the fact that they suffer from some mental handicap which is no fault of their own. For that reason we must care for these people in this fine and dynamic century we live in, and see to it that those people will also be able to make their humble contribution to the economy of South Africa. I therefore request the hon. the Minister in all humility to consider these special schools and these special children and to enable them, too, to make their humble contribution to South Africa, because they are willing to do so. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I gladly associate myself with the hon. member for Overvaal, except with the compliments which he tried to extend to the hon. member for Pinelands earlier in his speech. Being truly human, however, the hon. member for Overvaal also has his shortcomings and deficiencies, and is capable of errors of judgment too. [Interjections.]

I should like to associate myself with the hon. member’s remarks on the training of workers in South Africa. It is true that national as well as multi-national companies throughout the Republic are really doing a great deal about the in-service training of their workers. But the Government is also engaged in an intensive programme. The Department of Manpower Utilization and other departments are also engaged in in-service training and the retraining of their thousands of workers throughout the Republic. It is essential that training and retraining should at all times be closely co-ordinated with the realistic needs of the workers. Unfortunately, if these two things are not related, a vacuum occurs, because the variety and the diversity of job opportunities and the ever-changing and developing character of the labour force demand it. Formal teaching and training institutions are simply no longer able to organize their training programmes in such a way as to meet the total demands of the practical situation today. In-service training and retraining of workers with a view to the production of goods and the provision of services have become an integral function of the company. By making such a statement I am not trying to run down formal training as being pointless. I am merely stating that universities and colleges will have to adapt themselves to the demands and the needs of the practical situation, otherwise many of them are in danger of degenerating into white elephants which present irrelevant courses that are simply no longer in keeping with the requirements and the needs of our time. Moreover, formal training centres, like universities, will have to see their task more and more as one of supplementing non-formal training and development systems. I appeal, therefore, for a much closer inter-dependence of formal and non-formal training centres and institutions. It is interesting to note that in countries like France, West Germany and Japan, most in-service training below the technical level is undertaken by the Departments of Labour, while their Departments of Education are responsible for training in technical and professional fields. The Department of Labour, though, in co-operation with employers and labour organizations, assumes the responsibility for the training of its workers. I wish to state that the community is demanding with growing urgency that formal training should be adjusted to the need of the individual to work and live in the economic and social environment of the future. I want to point to one example of this. An academic textbook that was relevant yesterday and today will no longer be relevant tomorrow and the day after. For that reason there have to be constant future-oriented adjustments. If one takes a look at the countries of the Third World, like those of Southern Africa—where South Africa is the trend-setter—it is clear that a large measure of success is being achieved, inter alia, in our own country, by assisting employers’ bodies in initiating, organizing and controlling their own training programmes and then co-operating with existing in-service training institutions in particular in order to improve and extend their own training services and to contract for in-service training services which were not previously available. It is extremely important that we should not overlook this aspect.

In general, non-formal training systems are less mechanical and less competitive with formal systems of higher education.

I come now to another aspect which is tremendously important and that is manpower planning. This is now becoming the highest priority in our rapidly developing labour community. This is coupled with the realization that the industry has to assume an ever-growing responsibility for the social well-being of the worker. Not so much the State, but industry, has to assume a greater responsibility. Secondly, as far as manpower planning is concerned, it is becoming all the more complicated and goes much further than merely satisfying the needs of workers. Manpower planning, I want to state here tonight, is more important in South Africa than anywhere else in the world, because what we have to consider and plan for here, is a heterogeneous community which, if I may juxtapose the two poles, ranges from the Stone Age right into the Space Age in which we live. All social levels and strata are to be found in South Africa. Let me put it clearly. Not only the White worker, but the Coloured and Black worker, too, must be planned for as far as their training, their in-service training, and also their retraining are concerned. So it is a totality of planning for the whole work force of South Africa. Manpower planning provides a strategy and a basis upon which to plan for four, five or six specific matters, for example integrated training, primary and secondary education, in-service training and retraining, but also—and this is equally important—health services to workers, economic considerations and the social development of the worker. So if we look at the programmes for manpower planning, we see that exceptional demands are being made on society and on the Government. Let me mention a few of them. There are, inter alia, the introduction of modern production technology of the 20th century, the switch from a capital-intensive policy to a more labour-intensive development policy, the adaptation of formal training and the shift in emphasis from non-formal employer-supported training programmes, the reduction in the number of foreign workers in order to create and ensure job opportunities orientated towards the inhabitants of this country. This means that foreign workers will have to be phased out to make way for indigenous workers.

Let me conclude by saying that a strong country like South Africa demands a strong economy based on a strong, stable working community which is dependent on up-to-date training facilities, and no one in this beautiful country of ours may stand in the way of the Government and of other bodies which realize the urgency of the matter and are striving day and night to achieve these ideals, because our future, our whole survival depends upon those very ideals.

Mr. Chairman, it gives me great pleasure to congratulate the hon. member for Brits on a speech that was yet another positive contribution to a debate in this House. I wish to state, moreover, that having listened attentively to all the speeches in this debate, I can sincerely congratulate the hon. the Minister of Manpower Utilization on his policy and all the things he has stated so clearly here in the House and also outside the House. Throughout the day, the approach of all hon. members on both sides of the House has been only positive. For that reason I believe I can sincerely congratulate the hon. the Minister on all the good things he holds out in prospect for South Africa. If the spirit prevailing here in the House today is a reflection of the attitude which is at present prevailing throughout the country, I believe we are actually on the threshold of a period of prosperity, an exciting period which we could all look forward to with gladness.

I find it significant, too, that in the exposition of the Manpower 2000 project there was also reference to the emphatic role which vocational guidance would play as a programme in secondary schools. At this stage I dare not omit to address just a few words of sincere congratulations to the Department of National Education, which conducted a survey of the needs of South Africa as far back as 1972, and then introduced the following important fields of study at our secondary schools, namely the human sciences, the natural sciences, general science, commercial, technical and agricultural studies, and art, ballet and music. In these fields planning covered the total spectrum of the entire population in South Africa, within the curricula of the secondary schools in South Africa. Furthermore, the three main streams in which scholars could study were also clearly defined. These were the one directed at a university education, the standard stream, without university exemption, and the practical stream. Yet it is a pity that at one stage the sector for which we are making such a strong plea here tonight did not find this practical course acceptable. There was criticism, inter alia, of the contents of the course. Consequently I believe that the time has arrived to take a fresh look at the contents of this course in order to make it acceptable. To my mind this stream has great potential for meeting the very needs that have been discussed here this afternoon. I should like to break a lance tonight for pupils in this category. These are not children who are mentally incapacitated. Most of them merely have a poor verbal development. On the other hand some of them are merely poor readers. Then, of course, there are also those who simply do not wish to be bothered with book work or paper work, but would prefer to work with their hands. They prefer to use their hands to give shape to things.

If I have any fault to find in the manpower shortage set-up in South Africa, it is that we have a loss of manpower in this transitional phase between the secondary school and the outside world. In this phase the pupil virtually finds himself wrapped up in the cocoon of a protective programme of training and protection which the school offers him. The day he hands in his books and walks out through the gate, he finds himself in an altogether strange new world.

That brings me to the function of the vocational guidance counsellor at the secondary school. Vocational guidance counsellors are one small group of teachers who have to put up with a great deal of criticism today from all quarters. They are even accused of not doing their work. In the secondary school there is planning for every single pupil to the absolute maximum of which he is intellectually capable. In the nature of things it happens that many a child, because he sets his sights so high in the vast funnel of the school, gets carried away, through the sheer force of suction at the top, by the illusory hope of a university career, only to find in the eddy, when he has to make his final decisions for the future, that he does not have the ability to make the grade at university. This sort of thing happens to the pupil during the last three months before he leaves school. During that period one finds the greatest subsidence in human ability, for after having been on the wrong track for six or eight years, the pupil suddenly has to stumble about and find another route. Then the vocational guidance counsellor is blamed for the fact that the pupil made the wrong choice, that the pupil does not know which way to turn, cannot make headway and does not know which way he is going. I think that is a dreadful mistake. I have only the greatest appreciation for what these people are achieving in our schools. This person and the principal of the school are the two people who have to accept responsibility for 750 pupils in the school. The parents expect those two people to guide every child and in the right direction and help him to choose his final vocation. I think this attitude towards those people is unfair.

This type of teacher does not work under ideal circumstances, either. Let me state the matter in its idealistic form. I picture the vocational guidance room of a school as a tastefully furnished interviewing room, well lit, and with a restful and congenial atmosphere. This is essential so that there can be a relaxed relationship between the counsellor and the pupil who requires individual attention. There should also be a well-equipped, spacious class-room for the rest of the class, and in that class-room there should be such things as film equipment, sound equipment in the form of cassettes and cassette players and representative brochure material covering the widest possible spectrum of vocationals.

However, what is the present position with these interviewing rooms of our schools? They fall far short of that ideal. The material which the vocational guidance counsellor has available in the classroom is very poorly representative of what is actually encountered in the professional world.

I come now to an important request I wish to make. Could the hon. the Minister please give attention to this matter? Could we not bring things to a head so that the entrepreneur, the manufacturer or the employer in the community at large should make this vocational guidance room of every school a display window so that the child in his environment could receive proper counselling in that the actual professional world is introduced to him? Could these people not utilize the abundance of their means for this? Instead of the State having to provide everything in that classroom, could that group of people not get together and provide those things so that the counsellor and the pupil could cover a much wider field?

I wish to conclude now. In this receptive stage of the young person, just before he enters the work situation, the greatest possible drainage of manpower in our country can take place, and that despite all the good intentions and all the strong incentives of the teacher, the pupil and other people involved. My urgent plea is that we should also bring this type of classroom closer to actual practice. I want this to be the sphere of operation of the educational planner, the school principal, the counsellor and the members of the general public, from which the workers of tomorrow will emerge.

Mr. Chairman, I should now like to say, as I did this afternoon, that I am still really impressed, after a further 13 speakers have participated in the debate. Consequently I wish to express my sincere thanks, to all the members who participated, for the trouble which they took to hold very good, wide-ranging and in-depth discussions of a very wide range of subjects. Thank you very much for doing so.

While the points are still fresh in my memory I should just like to reply quickly to what was said by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. The hon. member for Brentwood discussed a very important aspect here tonight. He spoke about the exciting times in which we are living and the one thing which he said with which I agree is that the educational authorities had the vision years ago to begin planning and laying the foundation on which we can continue to build today. Then the hon. member asked this question: If the educational authorities throughout the country are enthusiastically preparing children for the great diversity of opportunities which South Africa is creating, what is the private sector doing? What does it offer and what is its spectrum? The two must get together. I agree with the hon. member that this is the course we should adopt. I believe, too, that it will be one of the results of this “Manpower 2000” year that an attempt will be made to arrive at that point. In fact, this country of ours today, in 1980, presents a different appearance to the one it presented in 1950. A tremendous variety of new occupations have emerged. But if one asks a person in the street where one can receive training in a certain direction, he does not know. If one asks him how one is trained, he does not know. If one asks him what one must do and what one must receive after one has been trained, he does not know that either. Consequently we have a need for something which I want to call a year-book, in which the entire spectrum of possibilities will be set out, and which will be updated from year to year. I want to inform the hon. member that a start has already been made with this year-book and that we hope to have it available for the whole of South Africa by the end of the year.

The hon. member for Von Brandis discussed the apprentice legislation this afternoon. He said that we should examine it again and establish whether it has kept pace with the times or whether it is not in fact the cause of an insufficient number of people being trained for the wide spectrum of South Africa’s needs. I can tell him that this is in fact one of the pieces of legislation which the commission will examine. We shall have to wait and see what the commission comes up with in this connection.

The hon. member for Rustenburg made a good speech on training. I wish to thank him for his contribution. Inter alia, he made a very valid point. He pointed out that a great deal of time, energy and money were being expended throughout South Africa on training and that there was a need for those who were being trained, Brown, Yellow, Black—all of them—at least to know what they could do with their training. He said that the trained person should use the knowledge which he had acquired. He then asked what the homeland leaders could do, on their part, to inspire their own people and to make a contribution and to carry it further.

I agree with the hon. member and I believe that it will be possible in future—in fact, this is the direction in which we are moving—for there to be a good mutual understanding between authorities and for us to state our aims to one another clearly. South Africa of course will not only have to train the people who will work inside South Africa. Training is also going to become an export product. South Africa will also have to carry out the task of training for the States around us. Who else will do it? It is a contribution for the future.

The hon. member for Bryanston, who is not present here at the moment, confused two concepts.

He will be here in a moment.

What does one do if a person confuses two concepts such as these? I hope I understood the hon. member correctly. If I did not understand him correctly, all the hon. Whip opposite need do is raise his hand. As I understood him, he said that training means doing away with the apartheid measures of the Government, as he put it. Surely it is not correct to say such a thing. What he was really implying—and this is now in the context of 1980 and not that of 1948—is that if one had got so far as to wish to train people, one could not reconcile it with the policy of this Government. That is what the hon. member said. In fact, he said that the fact that the Government wishes to train people means that the Government has lost its way. That is not correct, but I do not wish to waste time arguing about this aspect. All I want to say is that it seems to me there is a very wide comprehension gap between us on this side of the House and those on the other. However, there will be a further opportunity to come back to this subject.

The hon. member also discussed unemployment benefits and mentioned a whole number of points in this connection. But if the hon. member had listened to what the hon. member for Springs had had to say, he would have found his answer. At the same time I want to tell the hon. member for Springs that he gave a wonderful elucidation of the procedure which is adopted in regard to unemployment benefits. Consequently I need not go into the matter again and I simply wish to say “Selah” to the hon. member’s explanation. I cannot do it better than he did.

The hon. member for Stilfontein apologized for not being able to be here. He discussed the “Manpower 2000” project and I shall have a little more to say about this matter in a moment. However, the hon. member raised a very important point which I wish to emphasize. There are two requirements which are sometimes overlooked when various people, Brown, White and Black, will compete in the labour field in the South Africa of the future. Firstly the traditionally established workers in an occupation must not be afraid that they will be threatened in that someone else from outside will enter the occupation at a lower wage. Secondly, when there is competition on the shop floors of South Africa, the standard of work will be the decisive factor. I wish to emphasize in this way that if we are not in future going to see the labour situation and the demands which it makes as being an absolute requirements for the standard of work to be the same and for the remuneration for the same work to be the same, we are creating a potential threat for ourselves and we will be creating a situation of great conflict. I think that if the concept that if a person does honest work and need not fear that he is going to be underbid by another person who can enter the occupation at a cheaper wage had not recently taken root among the rank and file of the workers of South Africa, we would not today have been able to inspire confidence in the work force of South Africa.

The hon. member for Vryheid spoke about the building workers. Some considerable time ago the hon. member addressed a letter to me in which he stated that he had received an emergency call from his constituency on the building industry which would grind to a halt there if we did not do away with the building workers’ legislation. As far as this is concerned, it is quite clear to me that we should adopt a different approach to the whole matter.

I come back now to the question of the exemption granted a while ago. In this connection I want to give hon. members a few facts. Who does one ask if one wishes to know what is happening in the building workers’ industry? We could ask the people in the building industry themselves. This industry, which consists of 35 000 employees, can tell us what their contracts stipulate and what they have to deliver in the time which lies ahead. I do not think the image of the building industry is quite what it should be. The image is conservative. I do not think the building industry itself will know what the development programme of the Government is. The target of the State is a higher target than what the industry has on hand at present. They told me that they were of the opinion that the annual intake of apprentices now needed was in the region of 2 000, while if we look at the projections for the future we find that this number is too small. We shall not be able to meet the building requirements in South Africa if the intake per annum is only 2 000. The figure should be far higher, and is closer to 3 500 per annum. What are the facts now? I wish to single out only two of the variety of jobs in the building industry. During the past five years the entry of White bricklayers and plasterers, the so-called wet trades in the building industry, was as follows: One year there were six; over two years there were four; one year there were none and one year, five. So, how can one now tell the country that from now to the end of the century just as many bricks must be laid as were laid from the time of Van Riebeeck until the present if this was the intake of additional White workers? In one year in the Transvaal, not a single White person presented himself for these trades. Surely this is senseless. Surely we cannot go on like this. That is why we come to a point where we have to decide that either we are not going to build anymore, and we live in tents, or we allow the people who are available to do the work. These are the hard facts. I now wish to come back to arguments on this matter, and I make apology for doing so. I am sorry, but we should already have done this earlier. Which of the hon. members who know the Western Province can say when they last saw a White person with a trowel in his hand? The wet trades are not even trades which the Coloureds are entering anymore. Consequently it is no use saying that we should employ Coloureds. If I must have workers in Pietersburg and there are no Coloureds in Pietersburg—the Coloureds are in the Cape—what must I do? It is no use saying that a Coloured person who works in the Cape should take his children out of school and go to Pietersburg because there is work there. He prefers to remain here. That is why the building industry is one of the industries which has an Act of its own. But we are reaching a stage where this Act simply cannot be used any further and where we must withdraw it.

I should now like to refer to the matters raised by the hon. member for Durban North. He discussed a wide variety of topics. To tell the truth, he spoke so quickly that I could not keep up with him. Consequently if I do not react to something which he raised, I am prepared to look at his speech again and reply to him in writing. Inter alia, he discussed the centres for in-service training and also asked when those which have to be transferred to my department will be transferred. This will happen soon, and then we can examine the matter further. The hon. member went on to ask whether tax concessions should not be made in respect of training. Yes, one can look at the whole situation again and ask the hon. the Minister of Finance what further assistance he can give. I cannot give the final answer to that question now. It is something which one will have to re-examine from the beginning. For that purpose we have, as I have already said, created an instrument which will help to sort out these problems and which can advise the Minister as to where we can make this assistance an integral part of our scheme.

The hon. member then went on to talk about the consolidation of the various Acts. It will not be done this session because two other departments are involved in the matter. I think the appropriate time to do so will probably be next session.

The hon. member also asked whether we were looking into the training of national servicemen. I do not wish, in the time I now have left to me, to discuss the entire question of national servicemen and how we can accommodate the matter. In general, as far as national servicemen are concerned, there is a very good understanding between my department and the military authorities. The Defence Force also has representation on the National Manpower Commission. At present we are looking to see how we can reach an agreement with one another and how we can rationalize the training of national servicemen and their in-service training while they are rendering their military service. Perhaps I can come here next year with a better reply than the one I am now able to give the hon. member.

The hon. member for Brakpan also made an interesting speech. He spoke about communication and consensus in these sophisticated times in which we are living. The hon. member said that if one had a situation, as a result of a rapid development in future, where negotiation machinery became more sophisticated, with the increasing number of people who are going to participate in South Africa’s industrial set-up, it was going to become increasingly difficult to preserve peace. It would only be possible to do this if we went through a process of evolution and if the various organizations, the employers and employees, worked together with great good-will to go through this process with us. I agree with the hon. member. I think that is the course we shall have to adopt, and if we wish to be successful, it will only be possible to do so on this basis.

The hon. member for Hercules discussed sheltered labour with great compassion. He referred to sheltered labour factories and told us how many of them there were. We control quite a number of them, those, in fact, where handicapped persons are afforded opportunities to go on working, people who were injured in accidents, were born that way, etc. In those factories they are employed under sheltered conditions, and the requirement is that they should at least, through their work in the factory, earn an income equal to approximately 50% of their salary. These factories produce primarily for the State and are rendering an exceptional service. The point I wish to make is that those people as well, of whom there are thousands in South Africa, form part of our manpower. These people, too, should be utilized to the best effect and protected. The hon. member raised a valid point by asking whether, since there is an income and we are grateful for this, and since there will be increases in view of the present salary increases, the starting point is not a little too low. He asked whether we should not raise the level of remuneration a little. I want to concede at once that the hon. member is right Of course I cannot reply to him straight off across the floor of the House, but I think he has a very good point and that it is worth looking into, and I shall undertake to do so and notify him accordingly.

The hon. member for Randburg, in a speech for which I had very great appreciation and which dealt with an extremely sensitive subject, spoke very well, and I want to give him full credit for very thorough research which he must have done before he was able to make the speech. His speech dealt with the important issue of the principle of a closed shop. The principle of a closed shop is one which originated in the trade union movement in England. It means that membership is closed to outsiders. Such a trade union enters into an agreement with the employer according to which no person shall work for that employer unless the employee belongs to the trade union. If the trade union then dismisses any person for any reason and notifies the employer that the employee is no longer a member of the trade union, he must be evicted from his home and dismissed within 24 hours. Hon. members can understand how dangerous such a situation could be. I want to be careful when I comment on this, yet I do want to say that I believe that the South Africa of the future must find a different formula to this one.

I am being very careful when I say this. I want to tell the hon. member that it is a matter which must be handled with the utmost circumspection, and the Manpower Commission is involved in a long argument on this very issue. The hon. member had a valid point when he said that we should examine the possibility of overcoming this obstacle, probably by adopting another standpoint in respect of free association. In any event, I want to tell the hon. member that it is a very delicate situation, one in which trade unions are involved, and I must be careful not to give him a final reply straight off across the floor of this House. Whatever we do will have to be laid down in legislation.

I want to tell the hon. member for Houghton that when she quotes figures she should at least quote the right figures. Langenhoven said that one need not tell a lie, one need only twist the truth around a little. That is what the hon. member did. Besides the other things she said, the hon. member also alleged that the Government was not making progress. Actually she said that the good work which we were doing, were things which they had told us to do a long time ago. She said that recently we have not done many things that were good and that the progress we were making was too slow. The hon. member then quoted from the report which appeared today, and concluded from it that we were still doing very little for the Black people. However, she based her statement on a 1970 figure. I just wish to tell her that she should have quoted from a page or two further on. I want to furnish the figures in respect of 1970 and 1980, for they make all the difference. We must not become bogged down in the 1970 figure. I wish to point out an example of the progress made between then and now as far as the Black people are concerned. Actually, the last 10 years are important, and not the 10 years prior to 1970.

I now wish to refer to the Std. 8 category.

On what page?

It is contained in table 22 on page 52. The figures in respect of the Blacks emphasize the exceptional progress which the Government has made. In 1970 there were 26 695 Black pupils in Std. 8. It is true that one can say that the figure of 26 000 does not appear to be very favourable if one takes into consideration that there are millions of Black people, but if one looks at the figures in respect of 1979, one sees that in that year there were 108 000 Black pupils in Std. 8. Why did the hon. member not say that in 1979 there were not 26 000, but 108 000 Black pupils in Std. 8? Surely it makes a big difference. Let us now consider the number of pupils in Std. 10. In 1970 there were 2 938—let us say 3 000—Black pupils in Std. 10. What will the picture look like 10 years later? In 1979 there were 14 000 Black matriculation pupils, 3,5 times as many as in 1970.

I did not use the matric or Std. 8 figures.

I just want to say that one need not tell a lie, one need only twist the truth around just a little. I just want to say that the hon. member should not argue so piously, and smilingly base her argument on the wrong figure. I just wanted to rectify this. The figure which I furnished indicated that in 10 years’ time there had been virtually a fourfold increase.

Well, I should hope so.

The hon. member for Pretoria East…

… made a rotten speech.

He destroyed you.

The hon. member for Pretoria East made an appeal to the workers to maintain the economic upswing to which they had contributed. He said that at this juncture it was important that we maintain the economic upswing and that we moderate our own demands in our own interest. All I can say to the hon. member is: “Selah”. I want to tell this House that three years ago, in other words not long ago, it was necessary to ask the workers of South Africa to moderate their demands. One of the finest things in the recent history of this country then happened. On 16 June, when very high wage demands had been made and the inflation rate was running at 11% or 12%, almost 500 000 workers met in Pretoria. They asked the then Prime Minister, Mr. John Vorster, to attend the meeting that evening. Do hon. members know what they told him? They told him: “Mr. Vorster, all we want to say to you is that the workers of South Africa are responsible people and that we shall do our best to make the lowest possible demands.” The hon. member must tell me where in the whole world, except in South Africa, this is possible?

I want to tell the hon. member for Springs what I told him just now, viz. that he furnished an elucidation which made it unnecessary for me to do so myself, and if the hon. members had listened to the hon. member they would have known precisely what happened with workmen’s compensation benefits, and how people go about obtaining them.

The hon. member for Boksburg also discussed “Manpower 2000” and asked whether it had been organized on a regional basis. Yes, it has been organized on a regional basis, in all the major cities of the country, and there is a possibility of decentralizing it. My reply to the hon. member is that the intention of the promotion programme is to carry the entire country with it, co-ordinate all the efforts, obtain the co-operation of everyone and make initiative an integral part of the programme so that everyone may share in it. We do not know where it is going to end. All we can tell the people of South Africa is this: Embrace one another and say to one another that as far as labour and the road ahead is concerned, we are going to walk the road together, that we shall think about things and do things together. The initiative and the dedication which flows from that is what we must harness in the interests of South Africa. I thank the hon. member for his remarks.

The hon. member for Walmer discussed the Workmen’s Compensation Fund. I just wish to point out to the hon. member that the organization Nosa is supported by the department and the State to go into the question of losses as a result of accidents. Attention is therefore being given to the matter, and it is also being financed. Actually the hon. member’s remarks have been addressed to the wrong person. I shall, as far as this affects the hon. the Minister of Industries, convey to my hon. colleague the ideas expressed to me by the hon. member and which I think should have been addressed to that hon. Minister.

The hon. member for Overvaal also discussed “Manpower 2000”. He spoke about manpower as being the key to the future. Yes, I agree with him. It will not be our minerals, our precious stones or all the other riches, but the labour of South Africa which will make South Africa a great country. The hon. member also referred, while he was talking about future developments, to handicapped persons, and he broke a lance for them. Of course the hon. member knows that when it comes to handicapped persons who need attention on this level, the special schools for that purpose fall under the educational authorities, but in so far as it must be a service, it is the responsibility of the department.

I also want to associate myself with the hon. member for Hercules as far as this subject is concerned, and say that we should look after the needs of these people with great compassion, interest and love, and the hon. member may rest assured that they will at all times receive the attention which is their due, and that we will never leave them in the lurch.

I want to tell the hon. member for Brits that he made a speech for which I have great appreciation. The hon. member, after he had also referred to Europe and to the school of thought and developments there, also referred to training and retraining, and the accompanying co-ordination. He concluded with the idea of planning for manpower, training and the correct placement of workers. I just wish to dwell a few seconds on what the hon. member said. It is so easy, in a country like South Africa, where on the one hand one has a great shortage of technicians in various spheres, and on the other hand, too, a great surplus, to train people incorrectly if there is no planning, and one of the important exercises in future is going to be to train people in such a way that there is just enough for the needs, without any overtraining, because if we have overtraining we are going to cause inherent frustration in South Africa. The whole question of manpower planning, the training and placement of manpower, and everything which goes with it, is one of the main tasks of the National Manpower Commission. It will be the task of that organization to co-ordinate these things, a task to which the hon. member referred.

With this I think we have come to the end of the discussion of this Vote. Last, but not least, I just wish to thank hon. members on both sides of the House very cordially once again for their contributions and for the spirit in which the debate was conducted. I should also like to convey my thanks to all members present here for the interest they displayed. This was reflected by the fact that they came in such large numbers to listen to the discussion of this Vote. I thank them very sincerely for their co-operation.

Vote agreed to.

Chairman directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr. Speaker, before the House adjourned last night I was making the first point in my speech in reply to the proposal in the Bill that no Cabinet Minister shall hold office for a longer period than 12 months unless he is or becomes a member of the Senate or the House of Assembly. The proposal, in other words, is to extend the limit from three months to 12 months.

Yesterday I argued that the limit of three months was not a constitutional principle in the sense that it recognized the unqualified right of the executive or the head of State to appoint Ministers who have no seat in the House. There were hon. members opposite who argued that because the right had been given to the executive to appoint Ministers for a period of three months, that right could also be extended to 12 months.

No, it is not a right. We discussed the principle.

I thank the hon. member for assisting me. I am grateful to the hon. member for Von Brandis. That is precisely the point I am trying to make. It is not a right in this House for the executive to appoint a Minister from outside this House. It is in fact a prohibition. The executive may not appoint Ministers from outside this House who have no seat in this House, except in so far as there is this special exception which says that it may be done for a period not exceeding three months.

That period is now extended to 12 months on the same grounds put forward in that argument.

But it is four times as long.

I have already argued the case. I am sorry the hon. member for Von Brandis was not here yesterday afternoon. The point is quite simply that it is the principle that any Minister appointed within a parliamentary system of government should be a member of one of the Houses of Parliament. That is the principle. If indeed he is appointed from outside there is a special exception allowed. That is that he has to obtain a seat within three months of his appointment as a Minister. That is the exception. It is not a principle. Therefore one cannot argue on the basis of an exception that the exception should be seen in the light of a principle and could therefore also be extended as a principle. What the hon. the Minister is in fact asking us to do is to extend the exception. I believe that is an entirely different measure. This particular exception existed initially in Westminster, the home of parliamentary government as we practice it, where it has, in fact, been allowed as a convention. There is no written constitution in Westminster and a convention has grown up to the effect that if indeed a Minister is appointed from outside the House of Commons or the House of Lords he should be allowed to accept that appointment on condition that he finds a seat in either the one House or the other within a period of three months.

No, there is no stipulation.

The hon. member for Von Brandis must please try to contain himself because I am trying to explain how I see the situation.

They do not have a constitution there.

If he is patient I shall no doubt come to the point he is trying to make on my behalf. In Westminster it has happened that a person appointed to be a Minister has, in fact, been unable to find a seat within three months. Last night the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens mentioned the case of Mr. Gordon Walker who was appointed from outside Parliament to take a place in the Government as a Minister. He stood in two by-elections but failed on both occasions. Time went by. Eventually, most exceptionally and contrary to the convention, which is a very strong one in Westminster, he had occupied his seat as a Minister for seven months. Then the situation was seen to be intolerable, being in disregard of a powerful convention, and Mr. Gordon Walker had to resign to avoid causing further embarrassment to the Government. I shall come to examine, in a while, why the embarrassment is so great.

In South Africa, as in Australia and some other countries, we do not have an unwritten constitution. We have a written constitution, and in this written constitution we actually lay down formally this three-month limit. In Australia, I may add, they have a written constitution and are very reluctant to change any part of that constitution except for very extraordinary or special reasons. In 70 years they have only made five formal, and on the whole unimportant, amendments to their written constitution. In parliamentary systems Ministers must be members of the legislature. Why is this? What is the importance of this rule? It is because there is in our system, in the parliamentary system as we know it, not an absolute division of power between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. It is therefore necessary for a very careful balance to be kept between these three elements of constitutionality so that none of them gains the upper hand.

We are familiar with the fact that in our system, as in that of Britain, Canada, Australia and others which operate our kind of parliamentary system, there is a strong tendency for the executive to be rather more powerful than either the legislature or the judiciary. For that reason, in our kind of parliamentary system there must be special caution and vigilance to ensure that the executive, which already enjoys a balance of advantage over the other two, should not grow even stronger. That duty of vigilance falls upon us, the Members of Parliament. The bench or judiciary cannot do very much about it. The executive will tend always, for convenience or greater expediency, to whittle away and achieve slightly greater powers on each occasion. So this Parliament has a duty in the interests of Parliament, and when we talk about Parliament, the parliamentary system of government, we are talking about constitutionality. We are talking about a balance of power and a control of constitutional systems on behalf of the people and their outside freedoms. What they are talking about is nothing less than this. We are in fact talking, very largely, of what we have come to call the rule of law, and the responsibility for maintaining the rule of law rests upon us as members in this House. We are the guardians. We are the people who have to take care of this, and it is something to which no Member of Parliament should ever be insensitive. We therefore exercise this vigilance, as I am trying to exercise it this evening, in the interests of the freedom of people whom we serve and represent in this House. Because the executive tends to be too strong, our system insists that the executive should not contain outsiders, brought in from other places, by a method which is foreign to the manner in which members of this House are elected, because that would also be a dilution of the principle that we are elected by the people to safeguard their interests in this place. Therefore, if the executive were free to bring in members who are not our peers, not our fellows, not our equals elected by the same system as we are, they could in fact infiltrate people into positions of executive authority over us and by that means defeat the principle and the duty we have in this House to maintain the freedom of the people through the right of expression in this House.

The hon. member for Von Brandis is looking at me with great suspicion. I should like to say to him, and I am sure he will understand, that the executive as he knows it and as he has come to understand it is in fact easily and increasingly the most powerful element in the division of power between the three arms of Government, and that if the executive were able to bring in people from outside the House, people who have not been elected, people who do not directly represent the people nor were chosen by the people, to sit with the executive and propose laws as members of the Government, if this system were to grow, there would clearly be an accretion of strength to the executive at the expense of the legislature. I am sure the hon. member follows me when I say that.

You are arguing against an existing principle in the present constitution.

Order! Does the hon. member for Von Brandis not want an opportunity to speak rather? The hon. member for Constantia may proceed.

I am afraid that the if the hon. member did speak, we would tend to get into a rather repetitious situation, because I started my speech yesterday and again this evening by explaining that we are not dealing with a principle when we deal with the three months rule but with an exception to the principle.

Why then are we concerned about this particular right the hon. the Minister is asking us to accord him? I think we have to bear in mind that, if we allow the executive to appoint people in this way, that is to say from outside the Houses of Parliament, as members of the Government with the powers the executive enjoy in Parliament, there is a possibility—I do not say it is the intention— that this could lead to an abuse. There could be arbitrary or capricious purposes involved. I am not saying that that is necessarily so in the case of the Minister—I do not accuse him of that—but there could certainly be abuses, arbitrary or capricious abuses, of this right to appoint people from outside the House to be Ministers in the House. It could for example—and I quote this purely as an example—be used to appoint a large number of people for 12 months, all at the same time.

There is nothing in this Bill which prevents the executive, if they so wish, to bring in 10 outsiders—not our peers, not our fellows, not elected, not representative of the electorate— to be Ministers in the House and sit here for 12 months at a time.

It can be done now too, for three months.

Yes, three months is the maximum allowed.

And with a day’s interruption they can go on for another three months and so on ad infinitum.

I wanted to go on to say just that. Another abuse that could occur is that people could be brought in from outside the House for 12 months, then go out of the House for a day to be brought in for another 12 months.

No, not according to my amendment. You have not read my amendment.

I have not seen the hon. the Minister’s amendment.

I believe that these are probably improbabilities. I do not say the hon. the Minister intends such abuses of power. What I am saying is that if we are to guard the principle of constitutionality, we must not water down our constitution, we must not undermine the safeguards which guard our constitution. Unless one has very powerful grounds, I believe it is wrong to remove the cornerstones of our constitutional system.

If we want to introduce elements of the presidential system into our system—and this in fact is what this Bill tends to do—we must look very carefully at the safeguards which surround the presidential system. We have a system which is tried by time and usage and which has its own safeguards built in. There are checks and balances. Therefore we know if we do one thing, there are safeguards to prevent that right or custom being abused.

One of the essential rights we have in a parliamentary system, as opposed to a presidential system, is that Ministers in our system are appointed from among our ranks. They are elected members in the same way that we are. They are also responsible to the same sort of people as we are. Indeed, this relationship between ourselves and the hon. Ministers who sit in this House with us is a very important check and balance or safeguard in our system. If we were to allow Ministers to be appointed by the executive authority, say a President, people who are not members of this House but who can sit and exercise executive powers without being responsible in the way that we are responsible under the parliamentary system, we open the way for all kinds of dangers. The danger is obvious even under the presidential system, but the presidential system has its own safeguards, and I will give a very strong example of how the safeguards operate in a presidential system. If, for example, the President of the USA appoints his Cabinet from outside Congress, be it businessmen from General Motors or whatever, these people obviously enjoy a very high degree of authority. However, the House of Representatives has got control over these people, because no money can be voted except in the House of Representatives, and the President cannot use money for any executive purpose unless the House of Representatives agrees. That is clear. It is not unlike our own system, but there is an important difference. The President of the USA cannot dissolve Congress. He has no right to go back to the country if he is frustrated by the House of Representatives or the Senate. He has got to live with them, he has to make his peace with them and he has to compromise with them, whereas a Prime Minister, or the executive in this country, if it cannot get on with Parliament, can dissolve Parliament and call for an election. That is obviously a very powerful constraint on the President of the USA who has the right to choose his own executive to do as they please, without their having to be members of Congress and elected like other Congressmen. If we were to introduce that system into this House we would not have that control, that check or balance. We would in fact be introducing, by patchwork, part of another system, but without its safeguards. I think this is a very dangerous thing to do.

We have to ask the hon. the Minister why he wishes to make this grave inroad into a well-tried constitutional system which we enjoy and practice in this House. Is the hon. the Minister contemplating the imminent dissolution of the Senate? Does he believe that out of the dissolution of the Senate certain difficulties will arise which will compel him to have the kind of right which he is asking for in this Bill? How can the hon. the Minister ask us to allow this inroad into our constitutional guarantees without giving a more frank explanation of his motives?

I will give you one.

Thank you. I am delighted at the hon. the Minister’s assurance because I really believe that if an hon. Minister, like the hon. the Minister of the Interior, comes to this House in good faith—which I have no doubt he has—to ask us to make this very important change in our constitutional system which, as I have explained, carried insufficient safeguards for the protection of our system, he must have a very exceptional reason. I am surprised that the hon. the Minister introduced this Bill in the first place without giving us a fuller explanation. I think he owes it to this House to open his black bag and to show us what he has got inside. I think that if the hon. the Minister has something valuable, useful but innocuous inside his bag we could certainly take another look at it to see what his purpose is, but to ask us to pass this legislation without showing us what he has inside his black bag is really presuming too much on our supposed innocence. [Interjections.] We are not that ingenuous, and I honestly think the hon. the Minister is really obliged to let us have a much closer look at what he has in his little black bag. We cannot yield the constitutional bridge to the hon. the Minister unless he gives at least a password and a very good explanation on this matter. As I have said, we do not accuse the hon. the Minister of having ulterior or sinister motives.

Why not?

Because he is not like you. [Interjections.]

If the hon. the Minister had come to this House in a mood of reckless unconstitutionality, I would certainly have accused him of ulterior motives. He is in fact proposing to remove one of the corner-stones of our constitutional system, of our well-tried parliamentary system and, as far as we can see, for no really good reason and possibly to serve some undisclosed and probably temporary convenience. Now the onus is on the hon. the Minister. If he has a better reason than an undisclosed and temporary convenience, if he believes that he is justified by a reason so compelling and so important that he can come to this House and ask us to change the fundamental, basic constitution of this country, in a matter which I have tried to show is of some quite considerable practical importance, and constitutionally of very great importance, then he must really give us a very convincing explanation. We cannot agree on the evidence we have and therefore, until we hear better reasons, we cannot support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the atmosphere is always very restful when one speaks after the hon. member for Constantia has had his say in this House. The speech by the hon. member for Sandton the other day and the speech by the hon. member for Constantia this evening reminded me of the days—the hon. member for Pinelands may be interested in this— when, as a theological student, I sat in the class of the professor of practical theology, and that professor told us: “Ladies and Gentlemen, when you are engaged in the exegesis of a text, you must please be analytical, and not project your own ideas into it.” Those hon. members who spoke about this matter projected their own ideas into it to a large extent.

Why did you leave the clergy?

One can never escape one’s background entirely as the hon. member did. I always try to keep to my basic background.

Nevertheless there is one thing I found very interesting this evening, and I say this very good-naturedly. It is that during the past few debates, and now again with regard to this particular amendment, the hon. members of the PFP have made a tremendous fuss about how they are the guardians of the basic principles of democracy as they have developed over the centuries in those parts of the world where Western man has established himself. I am very grateful to have, in this world, opposition members like that who are concerned about this and are guardians of the basic principles of democracy. You will excuse me, Mr. Speaker, if I say that it does seem ironical to me that when South Africa wants to see a dispensation in which the Third World is to be governed echnocratically and that system is to be followed, that very party should now make out that they are the great champions of the values and principles of democracy. That simply does not hold water.

The hon. member for Constantia states that the principle of this Bill is the principle of the three months. He states that the fact that a period of three months can elapse, is the principle. Surely that is not correct. The principle underlying this amendment Bill is the fact that a person can be appointed as Minister without having been elected, like the other members, as a member of this Parliament. The principle is that a period of time can elapse. That is the principle; the three months is by no means the principle. I can argue along exactly the same lines as the hon. member by asking: “But will the extension of the period of twelve months not nullify the principle, the fact that there is an extension?” One could argue about that, and that would be a meaningful argument.

I agree with the hon. member that one can sometimes adjust a policy in such a way that the principle is either nullified or watered down. In this regard I would agree with the hon. member that one cannot stretch the principle of the period of appointment so far that it eventually destroys entirely the principles of democracy to which he referred. Then I say that if it is a case of three years, two years or five years, I, too, should think that there would be a certain period in regard to which I, too, would feel that the principle in the Act was now being watered down. It is difficult to say at what stage one would do so. One has an intuitive feeling about it.

Quite probably the hon. members of the Opposition could say, purely for the sake of argument, that we were violating democracy completely by changing the period. However, the underlying principle is that a period may elapse before such a member becomes a member of parliament. I just want to read to the hon. member from the old South Africa Act, section 14(1)—

In other words, the principle involved was the period.

I now want to say to the hon. members on the other side of the House that although in arguing about our democratic and parliamentary system one harks back to the British Parliament which, as we say, is the mother of Parliaments, one must accept that the evolution and the development within the parliamentary system has spread from there. Here one could even quote Charles Darwin, who said that where species have been separated in time and space, change takes place. One can also say not only that change will occur from where this Westminster system was introduced, but that other circumstances can occur over the years in a specific area like South Africa which could make it necessary for a governing party to effect certain amendments. This is the important aspect we must discuss this evening.

Hon. members on the other side of the House put forward many sinister things. For example, it was said that people could now be appointed from outside and sit here for long periods without being accountable to the public. However, I think that by saying that, one is stretching the principle to the breaking point. The fact is that in this system the Prime Minister has the prerogative to appoint his Cabinet, and in the circumstances in which he has to govern, he perceives the need to introduce a specific extension of this specific period. One can complain about that if one does not hold the responsibility, but I think that from the Government’s point of view it is very clear that in the circumstances we have in Southern Africa today, the circumstances in which the hon. the Prime Minister has to govern, it is essential for them to effect this specific change. Therefore I can find no fault with it.

Whom do you want? Just tell us.

I am not the Prime Minister. He can appoint whomsoever he wishes. I want to tell the hon. member that they should just wait a little. I know that they are very inquisitive. They do not know what amazing things this party comes up with every day, and they will simply have to wait a little to find out.

The question of the representative of voters was also put forward as an example. That is not entirely a parallel case, but let us look at the representatives in the Other Place. It is very clear that the appointment of members of the Other Place is not done by way of a national vote. The election of those members is done in a different way.

But they are at least elected.

That is quite right. They are elected.

At least that is better than not being elected.

There are some of them who are appointed. Does the hon. member agree with me in that regard? There are a number of members who are appointed for certain specific reasons. Therefore the argument of the hon. member for Durban Central falls away entirely, as his arguments usually do.

It does not fall away.

Of course. Accordingly I say that the principle to which the hon. member referred, viz. that people have to be elected, does not apply to the whole parliamentary system we have here. When one looks at the history of the development of the parliamentary system in England, one sees that there are certain people who became members of the Upper House by birth.

That is in England.

That is the case in England. However an evolution took place, after which many of these things disappeared. It is clear that the function of the Upper House in Britain today is substantially different from what it was 100, 200, 300 or 400 years ago.

You are an “uitlander”, man.

For that reason I want to say that as far as the principle of this Bill is concerned …

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether he regards this Bill as desirable or not?

I would not say that that is a very intelligent question. As a member of the party that still has to govern this country under difficult circumstances today, I want to say that if the Cabinet and the hon. the Prime Minister approach me and tell me that this basic period of three months must be extended to 12 months, I shall say that I agree with that wholeheartedly and that it is desirable because the Government wishes it.

I want to take the argument further. I and other hon. members on this side of the House are as vigilant guardians of democracy as the hon. members on the other side of the House can dream of being. We know that the system we propose for South Africa is the system in which the people who are accustomed to democracy will at least have a parliament over them which will uphold the basic principles of democracy. I therefore think that the hon. member asked an unnecessary question.

It was a stupid question.

It was a reasonable question. [Interjections.]

I want to tell the hon. the Minister that he need have no hesitation whatsoever in effecting this amendment. I am convinced that it is essential for the hon. the Prime Minister that this specific amendment be effected. I want to express the confidence that in doing so we shall show once again that we are by no means detracting from the basic principles of democracy. I support this Bill wholeheartedly.

Mr. Speaker, we have just been listening to the hon. member for Rissik, who stated his case in his customary friendly and logical way. However, we were amazed by his reply to the question by the hon. member for Durban Central. As I understand it, he said that he did not know why the Government wanted this, but that he approved of it because the Government wanted it. He told the hon. member for Pinelands that we should wait for a while, because the hon. the Prime Minister certainly had a reason for it and that the matter would be clarified soon. He told the hon. member for Pinelands that he did not really know why this amendment had to be effected but that although he was not convinced yet, he was in favour of it because the hon. the Prime Minister had told him that he had a reason for doing so.

[Inaudible.]

It is really not responsible conduct when an hon. member of this House states that he does not know the reason for something, but that he accepts it if the hon. the Prime Minister tells him that he has a good reason for it.

That is why you people will never govern this country.

That is not convincing at all. It is not convincing to the public as a whole or to this side of the House. The hon. member reproached us and said that we claimed to be the custodians of the basic principles of democracy. We did not go that far. We did not claim to be the custodians of the principles of democracy, because there are various systems of government, various parliamentary systems, even within the broad framework of democracy.

What we do advocate, however, is the safeguarding of the principles embodied in our own South African Constitution. We believe that those basic principles should be strengthened and protected. I believe it was before the hon. member’s time in the House when I, as a much younger member of the House, was profoundly impressed when we passed the Constitution Act of South Africa in 1961. [Interjections.] This is no ordinary Act. It is an Act with a preamble—and the hon. member will realize it—

And so it goes on. Then it says—

This is our approach too. To tamper with the Constitution Act of South Africa is not the same as changing an ordinary Act of the country. It does not enjoy a more formal status, but as far as the people and Parliament are concerned, the Constitution Act of South Africa is a special Act. It is not lightly changed on the basis of the hon. the Prime Minister telling the hon. member for Rissik: “I cannot furnish the reason for it, but there is a reason and soon your eyes will be opened and then you will realize why we have to change the Constitution Act of South Africa.”

†Mr. Speaker, I want to add just a few comments almost by way of a summary of the attitude of this side of the House to the very eloquent speeches made by the hon. members for Sandton and Constantia. Our objection to the Bill really falls under three categories. The first one is the procedure the Government is adopting in the matter. We do not accept that the constitution of South Africa is just another Act of the House. It was designed in very special circumstances and we believe that it should only be changed by way of a very special procedure. What we have witnessed already during the course of this session I would describe as a “piecemeal mutilation” of the constitution of South Africa. The hon. the Minister of Justice, while he knows that a Select Committee, now a commission under his chairmanship, is sitting to review the constitution—and we argue that that is the correct procedure— ignoring his own commission, is adjusting or mutilating the constitution on a piecemeal basis. We have had previous Bills before the House to amend the whole basis on which delimitation should take place, and Bills which change the basis on which Coloured people should have representation in their own council. These things, of a fundamental constitutional nature, are happening while a constitutional commission is sitting to consider these very matters.

Now, it will be said: “Well, this is not really an amendment of great constitutional importance.” Let us understand that, first of all, this is an amendment to the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act. It is therefore a constitutional amendment. In the second place, it is an amendment which affects Parliament. It does not affect the judiciary or the executive, but it affects Parliament, which has sovereign power in South Africa. Not only does it affect the framework within which the laws are made in South Africa, but it affects the institution of Parliament, which has the sovereign right to make laws in the country.

I want to say to the hon. the Minister of Justice and of the Interior that he is adopting an almost casual approach to this matter. I think he has been casual in the reasons he has given. He has not given a single example from the past why this has been necessary. He has not indicated a specific problem in 71 years of constitutional government in South Africa which made it impossible for the Government to comply with the constitutional provisions as they exist at the moment. The hon. the Minister said that something could happen at some stage in the future. We want to know from the practical experience of the Government why it is necessary to amend the provisions of the South African constitution. In the second place, he actually suggested that this is an improvement.

We suggested that in terms of the amendment which is now on the Order Paper, because it would mean the Government could only appoint a Minister for 12 months and that it could not extend his term of office by having him out of office for one day and then repeating the appointment. This is frivolous. Is the hon. the Minister actually suggesting that this is the intention of the Government to make a Minister a Minister for three months, to have him out of office for one day and then reappoint him? Has that ever been the intention of any Government in South Africa? That means he is actually raising an issue which is a non-issue. I am quite sure that neither this Government nor any of the previous Governments of South Africa would ever have thought of this procedure. Yet the hon. the Minister suggests a procedure which no one has thought of as justification for this measure.

I want to put it to the hon. the Minister so that he can reply to it. Bearing in mind that this is a measure which changes the constitution of South Africa, bearing in mind that it is going to have an important impact on this House, on the debates in this House and on the relationship between this House and the executive, why then did the Government not follow the time-honoured procedure of trying to reach inter-party agreement or consensus before putting this Bill before the House? I ask the hon. the Minister to reply to that. Why was there no attempt whatsoever to reach inter-party agreement on the situation before putting this Bill before the House?

Why is it necessary?

It is necessary because it affects the rules of this House. If I had the time I would show that it will actually affect the procedures in this House. It will also affect the powers and privileges of members of this House. It actually states that a person who is not a member of this House shall be deemed to be a member of this House for the purposes of the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act.

If this is so I should like to put a second question to the hon. the Minister. Surely he is a man who is sensitive to the traditions of Parliament. Why then did he not refer this measure to a Select Committee of this House? A Select Committee could have considered the impact of this measure on this House, the measure of suddenly allowing strangers into this House. Surely the law is quite clear on this point. Strangers are not allowed on to the floor of this House. By this device, however, it will be possible for strangers who are members of neither of the Houses of Parliament to take their seats in this House and to take part in the deliberations of this House.

Only for a certain period. [Interjections.]

For a whole session of Parliament. If need be, even for more than one whole session of Parliament. I want to ask the hon. the Minister why he did not first of all refer this measure to a Select Committee of this House in order to establish what impact this would have on the proceedings of this House.

I also want to put it to the hon. the Minister that he is the chairman of a commission which, I should hope, the public of South Africa will see as an important commission. While this important commission is sitting to re-examine and to consider the introduction of a new constitution for the Republic of South Africa, why did he not ask the Government to refer this vitally important matter to the Schlebusch Commission? The fact that the Government has not acted in this way indicates, to my mind, a cavalier disregard for the concept of consensus on matters affecting this Parliament. It shows a willingness of the Government to use its majority to try to railroad a Bill through Parliament even without having told the hon. member for Rissik why it is necessary, but merely on the basis that the hon. the Prime Minister says it is necessary and in due course the hon. member will find out. Therefore, our first objection to this Bill is the fact that it is a constitutional measure which is going to affect this House in its proceedings, and that it is also going to affect the political debate in this House. Yet the Government has proceeded with this measure without any attempt whatsoever to reach consensus, to refer it to a Select Committee of this House or to refer it to the Schlebusch Commission. [Interjections.]

The second objection we have to this measure has been stated by other hon. members in these benches. That is that there is a basic principle involved, a principle to which, we all concede, there has been an exception. The basic principle of government in South Africa, however, is that a member of the executive, a man who holds Cabinet and executive, a man who holds Cabinet and executive responsibility, must also be a member of this legislature. That is the principle. There is an exception to allow for a transition or for the slotting-in of a particular member. It can be argued whether that period is long or short. We will argue that three months is a very limited period. It cannot even embrace a whole session of Parliament or span a whole election period. It is, in fact, a limited period which I believe that the legislature, which thought of this period of three months, regards as a period of convenience which would not affect the relationship between the legislature and the executive and would not affect the proceedings of Parliament. It was a matter of convenience and was limited to three months. We on this side of the House believe in this intimate relationship between the executive and the legislature, and a member of the executive must be a member of Parliament, a member of one or other of the Houses. That he must be a member is part and parcel of our whole political system in South Africa. This means that one cannot have importees. It means that as we debate across the floor of the House, we each have an equal electoral responsibility. We each know that we not only have to face each other across the floor of the House, but that we also have to face the electorate, that we are not only part of this House, but also part of the political process in South Africa. We believe that if one starts having Cabinet Ministers who can hold office, make speeches and effect the politics of South Africa for a full year, over an election perhaps—and they are not required to stand for election—this departs from the fundamental principle we believe in, i.e. the representative parliamentary system and not the executive parliamentary system in South Africa. We believe that this is going to have an influence on the debates in this House. It means that the Government—and I think it needs it at this present stage—will be able to import people of stature into this House to take part in the political debates without being accountable to any electorate. This could be done during an election period or prior to an election period. All in all we believe that this amendment, not only allowing a Cabinet Minister to be a member of this House for a full year, but also allowing a stranger, a person who is neither a member of the Senate nor of this House, to be a full member of this House, except for voting rights, means that he can debate, ask questions, serve on a Select Committee and influence the course of politics in South Africa without ever having faced an electorate. We believe that this is a fundamental departure from the parliamentary system of government as we know it, and it is for these reasons that we have no intention whatsoever of supporting this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I promised the hon. member for Constantia that I would give him an honest answer this evening on why this legislation is required. Although I have already furnished the answer in my Second Reading speech, I now wish to try and repeat it. The honest answer is that if the hon. the Prime Minister feels at a certain stage that he wants a certain man with exceptional abilities and talents in the Cabinet of the country, he must be in a position to appoint such a person to the Cabinet without such a person having to be a member of one of the Houses of Parliament. It must be possible to obtain such a person for the period of 12 months, for the reasons I provided in my Second Reading speech, namely that it would be fairer towards such a man if he had 12 months in which to fight an election and in addition devote his attention to affairs in this House. There is absolutely nothing sinister about it.

In the first instance, allow me to reply to the hon. member for Sandton. In the process I shall reply to the hon. member for Sea Point, because he covered the same ground. I am being reproached for not having had the initiative, as chairman of the Constitutional Commission, to submit this matter to the Constitutional Commission. My reason for not doing so is very simple. It is that this does not involve a serious change to our constitution, for reasons I shall put forward in a moment. Apart from the important amendments effected with regard to departments with which I have nothing to do, it is an everyday matter that less important amendments of the constitution are effected every session without it being necessary for them to be referred to an inter-party committee for consideration. For example, already this year we have had the Constitution Amendment Bill which provided that salaries of Administrators would in future be determined by the State President instead of by Parliament. We also had an amendment enabling local authorities in one province to assist local authorities in another province with regard to civil defence. We have also had the Third Constitution Amendment Bill to establish the provincial quota of voters.

That is the Bill we were referring to.

Very well, then, let that be regarded as an important amendment, if the hon. member sees it as such. In any event, it has been passed here. The other two are less important, and in this way less important amendments are effected from year to year.

I maintain that this amendment is a less important amendment because the principle is already incorporated in the existing Act. If the hon. member for Sea Point and the hon. member for Sandton wish to argue that the existing Act only provides for three months, I want to say that in effect that is not so. I maintain that as it reads at present, one can retain a Minister in his post ad infinitum, with an interruption of one day every three months. At present the constitution makes provision for that. Now I am coming forward with an amendment in terms of which the Prime Minister will be permitted to do so for 12 months and not a day longer. Therefore this is a major improvement. Hon. members cannot get away from that. They cannot explain it away. It is a major improvement. Whether the Government would do such a ridiculous thing as to appoint a person ad infinitum is not the point, but that power already exists and we are now improving our constitution as far as this is concerned, and because we are improving the constitution I maintain that this is not an important amendment.

Why is it always the case that while something is permissible in Mother England, here it is always a mortal sin, because an NP Government wants to introduce it. I have before me an extract from the ninth edition of the book by Wade and Phillips. The extract is from page 18. [Interjections.] After quoting the cases of Frank Cousins and Gordon Walker—what happened to them—they state expressly—

Where limited exceptions are accepted, there is no limit on the term. If Mother England allows it, why, then, should it be inadmissible here in South Africa?

We are not bound by England as you are.

I now wish to turn to the hon. member for Durban North, a member whom I esteem very highly. That hon. member is at his best when, like the shoemaker, he sticks to his last, and therefore he was off the track completely when he debated this legislation. He came up with the blatant statement that during the Information debate in the short session of 1978, we on this side of the House had consistently denied that Ministers had a joint responsibility. In saying so he was right off target. As it happens, it was my privilege to expound the issue of joint responsibility on behalf of the Government on that occasion. I want to quote what I said on that occasion. I quoted from page 87 of the seventh edition of Constitutional Law, the book by Wade and Bradley. These authors state—

I said that it was for that reason that Dr. Connie Mulder had to go. I went further and quoted the following from page 86 of the same book with regard to collective responsibility—

Therefore, the hon. member for Durban North was quite wrong. Indeed, on the evening in question I argued that there was in fact such a thing as joint responsibility with regard to a Cabinet, but I spelled out the circumstances in which joint responsibility applied, and the circumstances in which only a specific Minister had to accept responsibility. The hon. member for Mossel Bay, in his reply to the hon. member for Durban North, pointed out very effectively that even though a Minister were to sit in this House before being elected, that would not exempt him from his responsibility towards this House as regards the handling of his portfolio, nor his responsibility towards the Cabinet.

The hon. member for Constantia wanted an honest answer. I have already furnished him with an answer. I did not take the answer from a black bag, but from a white bag. I think I answered him as honestly as I could. To tell the truth, there is absolutely nothing sinister about this whole matter.

I want to conclude by saying that we have a clear conscience about this amendment we want to effect…

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

Yes, but only when I have completed my argument. The Government has a clear conscience about this amendment we want to effect because in fact it represents an improvement of the constitutional legislation, and because we want to rectify, at this stage, a very clear and conspicuous mistake that has existed in the Constitution ever since it was written. Accordingly, I have no hesitation in calling on hon. members to vote for this amendment. Before resuming my seat, I shall reply to the hon. member’s question.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. the Minister has not replied directly to this point, I should like to ask him whether he concedes that when the political ground rules of debate and of membership of this House are changed, that it is a matter that should be changed by consensus or at least that discussions should be held between the parties? If he agrees, why in fact were none of the Opposition parties consulted before this Bill was brought before this House?

The answer is very simple. Nothing relating to the ground rules is being changed. I tried to the best of my ability to spell that out and I am sorry if I am too stupid to explain it better. We already have the three-month principle and I tried to explain what that three-month principle in fact meant ad infinitum, with intervals of one day only. In what way, then, are we changing a principle, if we are only improving an existing principle with regard to the period involved?

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

Order! I think the hon. member can raise his further points in the Third Reading. I cannot allow him to persist in putting questions. Moreover the hon. the Minister has already resumed his seat.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—91: Aronson, T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Blanche, J. P. I.; Botha, C. J. van R.; Botha, S. P.; Clase, P. J.; Coetzer, H. S.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Cuyler, W. J.; De Beer, S. J.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Durr, K. D.; Durrant, R. B.; Du Toit, J. P.; Geldenhuys, A.; Geldenhuys, B. L.; Geldenhuys, G. T.; Grobler, J. P.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Heunis, J. C.; Heyns, J. H.; Hugo, P. B. B.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, E.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E. van der M.; Malan, W. C. (Randburg); Marais, P. S.; Mentz, J. H. W.; Meyer, R. P.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Myburgh, G. B.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Olckers, R. de V.; Rabie, J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Rencken, C. R. E.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Snyman, W. J.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Tempel, H. J.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Theunissen, L. M.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Watt, L.; Van der Westhuyzen, J. J. N.; Van Eeden, D. S.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Niekerk, S. G. J.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Mossel Bay); Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Rosettenville); Van Vuuren, J. J. M. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. G.; Veldman, M. H.; Venter, A. A.; Visagie, J. H.; Volker, V. A.; Wessels, L.; Wilkens, B. H.; Worrall, D. J.

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

Noes—17: Basson, J. D. du P.; Dalling, D. J.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Eglin, C. W.; Lorimer, R. J.; Marais, J. F.; Miller, R. B.; Myburgh, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Sutton, W. M.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Wood, N. B.

Tellers: A. L. Boraine and A. B. Widman.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

In accordance with Standing Order No. 22, the House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.