I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a third time.

We cannot allow the third reading of this Bill to be taken without any comment, but first of all, I would like to have a word with the Minister on the question of decimalization and the prices that are being charged. It was raised with the Minister and he said that he would look into the matter and if it could be shown that there was profiteering taking place, the Government would endeavour to take steps to deal with it. But I think this House would like to have an assurance from the hon. the Minister that the Government realizes the urgency of keeping an eye on the situation. I have a telegram here, which I am sure the hon. the Minister has also received, from a trade union demanding legislation “to stop profiteering on decimalization of shopkeepers, manufacturers, producers, etc. Many cases of increased prices of articles in short supply. Understand milk over the counter now 8¼d. will be 7½c. Workers especially poorest section affected. Urgent action necessary to prevent rise in living cost”. I hope that the hon. Minister will be able to assure us that the Government is watching this position very carefully and will take drastic action in the event of such profiteering taking place. The hon. Minister’s replies so far have been leisurely in their approach to the matter, but it is a matter which urgently concerns large numbers of people if these things are taking place. Sir, in the first place, I must say that the hon. the Minister in dealing with this Bill at an earlier stage did couch his speech in moderate and responsible terms, which I for one appreciate. He said amongst other things, that constructive criticism would be welcomed. I must say that he got precious little help from any of his own colleagues, or any of the hon. members on his side of the House in helping us in the constructive criticism which we offered during the second reading debate. The hon. Minister suggested that I have suggested that there was a financial crisis. Of course, I did not do such a thing. What I did say was that if the hon. the Minister was seriously contemplating another £40,000,000 from the International Monetary Fund, then I would consider that this country was facing a financial crisis. I still say so, Mr. Speaker, because borrowing of the source envisaged by the hon. the Minister from the International Monetary Fund is of a temporary nature. It is an accommodation for members to tide them over an emergency, as the hon. Minister himself has said. And if you are going to borrow money on that basis to the value of well over half of our present exchange reserve, then I say in that case the position would be serious. I asked the hon. the Minister three questions. If he could have replied to them, or if he can reply to them, I think it will be helpful. In dealing with this question the Minister simply mentioned it as a second line of defence. I should now like to ask him, defence against what? Because he did not tell us. To borrow money in limited quantities for a temporary purpose or for a temporary difficulty is well understandable, but against what do we have to have a second line of defence?

The questions I asked the hon. the Minister were these: I first asked whether he was contemplating the possibility of having to borrow all or part of this further £40,000,000. His answer to that was evasive. He did not say yes and he did not say no. Well, the hon. the Minister knows what happened to the girl who took that line of country. It simply does not do. Secondly, I asked him, if he did contemplate the possibility or even the probability of such action, how much did he think he would have to have? Thirdly, I asked him, if he did do that for how long would he have to have it? Those are three fairly straightforward questions which, if answered, would clear the matter. Those are questions on which I think we are entitled to have the Minister’s expert and informed opinion. They say there is no smoke without fire; well, it is not my smoke, it is the hon. the Minister’s smoke in this case. And if we could get a clearer answer from him on these questions, he may not only dissipate the smoke but put the fire out altogether. But we have had no answer to those questions. Indeed, no answer all round is the description that one may apply to the pertinent questions and constructive suggestions we have put forward in the course of discussing this Bill in its various stages. And I must also say that the speeches from that side of the House cannot be regarded as being any contribution to restoring confidence in this Government.

Our business as an Opposition is to raise questions and to ask questions. And the questions we ask have no effect whatever on public opinion at home or abroad. It is the business of the Government to answer those questions, and to answer them satisfactorily. If they do answer them satisfactorily then they may contribute to the restoration of confidence which all want to see. But what has happened? We raised the question of agriculture. We raised it in well-reasoned speeches giving concrete chapter and verse of the position of the agricultural industry as it finds itself in its various phases in this country to-day. We asked how the Government viewed it, and what they could tell us about it. But not one word did we get from the hon. the Minister. We received no information, no expression of opinion, except the continual trickle of inanities from the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) which go on throughout the day and night. [Interjections.]

Order, order!

We asked questions about the export trade, again, perfectly reasoned, sensible questions asking for information on a very serious matter. And if I may say so we received a most wishy-washy and evasive reply from the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs who told us nothing that we did not know before. And he certainly told us naught for our comfort in our worries about the future of the export trade.

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Speaker, would it be possible to keep the hon. member for Cradock quiet?

Order, order!

We asked what the Government was doing in respect of the various reports from the Natural Resources Development Board with their proposals for developing the economy of the country. We received no reply at all. We asked them what they were doing about the Depopulation of the Platteland Commission Report which contains valuable suggestions and proposals. There was no reference at all to that from the Government side. I say that the time of simply appointing Government commissions and putting their reports into pigeon-holes and thinking you have solved the problem or have done any good to the country at all, that time is long past. What the country wants is some evidence of constructive action.

In connection with my saying that 70 per cent of the people of this country were living in poverty, I want to say that my remarks were not directed to the hon. the Minister of Finance but to some of his colleagues who, in my opinion, have been guilty of what I have called unbridled optimism. But I was interested to see that in replying to me the hon. the Minister gave me the most complete and utter confirmation and support of what I have said. I venture to hope that I have made a convert in him on this subject. I said that at least 70 per cent of the people in this country were living in poverty. The hon. the Minister said that the average wage earning of a European was £410 per year. £35 a month as an average. But if £35 is the average it must be obvious that there are very, very many White people in this country living on considerably less than £35 a month. I wonder if any hon. member of this House would try to live with a wife and family on £35 a month and say he is living in comfort? Even supposing that the wife is earning the same amount, it still means that on an average there are many families earning not more than £35 a month between them.

The average income for the Asiatic is sometimes under £6 12s. per month. The average for the Coloured income earner is £4 17s. a month; the average Native £3 17s. a month. If that is not poverty I do not know what is. And it is of no interest to the people of this country who are earning £3, £4 or £5 a month to be told that the people in Burma or Timbuktu are earning less.

That is a soapbox argument.

I would like to see the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) try to live on £3 15s. per month.

He could not live on £3 15s. per day.

That is perfectly true. I say that is proof that I am right in saying that hon. members opposite, like the hon. member for Vereeniging on his soapbox, have no right whatever to talk about the complete prosperity of this country. Talk about soapbox oratory! I did not use that phrase in regard to the hon. member’s leader, but if he likes to use it he is welcome to do so.

He was a soft soapbox orator.

Order, order!

The hon. the Minister asked us to help the Government, to help South Africa and to present a real picture of South Africa to the world. At one stage, in respect of something that had been said on this side of the House, in a very plaintive voice he said “Does the hon. member think that this will help immigration?” Mr. Speaker, I must admit that that was too much for me. This Government was returned in 1948 with the declared policy of putting a stop to immigration, and the hon. the Minister of Finance was the man who, above all, by legislation and administration successfully killed immigration. And for him to ask us whether something we say is calculated to encourage immigration, I can only describe in terms that would not be parliamentary, so I will not use them. The fact is that we do not regard this Government and South Africa as being synonymous, as do the hon. members opposite. Our picture of what we believe to be the true South Africa is not likely to coincide with that of the hon. members opposite.

We believe that the slowing down of development is largely due to the failure to attract overseas capital. We believe that that failure is due to a lack of confidence overseas in Government policies. We believe that the only possible way to restore that confidence is either for this Government to amend its policies or else for the country to have a change of Government. Unfortunately there is no sign of any change of policy by the Government. We hear of nothing but granite walls and outbursts of defiance such as we listened to from the hon. the Minister for Bantu Administration and Development yesterday. And, incidentally, if the hon. Minister has recovered consciousness after the hammering he got yesterday afternoon he should get up to-day and take up the challenges which he so gaily accepted yesterday afternoon. If he does not we shall know that his reputation is for ever lying shattered in the dust.

What is the true picture of South Africa? As we see the true picture, this is a South Africa which has been governed for 13 years by a Government showing little or no vision, no statesmanship, no capacity for forward planning, and which is obstinately bent upon pursuing a course of racial policies which is anathema to the whole world. It is a sad realization that the UNO which is torn in every direction, which spends its whole time arguing and wrangling and fighting, has only one thing on which the whole bang lot are united, and that is that the racial policies of this Government are anathema to them. That being so the picture as we see it is simply that in the long run the present course can have only one result and that is disaster for South Africa. That being so our duty, not to the Government, not to the Nationalist Party, but our duty to South Africa is to continue endlessly, to continue to expose to the electorate the folly and the danger of continuing to support the present Prime Minister and his henchmen and the necessity for trusting its affairs to a more enlightened and a more civilized administration.

More civilized?

Yes, I said civilized.

Are you civilized?

Perhaps that hon. member will find somebody to explain to him what civilized means.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister, in an avuncular mood compared me to Jeremiah. I do not think that is a very happy simile, because the real point about Jeremiah is not whether he was gloomy, the important thing is, was he right? And if the hon. the Minister would read his Jeremiah again and a little Jewish history, he will not only enrich his parliamentary vocabulary but he will find that on at least three major occasions the Prophet Jeremiah was perfectly right in his forebodings and prophecies for the Jewish people. So do not let him just turn down my advice because I was looking sad about it. After sitting for many years opposite this Government anybody may be pardoned for having a sad face.

I hope that the hon. the Minister will reply to one or two of the questions we have asked and try to undo the bad effect which the way this debate has been handled from that side of the House has had on the country and, possibly, on people overseas.

The hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) has raised a whole series of matters. The first point which I want to put right is the hon. member’s statement that the United Party as an Opposition have no duty towards the Government, but that they do have a duty towards South Africa. We accept that. Our difficulty with hon. members opposite is that they have never yet succeeded in seeing the difference between the Government and South Africa. Hon. members opposite think that when they misrepresent South Africa, when they present South Africa in a wrong light to the world, they will harm the Government. In this way they are trying to get into power again. I want to give one example. The hon. member has just said that the only matter on which UNO is united is its opposition to our race policy and our colour policy. But have hon. members ever told the world what their colour policy is?

Yes.

Are they prepared to tell the voters of South Africa: We advocate the direct opposite of the policy of separate development, of reasonable treatment and fair division; we stand for an integrated community, as the Progressive Party does? That is the only alternative.

That is not true.

The hon. member for Constantia has implied that that is the position and he has tried to use this argument to prove that UNO is opposed to us—knowing that UNO, with its non-White majority, will only be satisfied with a policy which goes even further than the policy of the Progressive Party; knowing that UNO will only be satisfied with complete surrender in South Africa. Now they want us to satisfy UNO. In other words, as a result of this speech we can tell the voters that the United Party are hoisting the white flag in the face of UNO’s demands in order to satisfy all that UNO’s demands is making on us.

The hon. member for Constantia has made the further allegation that this Government is responsible for the fact that overseas investors do not have confidence in South Africa.

Quite right.

He says that the policy of this Government has frightened away foreign investments. Hon. members opposite say that is so; but we find that during this debate this heading appeared in yesterday’s newspapers: South Africa has a model investment policy—

Here we have an International Chamber of Commerce, and it holds South Africa up as the country in the world which follows a model policy which assures the position of foreign investment and keeps it on a sound footing.

Why then is the money not coming into the country?

I want to make this point quite clear. South Africa will not take any notice and the world will not take any notice of the economic ideas of the hon. member for Constantia when he makes such allegations. Hon. members opposite ask where the money is. Let us analyse the position. I have here a graph which was submitted to the Johannesburg Stock Exchange at its opening. It deals with capital investment in South Africa and I am just going to give the House three dates. In 1938 the contribution made by manufacturing industry to the net national income totalled £364.9 million; by 1954 it was £830,000,000; and by 1959 it had already reached £1,798.3 million. This is a steadily rising curve. Let us now examine the total increase in the production of these factories. We find that in 1945 the value of their production was £311.3 million; by 1956 it was £1,070.7 million and by 1959 it was £1,218.9 million. This once again indicates the upward trend in South Africa. And then the hon. member says that there is no confidence in South Africa and hon. members opposite join him in asking: Where is the money? It is pointless making allegations without submitting proof.

I am going to give the House a final example. The University of Stellenbosch has carried out an economic survey. I found the following in the Cape Argus of 2 August 1960—

Confidence in the economic future of South Africa. I want to give a final example of the economic progress which hon. members opposite cannot see and do not want to mention. I read the following from the Rand Daily Mail of 2 December 1960—

That is surely wrong.

I am reading from the Rand Daily Mail and it is not a National Party newspaper—

[Interjections.]

Order!

This is not a National Paty propagandist. Still less is this a National Party newspaper. This is a newspaper which would hardly say anything good about this Government. This is a newspaper which likes to hide all reports which flatter this Government on its back page. Even the Rand Daily Mail could not refrain from publishing a report under this banner heading on the confidence in and the planned control exercised by this Government. What justification does the hon. member for Constantia have for raising his dirge here to-day? No, Mr. Speaker, it is pointless making allegations without proof. I want to give one or two more examples. I find that Dr. Anton Rupert, who is world famous for his economic acumen, has drawn up a report for the stock exchange in which, inter alia he said this—

Mr. Speaker, these three ideas are reflected in various documents which I could submit to the House. This is a country which has made magnificent progress during this period without all this other assistance, a country which testifies to progressiveness.

The hon. member has tried to tell the hon. the Minister of Finance that it was not reasonable of him to compare our national income per capita with that of other countries in Africa and elsewhere in the world. No, he says, 70 per cent of the people of South Africa are still living “in poverty”—they are living below the poverty datum line and they cannot manage. What are the actual figures? We are living in a country which is experiencing an industrial revolution. Expressed in terms of money our national income in 1959 was £138 per head of the total population. A comparison with other countries is even more striking. The hon. member is so fond of quoting UNO to us, and according to UNO’s figures for 1958, the South African total of £125 per capita for all races compares very favourably with countries such as Japan, Italy, Austria, the Netherlands and even Western Germany. Here we have an actual fact, namely, that South Africa, on the basis of UNO’s figures, compares favourably with any other country in the world. Unfortunately we have an Opposition which, at the third reading of a Bill, is still trying to present South Africa as a country of poverty, as a country in which investors should not have confidence; we have an Opposition which describes South Africa as the weak link in the nations of the world. Mr. Speaker, this is not evidence of patriotism. On the contrary, this is simply another example of how the hon. member for Constantia, with all his party colleagues, do not want to put South Africa first, do not want to see what is good about South Africa, but are always seeking ways to besmirch South Africa and place South Africa in an unfavourable light in the world. No, Mr. Speaker, such an Opposition in this country is bankrupt.

May I ask a question?

No, I do not have the time. Our time is limited because we only have three hours for this debate. I want to put another matter. South Africa should no longer take any notice of this Opposition, and that is why we on this side of the House should not be afraid to subject ourselves to self-criticism on occasion. When wo do so, this is not an opportunity for the United Party or hon. members over there to use possible improvements which we may suggest as an opportunity for making political propaganda. That being so, I should like to show in discussing this Part Appropriation Bill that we in South Africa have made phenomenal progress in recent times, that we cannot be compared with the rest of the world as far as all levels of our population, and as far as our commerce and in our agriculture are concerned and that we have experienced magnificent development and progress in the labour sphere. At the same time I want to say that I believe our progress has been unbalanced. We have had progress which has changed our economic structure somewhat. The relative rate of progress between the various sectors has been upset and the balance has been upset. To show this, I should like to give the following examples. I want to point out that the hon. the Minister of the Interior stated recently in reply to a question that during the past year the public service had lost 2,728 officials. These officials have resigned from the service and many of them were probably in the clerical section. This is a matter which should cause us concern. I now want to ask what he reason is. Then I want to add that while we have had this phenomenal progress, I find that the distinction between public servants, artisans and workers in the commercial section on the one hand, and the producer on the other, particularly as regards the producer’s return on his capital investment and the salary to which he is entitled, when the risk factor is taken into account, has been disturbed to a certain extent. We have these anomalies with respect to salaries and earnings as compared with the responsibilities involved, and I want to mention them. I think this is a matter which may affect our national character as such, i.e. these anomalies and this unbalance which exist. I want to analyse the position and I say that a commission has inquired into European occupancy of the rural areas. I just want to quote one aspect of this report, and it appears in para. 430—

We must not allow ourselves to become obsessed with this depopulation. When we examine the percentage which the platteland population represents of our total population, and we must admit that our country has undergone an industrial revolution, then the percentage of producers as compared with the percentage of urban dwellers and the percentage of mineworkers and industrial workers is not yet unsound. On the contrary the percentage of producers in South Africa is far higher than in America or any of these other countries. I want to examine a few of the prices being paid. Take beef. In 1954 the price of beef was 91s. per 100 lbs. and in 1956 it was 112s. We see a steadily rising tendency. In the case of mutton we find the same position. In 1951 the price was 17s. 9d. and in 1960 it was 22s. 6d. The price of fresh milk in 1950 was 26. 2d. and now it is 35d. In 1948 the price of cheese milk was 13d. and now it is 20.3d. In 1948 the price of condensed milk was 14.3d. and to-day it is 21.4d. In the same way I could quote the prices of butterfat and mealies, the price of which was 21s. 2d. in 1948 arid to-day it is 29s. 2d. In 1948 the price of groundnuts was £61 per 2,000 lbs. and to-day it is £50. I can give the examples of wheat and various other articles. I want to take potatoes as one example. In 1948 the price was 18s. 5d. and in 1958 it was 42s. The hon. member for Drakensberg had a great deal to say the other day about sugar cane. In 1948 its price was 25s. 2d. per 2,000 lbs. and to-day it is 39s. 11d. I therefore say that under this Government’s agricultural policy there has been a steadily rising curve, and a trend towards improved prices, but the difficulty is that our balance is incorrect and I want to give the House an example. We have had increasing prices for our products, but they do not bear a relation to the risk and the capital investment involved. Everything in the garden is lovely when one examines the price index, but when one takes the index for agricultural implements, we find that the prices of implements have risen at a disproportionate rate.

I want to ask, Mr. Speaker, that hon. members should join me in comparing the salary scales in the various sectors. I then make this submission; In the first place I say that by legislation and regulation we have laid down minimum salaries and maximum working hours. Look at the mineworker’s salary. In 1948 his salary was £55 3s. and in 1959 it was £109. I find further that the mineworker’s salary has increased in various respects. In 1944 it was 33s. 6d. per shift and in 1959 it was 81s. 7d. per shift, an increase of 133 per cent. I want to give another example. Take the bakers. On the Rand a baker’s salary was £6 12s. a week or £29 9s. per month. To-day it is £45 12s. per month, 155 per cent more than 15 years ago. Look at the mealie industry. The minimum salary which a shift miller received on the Rand was £36 Os. 8d. per month, and to-day it is £71 16s., an increase of 97 per cent. Look at the building industry. And remember that I am only giving the minimum salaries which have been laid down by law: A carpenter, a plumber and a bricklayer received 3s. 6d. per hour in 1946 plus 7d. cost of living allowance, and to-day they receive 7s. 11d. They receive 193 per cent more. These salary increases are the minimum increase and in addition they have always been protected as regards their working hours. I now want to ask this question: Have the prices and the ability to maintain a certain standard of living of the producer, the man who must keep all these people employed, risen to the same extent? I just want to analyse one example. When one examines the position in the leather industry, we find that in 1944 the salary of a pattern-cutter was £7 14s. 6d. and to-day it is £11 12s. 7d. However, the farmer of South Africa has had to subsidize the leather industry in order to keep the footwear factories in operation, while the salaries of the workers in those factories themselves have increased by 54 per cent. I therefore submit that these increases in salaries and wages have caused our economic structure to lose its balance and its sense of values. This is a world tendency, which results in socialism. It has already resulted in the workers of England being able to paralyse their Government. It leads to a nation sacrificing and losing its idealism and in a nation losing its characteristics of selectivity in training and the desire to improve oneself, and it may result in the White man of South Africa losing his love for the soil because a far better future from the materialistic point of view awaits him in other fields. That is the reason for the depopulation of the platteland.

Allow me to give one example. I find that the wool farmers have organized themselves into a co-operative society to cut down costs. As long ago as 1926 this co-operative society assisted in reducing the commission on wool sales from 2½ per cent to 1½ per cent which has meant a saving of millions of pounds to the farmers. What has happened? As a result of the economic structure, we find that we are losing the most highly qualified wool sellers who draw a salary of £1,800 per annum, and these are young men of below 40 years of age. The fertilizer factories and other commercial undertakings approach these people and offer them £2,800 to become ordinary commercial travellers and to sell fertilizer. In other words, we are losing the initiative which inspires a man to qualify himself so that he can provide valuable services.

I have here a list showing the salaries of public servants. A public servant with matric and four years of university training starts on a scale of £650 × 50—£960 to £1,080. Then he has to remain on that notch for five years and then rises by £60 per annum to £1,320. Then he has to wait another two years and he then starts on the scale of £1,380 × 60. Then he has to wait another two years and he then goes on to the scale £1,680 × 60. Then he has to wait for seven to eight years or longer, depending on merit, and he then starts on the scale £1,980 × 60—£2,700. If he is promoted to the post of Chief Magistrate, he earns £2,400 per annum, but this is once again on the basis of merit and he has to wait a long time before he eventually rises to £2,800. The highest he can climb is to the post of Secretary at £3,400 per annum. But it takes that man easily from 20 to 28 years or longer to rise to that notch. I now want to compare this with the position elsewhere. We find that business concerns, such as the petrol companies, pay their managing director £9,000 per annum, an economic adviser £6,000 and a manager £12,000. Who pays for that? The consumers. Compare the responsibilities and the work of such a person with those of the Secretary of a Department, not to mention a Minister. In other words I want to make the point that our economic structure has lost its equilibrium. The balance is wrong, because the responsibilities and duties of this person who receives £12,000 per annum are not comparable for example with that of the Secretary for Commerce and Industries, the Postmaster-General and the Minister of Economic Affairs, who have to watch over the whole economic development of South Africa. We cannot compare them. I therefore say that our economic structure has lost its balance.

I want to make a further analysis. Let us examine the training undergone by a post office technician. He undergoes four years of training after matriculation. He then goes on to a salary scale of £700 × 50—£900 and he can rise to £1,320. Then Coca-Cola approach this young man and they tell him: Come drive one of our lorries and deliver ten bottles of Coca-Cola here and ten bottles there. They take him away and they pay him more. In other words, it is not only the economic structure which is unsound, but here we are losing a productive person who could have rendered South Africa good service, because we have trained him to provide technical services but he is now going to do non-productive work in the distribution sector. That is because the profits which those companies are making are too big. That is why they can afford to pay these salaries. Why can the fertilizer companies and the manufacturers pay these tremendous salaries and take away our people? I feel it is because the economic structure is unsound and unbalanced.

I want to give a final example. Let us examine the teaching profession. A person who has passed the matriculation examination and who goes to university, starts on the salary scale £550 × 50—£900 after two years university training, and he then goes on to the scale £900 × 60—£1,320. But if he has matriculation and four years training, he starts on the scale £750 × 50—£900 × 60—£1,500. Compare him with the boy who starts on the Railways. If those two boys were together in Standard 8 and the one starts as a trainee fireman, he receives a monthly salary of £70 or more, including overtime, with in a period of five years. Compare his position with that of a miner who is nightshift cleaner, a boy of 20 years, who receives £130 per month without any training. This young man who goes to university must first pass the matriculation examination and attend university for another four years. For five years he incurs expenses and he starts on a lower salary scale than the other young man and he can never catch him up. But he is the person who has to provide our education and who has to set the pattern of living and the character of South Africa for future generations. That is why we find this strange phenomenon in South Africa. In past years, Sir, when I was a young man, it was the cream of our nation who qualified to become teachers and who climbed to the top ranks in the Public Service. To-day it is only those people who are idealists and who want to teach out of love for their people and who surrender material benefits who are entering these spheres because the attractions offered by commerce are drawing the others away. The same applies to the agricultural industry. When we examine the capital investment which a farmer must make and his return on that investment, we find that that return is not reasonable.

Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to support the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) when he said that the salaries of some people should be higher, but when the next moment he again referred to people who receive too much remuneration, it was rather difficult to understand what the hon. member really meant. But it is the standpoint of this side of the House that if the salary of any person is raised it will receive our wholehearted support, because unlike the hon. member opposite we do not believe that if a man has a high income it will have the effect of changing our whole national character and that he will become a materialist. No, the higher a man’s income, the better his opportunity of becoming a really cultured person, because then he has the opportunity to enjoy books and the fine arts and he has more leisure at his disposal. But the hon. member for Wakkerstroom also told us that the public of South Africa should not really have much confidence in the Opposition, and that if the members opposite want to put their hands into their own bosom they should not be afraid of doing so. Sir, what does one put one’s hand into one’s bosom for if not to remove or touch something? [Laughter.] Of course one does so for a specific purpose, and soon after having said so the hon. member stated that everything is not so rosy in the garden when we look at the index figures. But that was the whole argument of this side of the House when we spoke about the volume of agricultural production. The hon. member really assisted this side of the House. He says that as far as groundnuts and meat are concerned, there is an increase in prices. I have those figures before me. Meat is about one of the only agricultural products which increased in price in recent years. But let us look at maize. In 1952 the index figure was 316 and in 1959 it was 298, a decrease. In 1952 the figure for wheat was 273 and in 1959 it was 271, another decrease. I do not know where the hon. member gets his figures from in regard to groundnuts, but for 1952-3 the index figure was 371 and in 1959 it was 343. That is not an increase. I want to quote from the latest agricultural report—

I can quote to the hon. member the index figures showing how the prices of the main farming requirements have risen. There was not a decrease, except in the case of fertilizer, where there was a decrease of about 3½ per cent, as against which we had an increase of 3½ per cent in the price of fuel. I do not want to follow the hon. member further, but I want to come back to the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing and the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services.

We have now been busy for quite a few days debating the agricultural interests of South Africa, in which debate the hon. the Minister of Finance—I do not blame him—had to do the homework of the two Ministers of Agriculture. Not a single one of them got up to assist him and to tell the House how well or how badly things are going with the farmers. Speaker after speaker on this side pointed out to the Ministers of Agriculture that this tremendous increase in production is not a true reflection of the position of the farmers. I sometimes wonder whether the time has not arrived for the Government to consider appointing a commission like the one that was appointed in 1934 to make a thorough investigation of the financial position of the farmers. Evidently they are not prepared to believe this side of the House.

What was their report?

The hon. member knows what their report was and that it was one of the things which led to the passing of the Marketing Act. Has the time not arrived again for us to do something similar? I ask the hon. the Minister how we can let our otherwise sound economy, which is at least better than our agricultural economy, develop fully if we have the brake of a weak agricultural industry? The real problem is the low prices obtained by the producers and their rising production costs, and unless attention is devoted to it this Government will have to assist the farmers year after year. There is no permanent solution and if we continue as we are doing now I am convinced that the other sectors of our economy will not be satisfied with the position and that the taxpayers will become dissatisfied. They will be up in arms because they will regard it as an uneconomic way of spending money. We say that the farmers are being given no long-term period or permanent solution. It is not the United Party which got the farmers into difficulties, but that party which is not prepared to devote their attention to these matters. It is their baby. They must find the solution. But every time the patient is simply operated on and parts of him are cut away and he never becomes healthy again, and when he gets weaker he is taken back to hospital. The treatment they are giving to the farmers of South Africa is real quackery, and it is now going a little too far; and one of these days the Government will receive a kick from that patient, but it will unfortunately also be the last convulsive kick of the patient himself.

Mr. Speaker, I had not intended taking part in this debate, but a challenge was issued to me yesterday and I accepted it, and this afternoon a further challenge was issued to me and I also accepted it. It seems to me that the United Party consists of a bunch of challengers, but, as a little boy said to me the other day after he had received a licking: “The hitting was nothing, but the trouble was the hitting back.” That is what my hon. friends do not take into account. I just want to reply to a few of the statements made here by the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes).

One of the important things that he said was that he had read out here that on 9 March a number of people were charged because they were against the Bantu Authorities. I then telephoned my official in Bizana and asked whether anything like that had happened. He went into the documents and said that he could find no trace of such a charge. The hon. member then read out the charge, and it appears from the charge sheet that the actual charge was one of arson, coupled with an allegation of hostility towards the Bantu Authorities. I then stated that that was not what he had said previously. He had made no reference to arson previously, and I want to quote what he said. This is what he said—

That is what he said, and when I told him that he had not mentioned that it was arson, he said to me: “It is all rot; it is all nonsense; it is untrue.” The hon. member’s adjectives are rather crude, but he is welcome to them. And then, Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition passed certain distasteful remarks. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories then told me that it was time I got an attorney to write out my speeches for me, because, according to him, these things are beyond my comprehension.

Not an attorney like him.

I just want to say this: I have also had some dealings with lawyers, but if I got an attorney like the hon. member, I would send him back to school, and I would even pay his school fees. Because the important point here is this: These people were charged with arson. I concede at once that the indictment also contained the allegation that they were against the Bantu Authorities.

That is the crux of the matter.

The hon. member knows that I am not the United Party, but if I were to go and burn down the hon. member’s home and I was then charged with arson on the ground that I was against the United Party, surely the whole world would laugh at me. It is purely and simply arson; that is what they were charged with. It goes without saying that those agitators are against the Bantu Authorities—and I did not deny that—but why does the hon. member make himself guilty of such a distortion here? And when I pointed out to him that he had not used the word “arson” in his previous speech, he said “rot” and “nonsense”, etc. No, one should be more reasonable in one’s conduct. But let me go further. I accused the hon. member here of having participated in the Transkei in a whispering campaign against the chiefs who are well disposed towards the Government …

No, you said against the Bantu Authorities.

… and he then said “that is untrue”.

A whispering campaign against the Bantu Authorities Act.

The Bantu Authorities and the chiefs; I emphasized that. He said: “It is untrue,” and he then challenged me to produce proof. In that regard I just want to say one thing. The hon. member also put a little twist into that, something which I had not said, namely, that I had accused him of having conducted this whispering campaign amongst the Bantu. That I did not say. I did not say that he had conducted this whispering campaign against Bantu Authorities and against the chiefs amongst the Bantu. I said that he had conducted a whispering campaign against the Bantu Authorities and against the chiefs. He then called upon me at once to produce proof, but he said that I must come along with the evidence of supporters of the chiefs. He said that immediately; but he knows himself that that is one of my important sources of information. But that is not all; I want to produce this further evidence to show that the hon. member, in season and out of season, held meetings and issued statements in which he advanced the proposition that the trouble in Pondoland had nothing at all to do with Communism, that it was only due to the fact that the people were dissatisfied with Bantu Authorities and with certain chiefs who were “stooges” of this Government.

That is true.

I challenge the hon. member to deny that. Sir, I do not want to take up the time of the House, but I could quote newspaper reports here to show that he did conduct this campaign. It must not be forgotten, Mr. Speaker, that many people think that he, as a Member of Parliament, ought to know what the position is, and that they are going to repeat these things. But I go further. I want to refer hon. members to his speech in this House.

But is that a whispering campaign?

Can one imagine a more bitter attack upon the Bantu Authorities and the chiefs in the Transkei, and can one imagine anything which is more calculated to sow suspicion than the speech which he made in this House? Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to you that that is the hon. member who actually stood up here and accused the chiefs of fraud. If he does that in this House, we must assume—and there is evidence to prove it—that he also did it outside this House. Of course, he always adds this little twist that that is what the Natives say, but he does not tell us which Natives. We know that the people who say these things are agitators. He comes here and says that the Natives say that the man who brings the biggest and the fattest ox to the chief’s court is the man who can be assured of winning the case. He went even further and made the allegation here that chiefs were being bribed. He says that Botha Sigcau did not even convey his congratulations to us in connection with the republic; that Botha Sigcau’s support of the Government has resulted in one thing only, and that is that he has received a farm as a present.

Those were not my words; read my Hansard.

Here I have the hon. member’s Hansard.

Read it.

I can read it out …

Order! I want to make an appeal to the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) to give the hon. the Minister an opportunity to carry on with his speech.

I want to give him an opportunity but he is running away.

I gave the hon. member my reply: I told him that all the important chiefs were entitled to farms, and the position is simply that Botha Sigcau had not received his. It was an old promise. Mr. Speaker, what is the object of this type of accusation other than to set in motion and to encourage a campaign of sowing suspicion against the chiefs who are well disposed towards the Government? Sir, I now have before me what the hon. member said and I should like to read it out—

There we have it. What is the implication of that allegation?

Bribery.

The direct implication is that he was being paid for his loyalty to this Government. In other words, here the hon. member was playing the role of the little attorney who always gives a little twist to things so that he can be on the safe side and still say what he wants to say. I could read out numerous newspaper clippings to show that the hon. member said this type of thing in season and out of season. How can he say to-day that he did not participate in this? How can he say to-day that it is a “lie”?

I did not use the word “lie”.

I said here that the trouble that we were having in Pondoland was due primarily to the activities of White communists, and when I stated that the hon. member had held such a meeting at Umtata where he had denied this, he said “that is a lie”, and then the hon. the Leader of the Opposition jumped in immediately and called out, together with other members on that side, “Challenge him, challenge him Mr. Speaker, I have here the Territorial News —a newspaper which, I think, supports the hon. member—and here they say—

Read on.

I will—

Is that all it says?

Very well, let me read further then—

Why did you not quote that?

What difference does it make?

Read further.

Order, order!

Mr. Speaker, what a wonderful feeling it gives the hon. member to think that here at any rate he did one thing that was not unpatriotic.

Read on, MacNel!

What a nice feeling it gives him to think that here he did one thing that is truly in the interests of South Africa. But do not forget, Mr. Speaker, that is only one-thousandth of what is stated here. I just want to say this to him: What a nice feeling it would have given him if he had really been loyal towards South Africa. But the position is simply this: He told me that he never said in Umtata that there were no communistic activities in the Transkei. He said “That is untrue”.

It is untrue.

But here I have before me what the hon. member said. Let me read it out again—

Very well, that was all I said.

That is correct.

But that is the whole issue. Yesterday evening he stated that he had not said this. That is the whole issue. He said that I had told a lie when I stated that he had said that the trouble was not being caused by communists. Let me ask the House: Who is the person now who is putting the position incorrectly? I just wanted to mention these few matters to show how the hon. member twisted his words and gave an erroneous picture to this House. But I want to deal with another point.

You are not allowed to use the word “verdraai” (twist).

Order! The hon. the Minister must withdraw the word “verdraai”.

I withdraw it.

May I ask the hon. the Minister why, if he alleges that these people are communists, he does not take steps against them in terms of the laws of this country?

I have already given that explanation. Pondoland is a very mountainous country, and the position is that these people slink in at night. The Bantu know where they are and they can tell us where they are, but by the time the police arrive on the scene they have disappeared. This is a very difficult and painful matter, and that is why I have now given the chiefs authority to arrest those Whites.

On what evidence?

Since I have given the chiefs that authority, there is not one of them left. Mr. Speaker, I am also going to extend these powers to other areas. Those Bantu must deal with these people themselves. They must arrest them and hand them over to the police.

How many have they caught already?

Did I understand the hon. the Minister to say that he was giving authority to Bantu chiefs to arrest Whites under the Suppression of Communism Act?

Let me put it this way: I am giving these powers to the chiefs under another Act, not under the Suppression of Communism Act. I am extending their powers. These are powers which will have to be extended in due course, of course, and I say again that I am going to extend them further. This step is in consonance with this Government’s policy of granting greater powers to the Bantu in their own territories. It is one of the cardinal principles on which our policy is based. The hon. member may rest assured therefore that I am going to extend these powers further so that the Bantu themselves will be able to deal with these people.

How many Whites have already been arrested by Native chiefs under these powers?

I have pleasure in announcing that not a single one has been arrested because not a single one has put in an appearance there again. But there is one thing of which these people can be assured and that is that the chiefs are ready for them. This is one of the salutory effects of the granting of these powers.

Now I come to another matter. When I said that the Bantu had the inherent power to move people from one place to another in their area, the hon. member also said “that is a lie”. He said that this right had only vested in the chiefs since the introduction of the principle that to-day the Governor-General is also Supreme Chief of the Bantu in the Cape Province. The hon. member should study his law. He should take a refresher course. Mr. Speaker, in 1927 the Courts ruled that chiefs had that right throughout South Africa; it is an inherent right.

Only in the Transvaal. It was never exercised in the Transkei.

The hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit) is really the schoolmaster of the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes), and I must say that I feel very sorry for the pupil.

It is a pity that you have no schoolmaster.

Latterly the hon. member for East London (City)—fine, dear old man that he is—has shown that he no longer knows his law. I made very sure of this point; I consulted my law advisers. Since 1927 a chief has had the right to move persons in his area at will. When people are removed, we still have to prove that the chief in question had the right to do so. That is based on a Court judgment and if the hon. member wants me to do so I can produce proof, but he must not tell me that that is not the position. The hon. member is the only one on that side who does have some knowledge of legal matters in the Department of Bantu Administration. I say that the chiefs have that right. The hon. member should have made sure of his facts first. He should not have accepted the hon. member for East London (City) as his authority; he should rather have consulted his law books. But it is unreasonable to say to me “that is a lie”. What I have said here is an incontrovertible fact. Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed in the hon. member for Transkeian Territories. After all, he is one person who has something good to say about the chiefs occasionally, because the chiefs form one of the bases of good administration.

That is what I said.

And now that I have extended the authority of the chiefs, in accordance with the principle of this party and in order to promote Bantu self-government, he is the man who strongly holds this against me because, he says, there are Bantu who say that they would rather have the White man’s courts than the courts of the chiefs. He says that my officials should have told me that. Mr. Speaker, there is one official who did say that to me and that was his bosom friend, the former Chief Magistrate of the Transkei. He did say that to me but not one of the officials has ever said so. On the contrary, I myself have had this experience that many Bantu have said to me “When our case is a good one, we go to the chief’s court, but when our case is bad we go to the White man’s court because there we have a chance to get away on some technical point”. I say again that it is in accordance with the policy of this party and of this Government to extend the powers of the chiefs. They are going to be extended to very great extent, and that also applies to their courts. I have already promised that full-fledged courts will be instituted and extended in the Bantu areas, so let us face that. But I take very strong exception to the fact that the hon. member for Transkeian Territories, as a representative of the Transkei, cast this ugly doubt upon the good name of the chiefs with their councils in the Transkei. Instead of being a friend of those people, he represents them in a light which is really distasteful. Here I want to defend the conduct of the majority of our chiefs. I admit that there have been contraventions here and there, but do we not find the same thing in the White community? It is unfair and unjust, however, to suggest that this is taking place on a scale which is really terrible. I say again that it is the policy of this side of the House to extend those powers systematically and as rapidly as possible and to develop their courts so that they can try their own people.

In conclusion I want to say to the hon. member that he must not be unreasonable. As a representative in the Bantu areas he should be very careful. He should act in such a way that the Bantu will have respect for him. I can tell the hon. member that I have had various letters from Bantu in which they have made venomous attacks upon him. I wrote back to say to them: “You should not do that because, after all, Mr. Hughes is a friend of ours.” I defended him. I do not allow this sort of thing to be said against him. But let us remember that we also have a duty towards the Bantu. If we find here and there that somebody is behaving badly, we should see that the matter is rectified. It is the duty of everybody to bring cases of that kind to our notice. My office is open to the hon. member. If certain things are going on in the Transkei which he knows should be rectified, then we can discuss the matter. It is our common task, not only mine, to create harmonious relations in South Africa between White and Bantu and between Bantu and Bantu. That is our great calling in South Africa, and if he can make any suggestions, my office is always open to him. The two of us are not bad friends. Although we clash in the political sphere, we always have that bond of friendship, and I would therefore make this appeal to the hon. member, who represents such an important area, that he should come and chat with me more often. If he has any proposals to put forward, I shall always listen to them with an open heart and an open ear. I have my own convictions but I am open to persuasion.

Finally, I just want to say to the member that he should make sure of his facts first before he again calls out “That is a lie”.

The other day the Minister said “I do not like accusing a man if I cannot prove it; I do not take things out of the air”. Well, all I can say is this: He might not take them out of the air but he certainly sucks them out of his thumb. Yesterday he got up and issued challenges and made serious accusations against me. He was challenged to prove them and what has he done to-day? Unfortunately I have not got the Minister’s Hansard here, but I understood him, and I think the whole House understood him, to say that I was responsible for a whispering campaign against the Bantu Authorities and against the chiefs. I denied it and he told me then that he had got the information from the chiefs. I challenged him to prove it and said that I did not want hearsay evidence from chiefs. What has he done to-day? In answering that challenge he says that he can quote newspaper reports to show what I said. What sort of whispering campaign is that if I make a speech at a public meeting? Sir, he says he can quote my Hansard in this House. What sort of whispering campaign is it if I speak in this House and my speech is published throughout the country? Is that a whispering campaign? The Minister may have difficulty in hearing and his interpretation of whispering probably differs from our interpretation.

You should be ashamed of yourself for being so personal.

That is not what I meant at all. Sir, when you talk about a whispering campaign you get the impression that it is something done underhand.

In a clandestine way.

It is not a whispering campaign when you shout it from the rooftops. As far as the Bantu Authorities are concerned, we opposed that Act; we are opposed to the principle of Bantu Authorities. Naturally I spoke against Bantu Authorities at public meetings. I did not address meetings of the Bantu. I addressed my own White constitutents and I addressed White people in other parts of the country. I have attacked Bantu Authorities openly. For the Minister to suggest that I acted in a clandestine manner, is, I think, most unfair. I want to say this too: The Minister kept on referring to the word “lie”. He said that I had said that this was a lie and that that was a lie. I never once used the word “lie” and if I had you, Sir, would have called me to order.

Even the Cape Times said you said it was a lie.

The Minister was sitting here listening.

But perhaps I was deaf.

I am quite sure the Minister heard all right. The Minister then went on to say that I had on a previous occasion read out an indictment in this House and had said that an offence had been committed on 9 March, the offence of assault in the campaign against the Bantu Authorities Act. What I said was that, although people were being charged with offences committed as far back as 9 March for campaigning against the Bantu Authorities Act, the Minister and the Commissioner General and the Senior Information Officer at Pretoria were denying that there was any opposition to the Bantu Authorities Act. That is what I said and I read out an indictment which I have here now. I will read out again what I said. It is not the case to which the Minister referred. I referred on that occasion to a case where the offence was committed on 9 March—the crime of assault— and the case to which the Minister referred and which he got from his officials was a different case altogether where four people were charged with arson. But the fact remains —and I can give the Minister a copy of the indictment—that it was alleged—

The same as I said yesterday. But what did the hon. Minister do? If the hon. Minister looks at my Hansard report of that day, he will see that I referred to a charge of assault and I said that the offence had been committed on 9 March, and I was referring to this indictment. The Minister did not ask me for this indictment. He got in touch with his officials and they got the wrong case for him, but that was also a case in which an act was committed in defiance of the law of the Bantu Authorities, but it was a different case. In fact I had the particulars of that case too, and I have that indictment before me as well. The fact is that I did not mislead the House. What I said was true. They were charged as far back as 9 March for campaigning against the Bantu Authorities. Now the Minister comes and pretends and tries to tell the House that because he read an indictment in which the offence was arson, and I had said it was assault, therefore I was misleading the House. Again the Minister must get his facts right before he makes general accusations against me. The Minister must get his facts right.

In regard to my meeting at Umtata, the hon. Minister said yesterday that I had said that communists were not responsible for what happened in the Transkei, were not responsible for the agitation in the Transkei. The Minister said that I had denied that there were communists in Pondoland. In my speech I said that what I had said was that I did not believe that Communism was the cause of the unrest in the Transkei. I said I believe that there was outside influence using the Natives in the Bizana District, but that they could do so because of the general dissatisfaction there against Bantu Authorities. Perfectly correct. That the hon. the Minister can read in my Hansard report. And that is also what the newspaper report said of my speech that I had said that communists were not the cause of unrest in the Transkei. That is quite right The opposition to Bantu Authorities is the cause. If there was no dissatisfaction the communists or the outside agitators could not use the people in Bizana. And I went on to say that. The hon. Minister stopped before he got to that point. He should have read on. I said that they came from outside.

Now in regard to the next point made by the hon. the Minister that I had denied that the Transkei chiefs had the power of removal. In his speech, the hon. the Minister said that the power was given to them by the courts. Now yesterday if the hon. Minister was listening, he must have heard me deal with the 1925 case. I denied that the chiefs in the Transkei had this power of removal, and I still deny it. I referred to the 1925 case which the hon. Minister mentioned this afternoon. It was a case affecting the Barolong tribe, and the court held that the supreme chief, not every chief, but the paramount chief of that tribe had the right to remove a person from one area to another, and the court then found that the Governor-General who acted as the supreme chief of all the Natives in the Transvaal, the Free State and Natal, had the same power there of removal. But I went on to point out that apparently the law advisers could not have been satisfied on that point because in the 1927 Native Administration Act special powers were given to the Governor-General to remove, in Section 5. I then went on to point out that the Governor-General was not the supreme chief in the Cape until recently when this Government appointed him as such. I read from an extract from Mr. Rogers’s book in which he points out why the Governor-General has never been their supreme chief.

That is something quite different.

But I said that yesterday, as the hon. Minister will find in the Hansard report of my speech.

That is quite all right, go on.

I do not agree with the Minister or with his law advisers that that 1925 Appellate Division case gave any powers of removal to the chiefs in the Transkei. It dealt with that particular tribe. But I want to ask the hon. Minister this, and I asked him yesterday, and he did not reply to me to-day: If that is so, why has he passed these emergency regulations? Why has he in these emergency measures promulgated in November, last year, specially given certain chiefs the right of removal? I asked him then, and I ask him now: If all chiefs have the right, why did the Minister in this proclamation say—

Why did he give only certain chiefs this right, if they all had it? And why did he not answer that question? He can’t answer the question, because he had to give the chiefs the power to do it. I hope this is not going to be the position for all time and that this is only an emergency measure.

The hon. Minister then attacked me for my attitude towards the chiefs. I want to point out again that I on several occasions have said, and I have said it in this House, that the chiefs and headmen are necessary for the administration. What I objected to the other day was this particular proclamation, and I said then and I say now, that it is wrong at this time when the complaints are against the chiefs and the headmen, to extend their powers and it is not fair on the chiefs and headmen themselves, because they will be afraid to exercise those powers on account of what is happening there. You give them these powers, you place the duty on those chiefs to do certain things, and they are afraid to do so, because of what happens to a chief who carries out government policy. The Minister again this afternoon has pretended that there have been no complaints against the chiefs and the tribal authorities. Sir, when the hon. the Minister appointed his commission, he knew what the trouble was, because I want to refer him to the terms of reference. The terms of reference of this commission were—

1. (a) The establishment of tribal authorities;
2. (b) the fixing of the boundaries of tribal authorities;
3. (c) the appointment of heads and councillors of tribal authorities; and
4. (d) the proper functioning of tribal authorities in the area; and generally to inquire into such other matters as may be necessary.

But the whole object of this commission, their terms of reference was to deal with tribal authorities. How can the Minister come here and pretend that there was no opposition to tribal authorities in that area, when his terms of reference specifically refer to tribal authorities?

And then the hon. Minister criticizes me for suggesting that there is corruption amongst some of the chiefs and some of the headmen. I say again that that is generally spoken about in the Transkei and the Minister should know about it. But he only needs the report of this commission, and he will find it there. On page 22 they say—

There were complaints only in a few cases.

But the report says that the complaints were general, and that there was substance in it. That is the finding of the commission. How dare the Minister come here and suggest that I am deceiving the House and the country, that I am a mischief-maker trying to build up ill-feeling towards his chiefs and headmen. His own commission has found that. Had the Minister lived in the Transkei, he could not have helped hearing the accusations that are made by tribesmen. It is the general talk. And the trouble is that the tribesmen are afraid to lay any charges, because they are afraid of the chief and his followers. It is the same as appealing from the chiefs court. The Minister may not know this, but it is a fact that Natives are afraid to note an appeal from some of the chiefs’ courts. I am not saying that it applies to all the chiefs’ courts.

There are a few cases of complaints.

I do not know how the Minister san say that. Apparently he does not know. He said that only one official, and he calls him a “boesemvriend” of mine, an ex-chief magistrate (I do not know where he gets that from that he is a bosom-friend of mine) had made mention of complaints. Again the Minister is sucking out of his thumb. He said that this chief magistrate was the only official who had told him that there was bribery and corruption. I know why the Minister said that. He could not avoid that because of the evidence before the commission, which I quoted yesterday. Now the Minister says that that is the only man, the only official who says so. I am very much surprised. It is incredible that the other officials in the Transkei have not told the Minister.

I am just as surprised as you are.

The Minister must be surprised, especially when he reads this report and finds that the commission says that the complaints are general. Surely he must have asked his Native commissioners why they are not doing their work. They are the ears and the eyes and must know what goes on, and he must have asked them why they have not found out. The Minister cannot avoid this. He cannot just stand up here and make wild statements without proof. He has got to face up to the facts. I asked him yesterday what is happening in Kentani, what is happening at Cala, Ngcobo. I am not suggesting that they were necessarily against tribal authorities, but I do know two headmen were murdered in one district and another headman was assaulted and taken to the hospital at Butterworth. The newspapers tell us that 100 police have been sent there, to Kentani. I asked the hon. Minister yesterday what was going on. The complaint of the people is that they are kept in the dark. They want to know what is happening. And to suggest that I in any way tried to stir up trouble is ridiculous. I am more concerned than anybody else in this House in peace in the Transkei. I am the only one who lives there, and it is my concern to see that there is not trouble in the Transkei.

You don’t help me very much.

The Minister will not help himself. I have suggested what the hon. Minister should do. He should appoint a wider committee to go into the whole question and to find out what is happening. Or if the Minister has found out what the root causes are, and this commission has told him, why doesn’t he tell the House and inform us what he is going to do about it? What is he going to do about this “general complaint” here about corruption? He does not do anything about it, because he says that he does not believe it. But his commission says something must be done about it. Is he going to do anything about it? We get no answer from the Minister. He does not believe it. Why then did he appoint that commission? We demand that the hon. Minister does something. We cannot let the matter drift in this way, getting from bad to worse. How long is he going to keep a mobile watch and the army in Pondoland? Are we going to have armies all over the Transkei? It is the duty of the Minister to take this House into his confidence and to tell us what he is going to do about it.

The hon. member who has just sat down has made it his business during this Session to build up a kind of reputation for himself in connection with the trouble in Pondoland. I do not think he is so much concerned about what is happening in Pondoland as he is to try to get in a few left-hand punches to the Minister of Bantu Administration. Let me analyse what he has said, Sir. He said that as long ago as March 1960 the people in Bizana were prosecuted because they were opposed to Bantu Authorities. That was the general statement he made. Subsequently, he enlarged on it somewhat and, inter alia, said that there had also been assaults. But the main charge which he laid that afternoon in this House was that, as long ago as March 1960. people were charged in Bizana with being opposed to Bantu Authorities. He tried to create the impression in this House that in March 1960 people were prosecuted because they opposed Bantu Authorities.

But that is true.

What did the hon. member really do? He quoted from an indictment. He did not ask whether the charges had been proved. He only read the indictment as though that proved that they were against Bantu Authorities. He did not tell the House whether the charges in that indictment had ever been proved. He said that they were prosecuted in terms of that indictment because they were opposed to Bantu Authorities. But he did not tell the House that the charges in the indictment had been proved. Now he cries when we hit back at him, and I intend hitting him a bit harder this afternoon.

On a point of explanation, Sir, I asked a question and the Minister read out a reply to the effect that two were convicted and one was discharged on appeal.

That is his story now, Sir, but his charge that afternoon was that the people were prosecuted because they were opposed to Bantu Authorities. I say that is not true. Those people were not charged with being against Bantu Authorities, they were charged with assault, with murder and with arson. If a person is against the republic and he leads a rebellion through love of the Queen, must you contend that he is hanged because of his love for the Queen? It is farfetched on the part of the hon. member to come here with clever quips and adroit legal evasions and to accuse the Minister of all sorts of things. We know him. The time has arrived that he is exposed for what he is, nothing more than a Native attorney in the Transkei, and we should not take any notice of his arguments in this House.

Order! The hon. member must not be so personal.

I do not wish to be personal, Mr. Speaker, but the hon. member thinks he has the right to indulge in personalities of the highest order. He does not raise matters concerning the Transkei in this House for the sake of the Transkei, but in order to launch a personal attack on the Minister. He says that charges were laid against the people because they were opposed to Bantu Authorities. And what has the hon. the Minister done? He merely showed this House that that was not the reason why they were prosecuted, but that they were prosecuted because they had committed arson and in the case to which the hon. member referred, because they had committed assault. That is all. But the hon. member wishes to create the impression in this House and in the country that they were prosecuted because they were opposed to Bantu Authorities. The fact remains that the Bantu in the Transkei are not against Bantu Authorities. It has been shown over and over that the people of the Transkei accepted Bantu Authorities of their own free will, and it has been shown over and over that they themselves had asked for the establishment of Bantu Authorities. That, of course, was not:in accordance with the ideas of the hon. member. He did not like that. He and the former Natives’ Representative of the Transkei (Mr. Stanford) did not like that at all. They did not criticize the Bantu Authorities Act in their constituencies. They held meetings and encouraged the people to oppose this legislation. They did not criticize the law but they told the people that they should not accept it, because it was simply a Verwoerd law and should therefore not be accepted.

Now I want to deal with the second charge. He says the chiefs have no right of “removal”. But what is the true position, Sir? The “right of the removal of the chiefs” does in fact exist. It has been in existence since 1927, in the Cape Province as well. The difference is this: The hon. member also wanted to know why it was necessary to issue that proclamation in September of last year. I will tell him why that proclamation was issued. Ever since 1927 all the chiefs have in fact had that right, but if a chief availed himself of that right and the matter subsequently came before the court, it was necessary in every individual case to prove that he had that right. In every individual case it had to be proved that he had that right. What did that proclamation do? According to that proclamation it was merely necessary to submit the proclamation to court and that was proof of their right. Now it is no longer necessary for them to produce proof in every individual case. According to Native law proof has to be produced by means of evidence in every individual case before it is accepted in our courts, it is not a statutory law, it is a law of habit and proof has to be adduced in the ordinary way. It now becomes statutory law; it is no longer a law of habit and consequently the onus which rests on the Crown is not so heavy. That was the reason why that proclamation was issued. Unfortunately the hon. member is not present to hear this.

Another serious charge which the hon. member laid against the Minister was that he implied that the Minister had bribed chiefs to accept Bantu Authorities. That was what his words implied. I think it is reprehensible to imply that Bantu Authorities were forced on to the Bantu communities by bribing their chiefs to accept it. I think it is mean to make such an accusation. Let us take the case which he mentioned, Sir. He said that for 50 years there had never been any trouble in Pondoland. He was not talking about the last 50 years, but he said that for 50 years there had never been any trouble in Pondoland. Mr. Speaker, the Minister showed him time and again that there had in fact been trouble in Pondoland. There was trouble right from the start, there was unrest even during the days of the British government. The hon. member said, inter alia, that Botha Sigcau received a high salary from the Government and that he had also received a farm. He said that after he had made the allegation that the tribal chiefs had been bribed. In other words he made the accusation indirectly in this House and also in the country outside, that because Botha Sigcau received a salary from the Government and had been given a farm, he had been bribed and that that was the reason why he supported Bantu Authorities. But what is the real position? Under the annexation laws every important chief in the Transkei is entitled to land for his own personal use. Those laws were not passed by this Government but they were passed by those British authorities who annexed that area at the time, and according to those annexation laws every supreme chief (hoofkaptein) was entitled to land. The hon. member tried to create the impression that in the case of the Pondoland East tribe too, the Government had resorted to bribery. But there was no provision in the specific instance of the supreme chief of Pondoland East and because the Government tried to correct the mistake the hon. member tried to create the impression that the Government had given Botha Sigcau a farm in order to bribe him as far as Bantu Authorities were concerned. Surely that is a mean thing to do. Why is the hon. member not in his seat when we disprove his accusations? He makes them and then he runs away. On the previous occasion he was also absent. Admittedly he went to his constituency but he knew that the Minister would reply to him. He had made serious accusations and he should have stayed here in order to hear the Minister’s reply before he returned to his constituency.

I want to ask the hon. member whether he expects the hon. member to remain in his seat after another member of this House has told him that he is a “Native attorney”?

I do not think it is necessary for me to reply to that. Had he objected to that he should have asked Mr. Speaker to call me to order but he did not do so. He did not ask Mr. Speaker to call me to order, in other words, I take it that he had a guilty conscience when I said that. Now the hon. member asks whether the report of the committee will be Tabled but he quoted from that report this afternoon and stated that the people who caused the trouble were not communists. He accepts a portion of the report as a well-founded report based on legal findings, but he does not accept the findings as set out in the other portions of the report. The report also says that it was in fact communists who were responsible for the unrest in Pondoland. Did he not read it? Why does he not accept that portion of the report? Why is he only prepared to accept a certain portion of the report? In spite of the findings of the Committee as contained in their report he persists in denying that communists were the cause of the trouble. Is that fair and reasonable? He says the report refers to “a general complaint” about the manner in which the chiefs exercise their legal duties. He says there is a “general complaint” and he also says that the Commission found that “there is some substance” in that complaint. But “some substance” does not refer to the general complaint but the “substance” only refers to the fact that certain abuses do take place, and not that they are common as alleged by the hon. member. He again implied to-day that where the Committee found that there was “some substance” in the complaint, it referred to the general complaint throughout the Transkei and he wants us to believe that there is ground for all those complaints. Why does he not quote the report properly in this House in the interests of the public so that the public will know what it says? Nowhere does the report say that that is the general state of affairs. It is true in only certain cases. He also wants to know whether the Minister will take action. Of course the Minister will take action where any mal-practices exist. I want to give another example to illustrate the manner in which the hon. member acts. Last year in this House the hon. the Minister referred to the development which was taking place in the Bantu areas, and amongst others, the hon. the Minister mentioned the furniture factory at Umtata. The hon. member then got up and belittled that factory and tried to create the impression that it was nothing more than a little joinery shop. He lives in Umtata. He ought to know what is happening there and what development is taking place but when he comes to this House he tries to create the impression that the undertaking mentioned by the Minister as an example of the development which has taken place in the Bantu areas, is very small, nothing more than a little joinery shop. Do you know what happened, Sir? During the recess certain prominent people visited Umtata and during their visit they also went to the furniture factory at Umtata. The hon. member for Umtata was invited as well. They visited the factory and then the hon. member for Transkeian Territories asked the Chief Native Commissioner why he had not told him that it was such a tremendous undertaking with such large premises. “Why did you not inform me?” he asked.

How far does he live from that factory?

A mile and a half. He says in this House however that it is very insignificant but after his visit he reproaches the officials for not having informed him. He was so impressed during that visit that he asked the manager to take him over the factory once again and he went over it a second time. How can you take any notice of an hon. member who acts like that in public, Sir?

Moreover the hon. member said that the Government did not inform the people in regard to the findings of the committee of inquiry; the Government did not inform the Bantus in the Transkei as to what the report said. What is the true state of affairs Sir? During October 1960 meetings were held at Bizana, Flagstaff and Lusikisiki. At Bizana 5,000 or 6,000 people attended, at Flagstaff nearly 1,000 and at Lusikisiki between 4,000 and 5,000. As the hon. Minister has already told us it rained at the time those meetings were held but in spite of that the people turned up. How can the hon. member for Transkeian Territories say that the people in the Transkei were not informed as regards the report? I do not know on whose behalf the hon. member is speaking, I do not know whether he is speaking on behalf of the Pondos or the Tembus or the White people in the Transkei. My information is that he is not speaking on behalf of any of the three groups. The Bantu at Bizana asked the Chief Magistrate to meet them once again and when he went there the second time there was no meeting. He could not meet them for the simple reason that they were not there. Why were they not there? In the meantime these White agents had got busy in the Transkei. What pattern did they follow in the Transkei? We had the people who came from outside; they said to the people that if they did this or that they would burn down their huts, that they were going to kill them or do something similar. That was what happened. If anybody did act, his hut was burnt down.

Because that was the position the policy could not take action because they lacked evidence; everybody was too frightened to give evidence, with the result that the police could not bring those people to book. If they prefer a charge against anybody they have to prove their case in court. The police could not produce evidence because the people simply refused to give evidence. What will the hon. member’s reaction be if he walks out of this House and somebody assaults him in the street and the bystanders refuse to give evidence with the result that the police are unable to take the case any further? To-morrow he walks out a second time and is again hit but he cannot lay a charge because nobody wants to give evidence. Whom will he blame, the police or the people who do not want to give evidence or those who are responsible for the fact that the people refuse to give evidence? The people refuse to give evidence because the communists intimidate those witnesses. Why has the position again been brought under control? Because a net was drawn round Pondoland and all the suspects were taken into custody. The result has been that calm and peace has immediately descended upon the area and it is once again possible to obtain the necessary evidence in those areas. Life is once again continuing calmly. But the hon. member still maintains that the communists were not the cause of the trouble. Mr. Speaker, I hope this is the last time that we will hear a word about the Hughes episode in this House and that this will be the end of the matter. I think we have heard enough of him. I do not know what his motive is. He is certainly not promoting the interests of the Transkei by the way he is acting. I want to appeal to the member that if he wishes to make complaints in a responsible manner, he should direct those complaints to the Minister, but for him to conduct a personal vendette against the Minister in three successive debates does not benefit this House nor does it benefit the people in Pondoland.

Mr. Speaker, I think that seldom has this hon. House heard less convincing speeches than the speeches from the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman). I will say this about the speech of the hon. Minister, at least it was a courteous speech and a speech in good taste. He displayed good manners. For this reason I certainly do not intend to comment on the speech of the hon. member who has just sat down.

I think we should look soberly and realistically at the position in Pondoland. Yesterday the hon. the Minister, in dealing with the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman), said that there was nothing wrong in Pondoland, that everything in the garden was rosy. He said it was far safer to go and live in Pondoland than it was to live in the suburb of Houghton. I ask the hon. the Minister, in all seriousness, is he sincere when he says this to this House?

Yes, I am sincere.

He is! Well, Sir, then what have we been talking about this afternoon? He has been telling us about the agitators. He has been telling us of hut burning. We have been hearing stories of assaults. I do not want to go into the reasons for these things, but I must point out at the same time he tells us of these things he says that it is much safer in Pondoland than in one of the urban centres of South Africa. Let us stop these pie in the sky stories. Let us realize that there is a state of emergency in Pondoland, and that means that the normal law of the land has been suspended. That means that there is rule by decree and rule by regulation, but there is not rule by this Parliament. How can we talk in terms of a normal state of affairs?

The hon. the Minister has himself said that over 4,000 people have been arrested, and yet at the same time he says, it is safer in Pondoland than it is in Houghton. We have units of the Army, the Police Force and the Air Force in action in Pondoland, yet the Minister spends his time with trivial arguments trying to persuade this House that it is the hon. member for the Transkei (Mr. Hughes) who has been responsible for this by conducting a whispering campaign against the Bantu Authorities. One wonders how ridiculous one can become in dealing with such a serious matter before this House.

I think that both sides of this hon. House should realize that there is a serious situation in Pondoland. There may be a variety of causes. There may be a certain amount of agitation. There may be a certain amount of Communist infiltration. There certainly is a lot of dissatisfaction, not only with the Tribal Authorities law as a law, but also with the way in which it is being administered. I do not think the hon. the Minister can deny that. The problem with which the Minister is faced is that he has no free sources of information about what the people are saying and what the people are thinking in Pondoland. Let us take the case of the chiefs: However good or bad these chiefs are, I do not want to use the word that they are bribed, nevertheless they are the appointees of the Government.

But they are not.

Mr. Speaker, they are not only the appointees of the Government, they can be dismissed by the Government and they are paid by the Government. No person in that position is a free agent to do his duty to the people whom he should represent.

Secondly, I do not believe that the hon. the Minister can always necessarily get the ear and the understanding of the ordinary African in the reserves, of the Pondo in Pondoland, because these people are not free. These people have no redress. These people are governed under an old feudal system whereby the Minister appoints the chief as the prosecutor, judge and also the man who must administer punishment. There is widespread dissatisfaction. But these people cannot show it. They cannot call an indaba and sack the chief. They cannot pass votes of no-confidence. The result of all that is that agitators do lead them to hut burning and to assault. I think that the hon. the Minister should not, because he does not get his information directly from these people, assume that everything in Pondoland is as safe as he alleges.

I want to raise another important matter, and that is in connection with his statement that he was extending the powers of the chiefs. The hon. the Minister said he was extending the powers of the chiefs to arrest, in the first instance he said Communists, of White people who came to those areas. I wonder whether he has consulted with the hon. the Minister of Justice in this regard? Is this House going to be asked to approve the conferring upon the chiefs powers to arrest not Africans, not tribal people who fall under a tribal system, but other citizens of South Africa who do not fall under tribal law. I do not think it is for the hon. Minister to tell the House he is going to clothe these people with greater powers. I think he should come to this House and ask for authority to adopt this strange procedure. But if he is going to allow them powers of arrest, we want to know what provision he has made for charging these people. Are they going to be charged in the ordinary courts of the land or are they to be charged in the tribal courts? Are they going to be found guilty in terms of tribal law to which they are not accustomed and of which they have no knowledge and to which they are not subject, or are they to be tried in the normal courts of the land?

Of course it is in the courts of the land.

Well, Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister said that not only would he increase the powers of arrest of these chiefs but he was going to expand the powers of the chiefs’ courts. He said the whole system of the courts was going to be expanded to give the chiefs greater authority. Now he says these people are going to be tried in the normal courts of the land. We would like to know from the hon. the Minister of Justice when he replies to these matters in due course, whether there are going to be two judicial systems operating in South Africa alongside each other, and whether people of different races are liable to arrest under separate systems and liable to trial under these separate systems.

One thing has been consistent from the Government side of the House, whether dealing with Pondoland, dealing with our racial situation or whether dealing with our economic situation—their refusal of the Nationalist Party to examine their own hearts. The refusal of the Nationalist Party even to query whether they are right or whether they are wrong. The constant refrain we hear, whether our gold reserves are dropping, whether our external markets are receding, whether our national income is not rising sufficiently or whether there is trouble in Pondoland, the constant refrain is that it is never, never the fault of the Government, it is always the fault of the Opposition or agitators. I do not know whether these hon. gentlemen realize how ridiculous this argument is and how threadbare it is wearing. When we criticize the Government for its policy the Government immediately turns round and says “you are merely denying South Africa an opportunity, you do not want to put South Africa first, you are lacking in patriotism”. I want to say that in criticizing this Government we are displaying the greatest patriotism because no greater deed of patriotism could be performed for South Africa than to rid the country of the present Government. Criticism of the Government is not criticism of South Africa, and the sooner the hon. members on the Government side of this House realize that they are not South Africa but a temporary Government in charge of the affairs of South Africa, the better it will be. This Government always seems to imply that criticism of them is criticism of South Africa. They are always clutching at straws and whenever there is any expression of confidence in South Africa they assume that that is confidence in the Nationalist Party. Let me say that there are very few people who do not appreciate the tremendous wealth of the South African economy. There are very few people who do not appreciate the tremendous vitality and the vigour of our economy which has enabled it to withstand 13 years of Nationalist Party rule. But the advances we have made have been made because of our sound economy and in spite of the unsound policies of this Government.

I now would like to return to a matter which was raised at the very outset of this reading of this Bill, by the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson). While these affairs in Pondoland and our general economic position are extremely important, the 15,000,000 people of South Africa and particularly those who do not deal in pound and Rand notes but deal in pennies and shillings, and now in cents, are to-day perturbed at the change-over from pounds, shillings and pence to decimal coinage. I think that in very many ways the Decimalization Board has prepared the ground for the change-over extremely well. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that when one meets the average man in the street, when one reads the daily Press one learns of a number of jarring incidents that are taking place and that are harming this change-over and which, in almost every instance, bear down heavily on the poor man in South Africa. We would like the hon. the Minister, when replying to this debate, to give something more than the vague assurances which he gave this House in respect of action he might be forced to take unless either this profiteering or this manipulation of the coinage ceased. I think we must realize that this whole change-over—and I think the Government has appreciated this— has had in it the seeds of an increase in price, particularly in the range from one penny to one shilling. It has those seeds in it because you are going to substitute a cent for a penny, you are going to substitute a coin which is 1. 2 the value of the original coin. It has in it the seeds of the danger that in these lower denominations the cost structure will be increased. Many people have met this. For instance, the match manufacturers have seen to it that more matches have gone into the boxes. Other people who make bread rolls may or may not have increased the size of the roll, but they could do so if they wished to be fair to their clients. But there are other commodities, such as the penny bus ride, which cannot be adjusted in this way. There was always the danger that this would lead to a rise in the price structure for those people who deal in the lower denominations of the coinage, that is, the poorer people. We find that there has been a rise in the last two days, in the first instance, because of the conversion and, in the second instance, because many people have seized upon this opportunity to push up the price of articles by a penny, or by a cent or sometimes very much more. I think we want firm action by this Government to see that the conversion from pounds, shillings and pence to Rands and cents is not used as an opportunity to get more from the poorer people of South Africa for articles in the lower price range.

We have had many instances of this. Coffee which used to cost 8d. a cup should cost 7 cents, but many of the cafés are now charging 7½ cents, or 9d., the equivalent. There is the commodity mentioned by the hon. member for Constantia, milk. At 8¼d. it should cost 7 1/10th of a cent instead of which it is being charged at 7½ cents, the equivalent of 9d., an increase of 12 per cent on every pint of milk purchased. Oil, which was purchased at 1s. 10d., should be paid for at 18 cents. Complaints in the newspapers indicate that it is being charged for, at certain service stations, at 20 cents, an increase of 6.6 per cent. One sees in a number of shops around the town a sandwich which used to cost 4d. and should therefore now cost 3 cents, cannot now be bought unless in multiples of two. So that instead of buying a 4d. sandwich for 3 cents one now has to buy two sandwiches at the price of 7 cents, whereas if the sandwich were bought individually as one would wish to buy them they could be bought at 3 cents apiece.

One finds numerous examples of where this adjustment is being used, not only to convert from one system of coinage to another but to slip in an extra charge at the same time. I would have hoped that at least the Government would not have been guilty of doing this kind of thing. I would have hoped that at least the Government would have seen that, in no circumstances, were prices increased over and above the direct ratio of the official conversion tables. I am very sorry that the hon. the Minister of Transport is not here, because certainly, as far as the Cape Peninsula is concerned, not only has there been a conversion from pounds, shillings and pence to Rand and cents in respect of return fares on the suburban railways but, in many instances, the fare has simultaneously been increased by anything up to 1½d. or 1. something cents. If it is to be the Government Department which sets this example what else can the Government expect that the private commercial trader will follow the Government’s example and seize this golden opportunity to push up prices.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, not only by pushing up prices can one force up the cost of living of the lower-income groups, but it can also be done in the way one uses the coinage. I think it was evident when this coinage system was first devised that for the penny and the twopenny groups there would be a conversion upwards and the cents would have a greater value than the equivalent penny. Anybody, therefore, tendering a penny for a cent would have received some benefit from it. But conversely. in the fourpenny and fivepenny bracket, anybody who tendered 4 pennies would get only 3 cents worth, which is comparatively less. I think it was made quite clear that what one gained on the roundabouts you lost on the swings. But shopkeepers have realized this and therefore for one penny and twopence they have refused to accept the penny in exchange for the cent but they are quite happy to accept four pennies in exchange for three cents. I would like this Government to make it quite clear that either pennies have to be accepted in exchange all the way up the line in strict accordance with the conversion table, or else pennies are not accepted at all. As it is at the moment it is open to the shrewd businessman to select those categories of exchange where there is an advantage to him, not to accept pennies, and on the other hand to accept pennies where he gets an advantage again. Exactly the same thing applies as far as change is concerned. In certain instances when it suits the shopkeeper to give one penny change he will do so; in other circumstances, if it suits him, he will not. I therefore want this Government to make it quite clear that it will not tolerate any profiteering or any upward move in prices as a result of this conversion, and that where it has been laid down that, for the meantime, the penny is a unit of exchange, no group of people, whether in the Government or otherwise, can refuse to accept the penny either as legal tender or as change for an article received.

Mr. Speaker, I should be very grateful if the hon. Whip opposite would ask the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) to come into the House, because I want to say something to him. Apparently the hon. Whip does not know and does not appreciate the common rules of decency. I am therefore asking him civilly, please, to ask the hon. member for South Coast to come into the House because I want to say something to him.

Why did you not ask him beforehand?

The hon. member who has just sat down said that the wealth of South Africa had kept this Government in power for 13 years. I can only say this to him that a progressive country in the economic field and a rich country constitute the greatest danger to weak Government. It is only a good and strong Government that can remain in power, and remain in power for 13 years, in such a progressive country as South Africa.

The hon. member also said that this side of the House and this Government did not welcome criticism, or rather that they regarded criticism of the Government as criticism of South Africa. That is not true. This Government welcomes criticism but it does not welcome negative and disparaging criticism alone; it welcomes constructive criticism. Mr. Speaker, hon. members opposite and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) again refused to-day to criticize constructively. He was asked what he suggested should be done in regard to the farming community and his reply was what we always get from that side: “We are not governing the country.”

We are not the cause of the farmers’ difficulties.

The hon. member is a Rip van Winkel. You know, Sir, what difficulties the farmers had when that side of the House was in power. The fact that the farmers were not ruined by the severe and continuous droughts which we experienced, by the pests and plagues which we had during the past few years, and the floods, proves how sound the farming community is. We do not deny that certain types of farmers and certain areas have their difficulties. Even to-day I want to draw the Government’s attention to the distress in which certain types of farmers in Natal find themselves. I am referring to the wattle farmers and when I say wattle farmers I am referring to those farmers who are wholly dependent on wattle production for their livelihood. The Government knows to what level the wattle prices have dropped, they have dropped fom £21 to £7 per ton. Over and above the drop in the price, the quotas have been cut drastically; the price of wattle is so low to-day, the quotas have been cut so drastically and is graded so low, that the wattle farmers who are solely dependent on wattle production for their income cannot make a living. Those farmers will have to be assisted otherwise they will all go bankrupt. This, however, does not apply to all the wattle growers. This applies to a section only—that section who is solely dependent on wattle production for their income.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) is not in the House at the moment. He said, for example, that: “This Government came into power to stop immigration.” I say that is untrue. In terms of the provision of the 1937 Act, there is a Selection Board as far as immigrants from West Europe to South Africa are concerned. But, in spite of that Selection Board, there has been a constant increase in the number of immigrants from that part of the world to South Africa ever since this Government came into power. It was only during the past two years that there has been a decrease. What is the position in Britain? They do not fall under the provisions of the 1937 Act and the Selection Board; they can come to South Africa freely. They need not comply with health requirements and produce a clean record as far as criminal offences are concerned. They can come to South Africa freely. Why has that flow of immigrants stopped? Because of the extent to which the United Party and hon. members opposite have defiled South Africa, because of the black picture they have painted of South Africa to the world, people in Britain no longer wish to emigrate to South Africa.

That is not the reason.

Tell us what the reason is.

They do not like us.

The hon. member for Constantia reacted violently when the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs said that South Africa was being harmed in the economic field because of the actions of the United Party. The hon. member reacted violently to that, but he is in the forefront of those who besmirch South Africa. Does he not remember that, after we had come into power, he and the hon. member for South Coast and the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) travelled through the country and held a meeting at Dundee? Their theme at that meeting was that South Africa would not tolerate a National Party Government for longer than six months, because the banks and all the industries would close down, and they assured the public that the then Minister of Finance, Mr. Havenga, would not be able to borrow a penny from America or Europe. They even added that they had secret agents and secret information from those countries, and that they had been informed that Mr. Havenga would not get a penny from overseas. Is that not besmirching South Africa? No, Mr. Speaker, our opinion of the hon. member’s veracity is not very high, more particularly after his antics at Bloemfontein, where, like a cunning bellwether, he led the hon. Progressive sheep to the slaughtering place, but he, himself, made a sharp right about turn.

Mr. Speaker, there is an old Roman saying: Ex Africa sempter aliquid novi. That saying has again proved true in this enlightened century in which we are living, because here we have a novelty, the hon. member for South Coast—not only is he a novelty, he is also a peculiarity and a rarity. I have always been under the impression that if a person is a citizen of a country, that country is his father-land. But that is not the position in the case of that hon. member. Oh no, he is a citizen of this country, but he does not accept South Africa as his fatherland; only Natal is his fatherland. He has nothing to do with the rest of the Union.

Oh shame!

The hon. member says “oh shame”, but the hon. member for South Coast says he does not accept the laws which this Parliament makes. If we dare pass any law which the hon. member does not accept, or which he does not care for, he does not accept that law. He wants Natal to make her own laws, and, if he adopts that attitude, then surely he regards Natal as his fatherland, and not the rest of the Union. I want to ask the hon. member this: If he does not wish to have anything to do with the laws which we make here, if he wishes to contravene these laws, if he wishes to make his own laws in Natal—he always pretends to be such a strong man of principle—what is he doing in this House? He does not want to have anything to do with this House, so why does he not resign and find a little place for himself on the Provincial Council of Natal? Why does this man of principle not resign from Parliament, the Parliament which he refuses to acknowledge as the supreme authority, and find a little place for himself on the Provincial Council of Natal, because he is willing to recognize the laws of that body?

I am sorry to see that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not in the House, but I want to ask the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) whether he agrees with what his leader has said; is that also his attitude? No. we know he does not agree; he is not as stupid as all that. The hon. member for South Coast acts as though he owns Natal and as though he has the deed of transfer in his pocket, because he says he is speaking on behalf of Natal and on behalf of the Afrikaans- and English-speaking people there. I am telling him that a rude awaking awaits him in Natal. He will be a leader without followers. The hon. member has now become a danger to South Africa. Not only is he a danger to his own party, because we know there is trouble in that party because of his attitude, but he has become a danger in Natal and a danger to his own fatherland. Sir, for a long time, before the referendum, and particularly during the past few weeks, the hon. member for South Coast has gone out of his way to belittle the hon. the Prime Minister. He talks about the Prime Minister as though he is a foreigner from Holland, simply because he came as a baby from Holland with his parents. I want to know this: If he should not be in politics and should not be Prime Minister, what is the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) doing here? He was born on the Isle of Man. What is the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) doing here? He was born in England. [Interjections.] I am very sorry, Sir, and I apologize to the hon. member if I hurt his feelings by saying he was born on the Isle of Man. No matter in what part of the world they were born, they have the right to take part in South African politics, but, because the Prime Minister was born in Holland, he should not be Prime Minister.

The hon. member for South Coast says you cannot rely on the word of the Prime Minister, you cannot believe him. I want to remind the hon. member of something he denied in this House and at Dundee when the hon. the Minister of Finance, when he was still Minister of the Interior, repeatedly asked him: Do you deny that you wanted to give the Indians the right to vote on the Municipality? His reply was: “I have never said a word.” He denied that at Dundee after I had asked him that on three occasions. When you live in a glass house you should not throw stones, Sir, so he has no right to say that you cannot rely on the word of the Prime Minister. He also goes throughout the country and says that it will be a Verwoerd Republic, but a Verwoerd Monarchy was good enough. He tells the people that Verwoerd is the biggest coward he has ever met; that he holds a meeting at Ladysmith but lacks the courage to go to Durban. Is that the language that a responsible leader and a South African should use concerning his Prime Minister on the eve of a Prime Ministers’ conference in London? Mr. Speaker, that party cannot evade the responsibility for the actions of the hon. member for South Coast. They want to force South Africa out of the Commonwealth and they use the irresponsible member for South Coast to do so. They are creating a hostile atmosphere in advance for the Prime Minister when he gets to England, hoping that South Africa will be kicked out of the Commonwealth, and they are doing it in order to gain some political advantage in this country. I think it is a despicable act and they cannot shirk that responsibility. That is the game which the United Party is playing, but we are wise to it. It will not be because we are a Republic or because of our apartheid policy that we get kicked out of the Commonwealth, but it will be because of the game the United Party is playing. I do not want to weary the House by quoting from newspapers, but according to the Mercury and the Daily News the hon. member for South Coast said at Pietermaritzburg the other day that when the Prime Minister asked him: “What do you mean by those words?” he had replied: “I wanted to say rebellion.”

That is absolutely untrue.

That is according to the Daily News of last Saturday—

The Mercury puts it this way—

[Interjections.] What does that sound like? What do these words mean “I felt like saying ‘yes’”. But he says “I cannot say that”. Why not?

He merely said he was tempted to say it. [Interjections.]

Order!

If you throw a stone into a bush. Sir, and a dog howls, you can be sure you have hit him. He cannot get away from this. He says he wanted to say “Yes, I mean a rebellion, but I dare not say it”, but in his heart of hearts he wants it. Does he realize what he is doing? That semi-army which holds them in the palm of its hand, that nucleus army which is cast in the same mould as that of Communism and the S.S. troops, that very organization which they are using, particularly the verbose member for Point (Mr. Raw) who used them to commandeer hundreds of motor cars to bring people to Glencoe so that he could have a meeting— he should rather remain silent.

Is that the English version of the Broederbond?

They asked the hon. member for South Coast why he did not want to say it. That shows us what feelings he has evoked Sir. He said that Natal should go on the march and he says that in Parliament he wanted to say that he wanted a rebellion. What will he do if irresponsible English-speaking youth in Natal act unwisely? Will the hon. member for South Coast be at the fore-front? I predict that he will not move a finger and those poor misguided youths to whom he has given the wrong leadership, will have to pay the penalty. I want to say this, however, that when anything like that happens the United Party will not be able to shirk its responsibility, and this applies to everyone of them particularly to the hon. members for Natal. I hold them responsible for the irresponsible language we get from the hon. member for South Coast. Those hon. members do not repudiate him, but we will hold them responsible for whatever happens in Natal as a result of this.

Why do they act like this? It is because they want South Africa out of the Commonwealth. They want the members of the Commonwealth to believe the wild stories of the hon. member for South Coast that South Africa is on the brink of a rebellion, and because of that they should kick South Africa out. The hon. member says that English is in danger; this Government will not pass legislation prohibiting the use of English but they will simply not use English. Sir, if we have to keep the English language alive for them, if they are too weak to do so themselves, then the English language deserves to disappear. If they lack the courage to keep their own mother tongue alive in South Africa, how can they expect other people to do it for them? I have never before seen a greater spirit of defeatism than that. When our language was threatened, we said we would not allow it to be extinguished, and because we loved our language we made it grow by using it, in spite of the United Party and the attempts by those who preceded them to destroy Afrikaans. I think that is a miserable attitude to adopt and I do not know what their descendants will think of them one day when they read Hansard and the speeches of the hon. member for South Coast. They will pull their hats into their eyes because of the kind of forefathers they had.

In conclusion, the hon. member also alleged at Pietermaritzburg that the referendum was conducted in a dishonest way. I have already said that if you live in a glass house you should not throw stones. What did the United Party do in Natal? They took advantage of the trouble in connection with the sugar industry and tried to wreck the referendum. The chairman of their party and others went around and do you know what they said in hotels and clubs, Sir? “It is our prerogative to grow sugar” and we will teach those Nationalists a lesson. Do not tempt me to mention their names. I do not make false accusations. A responsible member of the United Party, someone who occupies an important position to-day, went about and said “Join the United Party to-day and to-morrow you will have your sugar quota They placed full page advertisements in the newspapers depicting a sugar mill with this notice on its gate: “Closed, no Work.” The employees of that mill are mostly National Party supporters and they wanted to create the impression amongst those workers that if they voted in favour of the Republic the mills would close down because there was no market for the sugar and that there would not be any work for them. Then they are the people who say that we conducted the referendum in a dishonest way. I think that what the United Party did in regard to the sugar difficulty was the most scandalous political crime that has ever been committed in South Africa. What did certain businessmen—thank God not all of them—do in Durban? They refused to allow their employees to make their own arrangements to go and vote. No, they had to go in a crowd and those businessmen conveyed them and they were too scared to show in which direction their sympathies lay, because they were afraid they may lose their jobs. Then the hon. member for South Coast comes and tells us that we conducted the referendum dishonestly. The voters will never forget the role they played in Zululand and along the South Coast, and decent United Party supporters told me that the actions of the United Party were the most abhorrent and most despicable that they had ever experienced from the United Party.

I want to conclude, Sir. The hon. member also referred to the Education Act. I trust I shall have an opportunity at a later stage, Sir, to tell you what the United Party did in respect of the Voortrekker School and are still doing in Durban to-day and are doing to the Afrikaans-speaking children at Estcourt. The parents are supposed to have a free choice. But only when it suits them. Why do they not allow the parents in Durban and Estcourt a free choice? The parents there are begging them to do a certain thing but they refuse.

I want to appeal to the hon. member for South Coast to stop going about like a baboon who has been kicked out of the tribe, snapping at everybody. He is biting his own party and his own fatherland without regard for anyone; he does not care what harm he does South Africa …

He is also biting the leader of the Opposition.

I want to ask him rather to allow Father Time to turn him into a wise leader instead of remaining what he is at present, an aggressive, savage and dangerous political shark along the South Coast.

Mr. Speaker, I am only taking part in this debate to reply to the charge and the accusation made by the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence). I asked him to come back to the House and I appreciate the fact that he has done so.

I did not make any accusation. I asked a question.

No, the hon. member made the accusation that the figures given by me were not correct. They concern a number of questions which were asked last year and this year, and the hon. member for Salt River alleges that the figures do not ally. I would not have risen to reply but the record should be put straight, otherwise the accusation will be made against me by the hon. member that I failed to reply. But I shall be very brief. Actually the boot is on the other foot. The hon. member gave us the wrong information yesterday. He informed the House that the number of persons given by me in reply to a question was 11,503, but he was out by no less than 100. As I say, the number that he gave was 11,503 but I shall show him in Hansard that it was 11,405.

Another thing that he should please correct in his Hansard is this: He informed the House that the question put by the hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. van Ryneveld) last year was how many persons had been arrested.

Bantu.

No, here I have it in Hansard, and that is also what I heard the hon. member say. It then occurred to me that if the Hansard from which the hon. member was quoting said “Bantu”, why was he quoting to the House how many persons had been arrested—and as a matter of fact this appears in inverted commas in his speech.

But “Bantu” are also persons.

It is on that very point that questions were asked, and the hon. member must not misquote from Hansard now, because Hansard clearly says that the figure referred to “Bantu I was surprised yesterday, therefore, when the hon. member spoke about persons. However, I say that just in passing. My point is this. The hon. member accuses me and my Department of having given figures last year and this year which do not tally, but what he does not tell the House is that last year the question concerned Bantu and this year the question concerned Bantu and Coloureds and Asiatics and others, and now he wants the figure that we gave last year in connection with Bantu to tally with all the other figures.

You are stating my attitude incorrectly.

In the question which the hon. member for East London (North) put on 6 May 1960, he only asked for the number of Bantu who had been arrested for some contravention or other. The question which has been put now, is in connection with a number of different categories of persons; it was a limited question which only related to the statutory state of emergency, in terms of the various provisions of the emergency regulations, and we replied to that question. The first reply to the first question last year was 18,011, because the question was how many Bantu had been arrested over the whole of that period for some contravention or other. The question which was asked last year concerned Bantu, Coloureds and Asiatics, and it did not ask for the number arrested over the whole period but how many had been “detained during the statutory state of emergency in terms of the various provisions of the emergency regulations”. We then replied that the number was 11,405. Now he suggests that we gave the wrong figures because the figures do not tally. But how on earth does the hon. member expect the reply to two questions dealing with two different matters to tally?

But I want to go even further. He stated yesterday that the Minister of Bantu Administration had given erroneous figures because when a question was put to me I replied that 4,769 persons had been arrested in Pondoland, and when my colleague replied he gave the number as approximately 400 persons. He tried to repeat this in the Committee Stage and I was unable to reply then. Briefly the position is simply this. With regard to the question put to me by the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Higgerty), namely how many Bantu, Whites and persons of other races were arrested during the disturbances in Pondoland and how many of them were tried, my reply was 4,769. The hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. D. L. Smit) then asked my colleague how many arrests there had been in this period of 1½ months, not in respect of all contraventions but under Proclamation 19, and I think my colleague said that the number was 361. He now makes the accusation against us that the figures given by my colleague and myself differed. If the hon. member had only taken the trouble to look at the question he would have seen that the two questions were completely different, and therefore the replies could not tally. Mr. Speaker, in Parliament one can never be careful enough in replying to questions precisely as they are put. Unless one does so, one gets into difficulties, and under this Government the departments make a point of replying to questions precisely as they are put, and we have had outstanding success in doing so for 13 years. But now the hon. member makes this accusation. I just want to say to him that he should read the questions and replies more carefully before he makes such a charge.

[On the conclusion of the period of three hours allotted for the third reading of the Bill, the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No. 116.]

Mr. Speaker, the matter of profiteering as the result of the switch-over to decimalization has been raised again. I can merely repeat that it is a matter which will have to be closely watched. I am hoping that the ordinary competition will restore prices to the normal level in those items in which there has been excessive charging and that the ordinary buyer’s pressure will also help in that direction.

May I ask a question? You have just said that ordinary competition will restore the prices. Will the Minister indicate what he will do in cases where there is no competition?

I hope the hon. member will give me an opportunity to make my statement, and then he can see whether there is any occasion to ask anything further. I said that those are the two normal factors which tend to bring about equilibrium between supply and demand, but I think I can add, as I said yesterday, that it is a matter which will be closely observed. The Department of Commerce and Industry will see whether they have any powers under existing laws and regulations to see to it that there is no profiteering. I will ask the Decimalization Board also to keep its eye on the situation, and I can give the assurance to the House that the Government, if it is considered necessary, will have to consider the question of re-imposing or imposing price control on those items on which there is profiteering. Naturally the imposition of price control is not a measure which one easily adopts. It has tremendous administrative difficulties and new staff has to be obtained, and if the position can be remedied in any other manner we shall naturally prefer that. I make an appeal to those people who, perhaps out of ignorance are profiteering out of the switchover, to desist, and I say that if there is any persistence the matter will receive the serious consideration of the Department of Commerce and Industries.

Cannot you ask the Chambers of Commerce to help you?

That is a matter for the Department to decide. I want to deal with certain questions put by the hon. member for Constantia. He has asked three specific questions. He said that I had said that we have a second line of reserves, and he asked against what? Well, I can only ask him against what do you build up a first line of defence, as he prefers the word “defence”. We have a first line of reserves. After all, what is the use and the value of our ordinary gold and monetary reserves? The second line has precisely the same value and the same object. I do not know whether the hon. member wants me to give a lecture, but I can tell him this that whether they are first or second line of reserves, they are naturally reserves, here as in any other country, against inbalances in our balance of payments position, caused by diverse and unpredictable factors. We have to build up a reserve against things which we cannot foresee so that we are not caught on the wrong foot if they do eventuate. That is the object not only for our first line of reserves, but also of our second line of reserves. Intrinsically and in principle there is no difference between the two. The object they serve and their value and use are precisely the same, except that the one is called into existence only at a later stage than the other. Here, Sir, I would like to make a correction. I find on reading my Hansard report that I said that when the £40,000,000, which we can still draw, has been exhausted, that means 50 per cent of our quota. That is wrong. That will be 100 per cent of our quota. We can draw up to 100 per cent of quota. I find that I said 50 per cent but the point is that when we have drawn that full amount, we will have exhausted what is ordinarily the position. But I find that a country like Chile has just been enabled to draw up to 180 per cent of its quota, notwithstanding the fact that 100 per cent is the usual limit. I hope the hon. member for Constantia will not tell me that this is another invitation to say that there is a financial crisis pending in South Africa!

I would like to say a few words about the previous use made of the Monetary Fund, not only by South Africa but by other countries. In the United Kingdom for instance, in 1956 they had arranged for drawings up to £464,000,000; that is their ordinary drawing against their gold deposit, plus all the others. That was actually 100 per cent of their quota, and they had made arrangements for this. It was only found necessary to draw £200,000,000 from the Fund. Although they had made arrangements for an additional £246,000,000, it was not necessary to draw more than £200,000,000. The United States is one of the few member states which has not yet made use of the drawing facilities of the Fund, but recently, in December of last year, the U.S.A. made arrangements with the Fund that a very considerable amount of the gold belonging to the Fund should be invested in Government stocks in America. The amount was actually $300,000,000 in December, apart from previous transactions. But in December $300,000,000 of Government stock was purchased in gold by the Fund—that represents about £110,000,000 —and it was done in order to strengthen U.S.A. reserves. Although it was not an ordinary drawing, it was assistance from the Fund to obtain these additional reserves for its ordinary reserves. As far as South Africa is concerned, hon. members will remember that in 1958 we drew £13,000,000 altogether. That was actually 36 per cent of our quota. We drew the ordinary 25 per cent, £9,000,000 against gold deposit. We had actually arranged for a further £9,000,000, but it was not found necessary to make use of that arrangement so we only drew an additional £4,000,000; altogether we drew £13,000,000. That was before our quota was increased by 50 per cent. We drew altogether £13,000,000 which represented about 36 per cent of our quota. That, Sir, is the use of our drawing facilities at the International Monetary Fund, and that is the use which most of the member states have made of those facilities in the past, and as I indicated the other day the Governor of the Bank of England considered it very desirable that this use should be regarded as a normal process.

That then is the first question: What is the purpose of our second line of reserves.

The second question was “whether the Minister contemplated any further drawings on the I.M.F. and if so, to what amount?” Well, I am not a prophet, not even of the order of Jeremiah, but I want to say this to the hon. member: Whether drawings are made on the Fund at any time by any member of the State depends on a multiplicity of factors. I am not suggesting that this is an exhaustive list, but it depends on the terms of trade, it depends on the prices obtained for primary exports. Take the case of wool for instance. If we had been able to dispose of all our wool in the past season, I think our reserves would have been about £6,000,000 higher. Last year we were in the same position and at a later stage we were able to dispose of some of the wool held back. But generally the price obtained for our primary exports, apart from the volume, is one of the factors which determine the necessity or otherwise of making use of these additional reserves. There is the volume of exports, including gold. Much will depend on what they are at any particular point of time. The extent of our imports will determine whether there is a drain on our reserves; whether it will be necessary to make use of these additional facilities at the I.M.F. The in and outflow of capital and even the price of gold are all factors which influence us in determining whether we are going to make any further drawings from the I.M.F. I want to ask the hon. member for Constantia, prophet as he is, whether he can tell me how these factors that I have mentioned will operate within the next 12 months? His inability to reply to this, with all his prophetic instincts, show the complete fatuity of a question of this nature.

His third question was: For how long are we going to have these drawings before we are going to repay them? Sir, it requires no great intelligence to say that when you can repay depends on exactly the same factors as those which determine to what extent you have to draw. Naturally the Government will repurchase its currency as soon as circumstances permit, and the circumstances which will allow such repurchase are precisely these unpredictable factors that I have mentioned. Usually the maximum period allowed for these arrangements is about three years, but it has been made longer in certain cases. This, however, is regarded as the normal period within which a repurchase of our own currency should be made.

Those are the three questions which the hon. member for Constantia put to me on the question of our second line of reserves. Then he went on to deal with the point I had made in regard to his statement that we are “not a happy and prosperous country; that 70 per cent of our population is living in ‘extreme poverty’”. Let me disabuse the mind of the hon. member. Apparently there is some misunderstanding. When I speak about the national income per capita it is not a question of poor relief; it is not a question of the distribution of income between the various sections of the population or between individuals. The poor we will always have with us and they will bring problems in their wake, but it is not a problem which directly concerns this whole concept of what is the national income per capita. That means the over-all condition of the people. It does not mean that every individual necessarily has the same amount. In any case, if the hon. member thinks that this is a very low figure for us, if he thinks that we are very badly off, then I almost dread to think what terrible poverty—much worse than “extreme poverty”—there must be in countries like Australia, for instance, which in the case of White persons, has a lower per capita income than South Africa or Britain, which has a national income per capita of £351 or Denmark with £323 or Norway with £318 or France with £292—all against South Africa’s £410—or West Germany, with all its prosperity, which has a per capita national income of £286, or the Netherlands with £253, or Austria with £200 or Italy with £153. If that is the per capita income of the European population of South Africa—and I am going to show that it applies in the same sense to the other sections of our population—then I do not see how we can say that this is not a happy and prosperous country.

But, Sir, let me disabuse the mind of the hon. member of another little fallacy. He said: “£410 for Europeans! The figures given by the hon. the Minister just prove my point. Just imagine a wage of £35 per month.” Sir, the hon. member does not understand the concept of per capita national income. It is per capita; it is not of the family; it is not of the wage earner. It is not a question of wages. Let me take this “ridiculous figure of £35 per month” and see what it is in the case of a family consisting of husband and wife and three children. It then amounts to an average of £175 per month. I do not think that is to be sneezed at. The same applies to the incomes that I have given of the Asiatics, the Coloureds and the Bantu. It is for every man, woman and child. A baby in arms has the same, even though it may not earn a cent —I was almost going to say a penny. I think if the hon. member understood that that is the concept of national income per capita, he would probably save himself a lot of unnecessary worry in future as far as the position of South Africa is concerned. Or he might even find that it is not quite so bad in the United Kingdom, if he basis it on this concept.

The hon. member has objected—or rather he has not objected; I ought to object—to my putting him in the same class as the prophet Jeremiah. I think there are differences. I think Jeremiah, at any rate, made sure of his facts before he made his prophecies. I think that is one distinction. But I think there is also another sense in which I would hate to think that the hon. member is in the true line of succession to Jeremiah. He said to-day that I must remember that these prophecies of doom of Jeremiah actually materialized in the end; history made those prophecies true. In other words, the hon. member makes his position really worse. It is not only the fact that yesterday or the day before he said “these are my prophecies” but now he warns the country if those prophecies are going to be fulfilled! As far as this is concerned, the hon. member is really an unrepentant sinner against South Africa! I do not know whether I should perhaps leave the late lamented Jeremiah alone. I hope the hon. member will not be in the same line of succession as another prophet, the prophet Jonah, who also prophesied that the city of Nineveh would fall, and when his prophecy proved to be unfounded, the prophet Jonah was so disgusted that he set out to sea with disastrous results! I can only say that I hope that, in the case of our modern Jonah, the hon. member for Constantia, if his prophecy is not fulfilled, he will not set out to sea with disastrous results!

Then there is just one further point I want to make at this stage. Sir, in this debate we have had a very unsatisfactory picture of our financial position painted by the Opposition. As I have pointed out, it must be remembered that we are not satisfied with the progress that we have had or that we possibly will have this year. We have to hitch our wagon to a star; we have to be ambitious, and we are not complacent; we want to go further. We have our problems—also our financial problems. But show me a country in the world which has not its problems, which has not its financial problems! I think I can say with fairness that, in relation to our financial potential, our financial problems in South Africa are less urgent, less serious, than those of most countries in the world. I do not wish to minimize our financial problems—they are great. I have tried to indicate that, like other countries, we are living in times when we have to consider our financial policy very carefully. I do not want to minimize those problems, but nor, on the other hand, do I wish to exaggerate them. I can only say this: Those financial problems, however serious they are, are not beyond South Africa’s capacity to solve them, if we are determined to solve them.

We can always change the Government.

The Government is determined to meet the challenge posed to South Africa by these financial problems. The Government is determined to meet this challenge, and the Government expects that every South African will help us to meet this challenge!

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Amendment in Clause 2 put and agreed to and the Bill, as amended, adopted; Bill to be read a third time on 17 February.

This clause seeks to amend Section 38 of the principal Act, and seeks to give to the claims officer the right to demand proof which to his satisfaction will either determine whether the claimant will receive payment in terms of the Act or not. When the hon. Deputy Minister introduced this Bill in the second reading he left the impression with me, and I think with the House, that these amendments had been considered and had the unanimous support of the Unemployment Insurance Board. I have information from the trade union movement that that is not so, that they do not support this amendment. Therefore, the question arises, if the Minister is under the impression that the Unemployment Insurance Board did support this amendment unanimously and now I tell him that that is not the case, perhaps the Minister will be prepared to withdraw this clause, as it has not got the support of the trade union movement. I put that to him. But in any case it is our intention to vote against the clause because we are quite satisfied that the hon. the Deputy Minister has not made out a case in this House for the acceptance by this Committee of this clause. Now, in the first place, the Deputy Minister indicated that the type of document which he would require the claimant to submit to the claims officer would be a document which would have four signatures on it of prospective employers who had indicated that they could not offer employment to a claimant, I understand also from the trade union movement that this document is already in use. I would like the hon. the Deputy Minister to confirm or deny that when he replies, but my information is that this document is already in use. Now this amendment to the Bill is to give legislative power for that document to be continued to be used, and also to make it possible for the claims officer to insist upon the claimant getting the necessary evidence. So the point that the hon. the Deputy Minister made that he would require four signatures from employers, apparently has been put into effect without the necessary legal sanction. But now in respect of the four signatures, I want to say that if the Deputy Minister can make out a case as to how this is going to help the claims officer, we may be prepared to listen. But it is quite clear to me that the type of person that the Deputy Minister seeks to prevent from abusing this fund is quite capable of getting the signatures by going to employers who obviously have got no vacancies to fill. Notices are usually displayed outside of the premises, and a security officer would say: Well, look, we have got no vacancy, there is no point in you going any further. Then, we assume, in terms of what the Minister told us that the work-seeker would then ask the security officer to go in and get the employer’s signature to the document which he would have. Mr. Chairman, there is no compulsion in this Bill for the employer to sign such a document; neither do we suggest that there should be that compulsion, because we do not want this additional burden to be placed on unemployed people. The lot of a genuinely unemployed person is troublesome enough as it is, without he being asked to supply this additional proof when an employer can just as easily turn round and say “I am not signing any document for you”. That may easily happen. So the position is that the hon. the Deputy Minister has proposed an amendment which in practice is not going to hinder the won’t-work but is going to prove a hardship to the genuine work-seeker. I say that under these circumstances it is not reasonable for the Deputy Minister to expect us to support a clause of this sort, particularly as the Deputy Minister has not got the support of the trade union movement in this regard. When the hon. the Deputy Minister replies it will be very useful to this Committee if he could indicate what percentage of cases there are where a won’t-work has been able to evade the law and to obtain payment where he should not have obtained such payment. In other words, what ill are we trying to put right. Is it not going to be a greater burden to the genuine work-seeker than to those who are not deserving of any assistance from this fund? I say to the Deputy Minister that if he can make out a really good case for this amendment, we may be prepared to consider it, but up to now he has not done so. He still has the opportunity of proving to this Committee that it is necessary for a claims officer to have this power. It is true that the claims officer may or may not ask for it in every instance, but our experience of how departmental officers work in this regard, leaves us to believe that this will become the normal procedure. When a claimant seeks unemployment benefits, he will automatically be asked to get employers to put their signature to the form mentioned by the hon. the Minister. Therefore it will become the normal procedure. Otherwise the position is going to be that the claims officer is going to have arbitrary powers which will make it possible for him to say to the one unemployed person: “Get these signatures”, and to another “I don’t think you need to obtain signatures Under the present Act penalties can be applied. The purpose of the hon. the Deputy Minister in introducing this particular clause was to give some power to the claims officer in respect of a form which the Deputy Minister thought would be sufficient to prevent abuse of the Act. We on this side cannot see how the suggestion that the Deputy Minister has made can prevent the abuse. Therefore, we are going to vote against this clause, unless the Deputy Minister can put up a more convincing case than he has done up to the present. The fact that he has not yet made out that case up to the present, the fact that the trade union movement is against this particular clause, the fact that the members of the Unemployment Insurance Board did not support it, all indicate that the Deputy Minister must have a very weak case indeed. I hope the Deputy Minister in his reply will give further proof that this is a necessary clause and that he has a practical way of making it work.

As I indicated on behalf of the Progressive Party at the second reading, we, too, object to Clause 2 of the Bill. As the Act stands at present, Section 38 already places a considerable onus on the work-seeker to prove to the claims officer that he is a genuine work-seeker, that he is not a won’t-work who makes no effort to place himself in employment. I want to know the reason for the introduction of a new sub-section (5) in the original Section 38. Already sub-sections (3) and (4) make it necessary for the applicant for unemployment insurance “to submit to the claims officer such proof of his continued unemployment during any period in respect of which he claims benefits as the claims officer may require Sub-section (4) of Section 38 says—

That throws already a considerable onus on the work-seeker. Now, in order apparently to trap a few (and I am sure they must be very few) won’t-works who are attempting to obtain unemployment insurance and who are not really looking for work, we are now having a new clause inserted in the Act which is going to add a further burden to the unemployed worker who attempts to get unemployment insurance. We believe this to be unfair and an unnecessary burden on the work-seeker. I understand that there is already a document, a card I gather, which the work-seeker is given and which he has to present to the claims officer as proof that he has been seeking work. But the point I want to emphasize is that there is no compulsion on the part of the employer to sign this particular card. Now, if there is any alteration needed in the law at all, I would say that it should be an alteration which somehow or other makes it compulsory for the employer to give proof on this card that the work-seeker has attempted to find work and has been refused work. Because, unless the onus is laid on the employer, how is the man seeking work to compel the employer to sign a card to the effect that he has been seeking work, and that he has been rejected by the employer? This is, I believe, placing an impossible burden on the genuine work-seeker in order to trap a few won’t-works and, as the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) has pointed out, this has not received the approval of the trade unions or the Unemployment Board. Therefore, unless the hon. Minister can advance much better reasons than the ones he advanced during the second reading debate of this Bill, we must certainly oppose this clause. We believe that it is unnecessary, that the law as it is contains sufficient safeguards, that the claims officer has already got the right to make very wide demands on the work-seeker, and that this is putting an impossible burden on the unemployed worker. If the hon. Minister wants to do anything at all in this direction, he should by law compel the employer to sign a card to the effect that he has been unable to provide work to a work-seeker. Other than that, I see no reason whatsoever for the introduction of this clause, and I don’t believe that there is any legitimate way that the genuine work-seeker has of getting the employer to verify the fact that he has been looking for work. We, Sir, shall also oppose this clause.

I think we should view this matter from the practical angle. This proposed addition to Section 38 of the principal Act really comes into operation only after a person has drawn his benefits for the first time. In terms of the Act he is entitled to draw those benefits for 26 weeks, i.e. for six months, and, after having drawn his benefits for six months, he must lay off for a period of six months.

Where do you get that from?

I do think that the fact that he registered with the Labour Bureau is an indication that he in fact looked for work, and that he will receive his benefits. I do not think that the claims officer will immediately refuse a man his benefits if he comes and says he is unemployed. They must pay him out. It is only when he comes along the second time that, for all practical purposes, this addendum will come into operation. That is how I read the clause. At least, that is how I consider it will work in practice. If a man becomes unemployed and goes to the Labour Bureau to register because he is unemployed, then, after a certain number of weeks, he is entitled to the unemployment benefits. On that occasion the claims officer will surely not ask the man whether he has looked for work. I may be wrong, but that is how I interpret the clause. It is only when a man continuously remains unemployed that the addendum comes into operation. Therefore, it does not apply to the first period during which he receives benefits. But if he then lays off for the prescribed period, and does not receive benefits, and he then comes back after 26 weeks (i.e. after a further six months), then the claims officer can demand this proof from him. I think we should see it in this light, that it will be impossible for the claims officer to ask for this proof at the commencement of a man’s unemployment. It can only be that a man should furnish proof when he has continuously remained unemployed. Say, for example, a person has drawn his benefits. Thereafter, he simply stays away from the Labour Bureau for a long time, and, after 26 weeks, he comes back and says: “I have not obtained employment yet and I again want to apply for benefits.” Then, I think, the claims officer can demand proof that he actually tried to find employment. And it will be the easiest thing in the world to furnish this proof. The mere fact that the man has continuously applied to the Labour Bureau for work during these six months proves that he has tried to obtain employment. That can be no great burden on him. If it is regarded in that light, I think this is a fair clause.

I don’t see the value of this sub-section that we are discussing now. I cannot see any justification for its inclusion in this Bill. The only people that are really going to be affected by this sub-section are the won’t-works, because I do not believe that any truly unemployed person is going to stay unemployed. The amount of money that he derives from the Unemployment Fund cannot possibly keep a family going for any length of time, and even if he is single the amount cannot keep him for any length of time. He may have accumulated a little money during his working days. I know from practical experience that the people who are out of work go out to look for work themselves and the greater percentage of these people who are unemployed, find work themselves and don’t get work from the unemployment agencies. Now the won’t-works will have no difficulty in bringing proof that they have been actively looking for work, and what they bring will be more than the claims officer demands. Who is to stop them signing their own cards? It does not say here that it must be stamped by the firm that this person goes to. It simply says “to the satisfaction of the claims officer”. What does that mean? It may vary from person to person. And what sort of proof is necessary? A signature on a card? What is going to prevent a won’t-work from signing it himself? Moreover why are these people grouped as “won’t-works”? What is the reason that they don’t want to work? You get a lot of people that are mentally deranged in such a way that they cannot go to work. They fear work. There is no provision made for those people to bring proof that they can’t work. I would like to see a provision made to show that some of the won’t-works can’t work. It simply says here “to the satisfaction of the claims officer”. They must bring proof to him. It gives him wide powers. He may accept proof from one person and the same proof brought by the next person may be rejected. Sir, let us cut out the won’t-works entirely. Let us just deal with the genuine unemployed person. Let us not treat that person as somebody who is on probation, who has to bring proof time and time again, week after week that he has been going from place to place to find work. He is an honourable man and his word must be taken that he has been looking for work. The mere fact that he reports regularly and asks the claims officer “Have you got some work for me?” should be sufficient proof that he wants to work.

That is sufficient.

It is sufficient now, but according to this amendment he will have to walk around with a document and that document will have to be signed by the person to whom he has gone for work. In times of great unemployment I can see some use for it—it will at least give some people a job in some large factories to busy themselves only with signing cards of the unemployed. At least in some of the big factories one person will get the job to sign cards for the very many people who come to the factory asking for work, but otherwise it is worthless. It cannot safeguard the unemployed who wants to work and the won’t-works will easily see the way clear to bluff their way through, over 26 weeks if they want to, or three weeks, or any other period if they want to.

What about the perfectly honest individual who goes looking for work? Why should he be subjected to this? Why should his word be doubted? The whole thing is unnecessary and it will only cause hardship for those people who are genuine and will cause no difficulty at all to those who are not genuine.

The intention of this clause is definitely not to penalize the genuine work-seekers and it will not be administered in any other spirit. But we have received numerous reports from our divisional inspectors, stating that there are cases of people who abuse this very section in the Act, and we have to protect the bona fide contributor to this fund. That is our job and that is why we have found it necessary to introduce this provision.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) has questioned the statement regarding the Unemployment Board’s recommendation. It may interest him to know who were present when that discussion took place. The meeting of the Unemployment Insurance Board was held on 21 September 1960. And at that meeting they considered a memorandum of the Trade Union Council containing the objections now raised by hon. members who have taken part in the debate. They considered all those objections and then they still decided to have this clause inserted in the Bill. Present at that meeting were Mr. Loubser, representing the “Koördinerende Raad van Vakverenigings”, Mr. Tyler, representing the South African Trade Union Council and Mr. Steyn, representing the Federal Consultative Council of the Railways. It is true that later on Mr. Tyler issued a statement that he did not concur. One gets the impression that he was hauled over the coals by the Trade Union Council. But as far as we are concerned, the minutes of that meeting show that Mr. Tyler as representative of the Trade Union Council endorsed these views, after considering all the objections. So we have consulted the Board in this respect, and that is as far as our record goes.

Now regarding the form which we issue, merely to facilitate the task of the work-seeker in bringing his proof to the claims officer to show that he has done his best to get work, it is a roneoed form and I just quote a few items from it. It reads—

He can, therefore, state that he is unable to get work or able to get work. The work-seeker simply brings this form back to the claims officer. What is wrong with that? It is very simple and straightforward.

Who must sign it?

The employer simply states that he can or cannot employ the person.

There is no category of work specified?

That is correct. The idea is mainly to bring some proof that he is actively looking for work. Because we have these won’t-works who try and bluff us, and it is our job to protect the other bona fide contributors to the fund, and this is only one of the methods we employ to get some proof that he is really looking for work. He can also bring along copies of his letters in reply to advertisements or the reply of the employer stating that he cannot employ him.

May I just put a question? Why must this clause be introduced when subsection (4) of the original Act seems to give all the necessary protection which we are seeking now? The principal Act refers to “suitable work”, that is a contributor looking for work in which he was formerly occupied, suitable work to himself. The provision now says “any work”.

Sub-section (4) does not suffice in this case because sub-section (4) only asks that he must satisfy the claims officer at the time of application that he is looking for work, and that he has not been able to obtain employment. But our problem is that period prior to his application, and that refers to the 26-week period. In my second reading speech I stated the problem of these people. They get unemployed, draw the maximum benefits in a 52week period; then they don’t turn up at the office again to report for work. They remain at home for a full period of another ensuing 26 weeks. They do not come and report and ask for work in the other 26 weeks in which they do not receive any benefits. Now we only ask them that they must come along, not after the next 26-week period has elapsed, but they must come along during that period, and they must give us proof that they have been actively looking for work in that period, the second 26-week period, during which they do not receive any benefits.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

Evening Sitting

With regard to the objects of Clause 2 there can be no disagreement. There are two objects as I see them, the first is to prevent a period of enforced unemployment degenerating into idleness, and the second object is to preserve the maximum amount in the unemployment fund for the benefit of those who are genuine work-seekers. No one can object to those. But the point seems to be whether this is a practical method of doing things so far as this clause is concerned. The hon. the Minister has given us certain explanations. On the question of the Board’s decision, I do not have any facts, and I do not want to query them. The Minister has explained to us—and I think we were quite clear on this beforehand—that this is the second stage of an unemployment period, where a man has drawn the maximum period, the maximum benefits within a year and now comes again, after a period, without evidence of having sought work. The question I was about to ask the hon. the Minister when we were interrupted by the adjournment of the Committee was whether, if such a workman simply applied to an employment exchange after a period, irrespective of this document that has been read out to us, and thereafter went through a similar process that he had gone through on the first occasion—in other words, taking the suggestions of the Unemployment Exchange and trying them—would that be considered as adequate evidence of genuine work-seeking? Or whether the point is that that man never comes near that exchange or a claims officer or any other official? I would like to know from the hon. the Minister, if he has any figures, what he thinks is involved, in total, in the loss to the funds by this type of idler?

I am afraid we have no specific figures.

Well, it is an important figure in this sense, that this is something like a means test, where, in order to safeguard a given thing, you place an onus on a wider circle of people than the people at whom you are directly aiming. In other words, if a means test is only going to involve the State in a loss of £100,000 in a total expenditure of £3,000,000, a practical man would say rather than go to all the trouble of proving and investigating, do not bother about the means test, it is a price you pay for doing this particular thing. It seems to me that this clause falls into that category, that what you are going to gain is not going to be commensurate with the onus you may place on what I might call the borderline cases. Because on that document of the Minister’s the man, at this stage, is seeking not his work as, say, a fitter, which was his original occupation, but he is now seeking any class of work where he might get employment. I want to suggest that if that man is at all slick in avoiding work, apart from the point mentioned by the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) that the employer is not going to bother himself unduly about certifying this document—he could quite easily apply for work in a method, if he is a good talker, that would make quite sure he did not get it. In other words, he could say “I want this or that or the other type of work but, of course, I cannot do this kind of work for this or that reason”. The employer might then send him away quite satisfied that this is a genuine application, or not wanting to be bothered with the matter. That kind of abuse can take place if the man is a deliberate idler. It does seem to me that to place this onus, without any idea of the amount that is involved in relation to the unemployment fund is putting an undue onus on the man who is a borderline case, and creating an undue nuisance to the employer, or the potential employer, if he is a conscientious man and is going to try to fill this form out in the interests of the objectives of this Bill. I suggest that most employers, other than bit employers, will not fall into that category. They would not bother to keep a record of the man, and if he calls there they might simply sign the document and say “Yes he has been here” and let him go away.

My objection is really the practical one, that the practical gain you are likely to get from this is not commensurate with the increased onus you are putting on them. Human nature being what it is, men who have been idle for a time may degenerate into a tendency to permanent idleness. That is possible, but I suggest that this is very much of a minority group. Most people who have been out of work and have had to find subsistence over 52 weeks or a longer period, are not likely to be other than earnest to get any kind of job that is going. Unless the hon. the Minister can convince me of the practicality of this clause I do not see that it has much value to what is otherwise very good legislation.

There is one aspect of the reply made by the hon. the Deputy Minister before the dinner adjournment that, I think, needs clarifying. The Minister said that there is no intention of applying the provisions of this clause to applicants for unemployment benefits who apply for the first time. An applicant can proceed through a period of 26 weeks, but it is only on the second application …

No, I did not say that. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) said that.

I beg your pardon, I rather understood that the hon. the Deputy Minister supported the contention of the hon. member for Pretoria (West) to the effect that an applicant will only be affected by this clause after he has exhausted his period of 26 weeks and according to the credit he had available in the fund, and that it would not be applied in the first instance. I think this is a point that certainly needs greater clarification from the hon. the Deputy Minister. I hope he is not now suggesting that there is no onus upon any person who applies for benefits to the fund to seek work immediately, or that he can simply sit back and say “I am now receiving 26 weeks benefit and I have no further worries for 26 weeks. It is only then that I will come up against this provision where a claims officer will be able to exercise a discretionary right as to whether or not I must produce proof of seeking work”. When we deal with legislation of this kind we are not legislating for a minority. We are legislating for a majority. We are legislating in the interests of 715,000 workers, and if you have to follow the argument of the hon. member for Pretoria (West) to its logical conclusion—and also the argument of the hon. the Deputy Minister who said that he had numerous reports from divisional inspectors about the operation of this section of the Act—then each worker who applies for unemployment benefits is automatically a loafer and a won’t worker. That is the implication.

I did not say that.

But that is the natural implication of what the hon. the Deputy Minister said. It shows an attitude of distrust towards the workers of our country. But there is another aspect of this clause which is distasteful to me. If one looks at the provisions of Section 38 of the Act, and particularly subsection (4) you will see my point. The hon. the Deputy Minister may remember that I asked him why it was necessary to have these additional powers when there was this subsection (4) in the Act which reads—

What more do you want? The claims officer has to be satisfied before he can approve a claim for benefits. He has to be satisfied that the person has been seeking work. But now the onus is on the worker to go further. Not only has the claims officer to be satisfied but he has to be given proof. Moreover, the claims officer does not have to make that demand on an equal basis to every worker. He can look at the hon. member for Pretoria (West), if he is out of work, and say “I do not like your face, you look a distasteful sort of character therefore I want proof from you”. But he may look at the hon. the Deputy Minister and say “You look a presentable character, you look as though you have been looking for work, I will accept your word”.

He would be a bad judge in that case.

You see, Mr. Chairman, this is a dangerous practice. If one looks at the report of the Unemployment Insurance Board for 1959, the last one available, one finds that all the appeals that have been lodged have been appeals against decisions of claims officers. Seventy-five per cent of the appeals to the Unemployment Insurance Board have been against the arbitrary decisions of claims officers in terms of this Act. What will now be the position when a discretionary right of this nature is being given to a state official to decide merely from the appearances of a man, because that is what it amounts to. And that destroys the fact of the principle that all men are equal in the eyes of the law in their dealings with the Government.

I would appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister to reconsider this matter. We know that there is already dissatisfaction amongst organized workers about the addition of this provision in the Bill. I appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister to withdraw this provision from the Bill.

I have to point out that I am afraid my hon. friend does not quite understand this new clause. The idea behind section 38 (4) in the original Bill was merely to get the work seeker to come and apply and register for work. It reads thus—

This implies that he must come and sign the unemployment register at the Labour Bureau. But the signing of that register does not imply that he is actively looking for work. That is the point I would like to make to the hon. member.

Has he not to satisfy the claims officer in terms of sub-section (4)?

Yes, but that is only to get him to come and sign the register. He can turn up there every day or two and sign the unemployment register, then he fully complies with the requirements. But we want more than that.

According to our divisional inspectors we have a small percentage of work seekers who simply come to the office to sign the register and then leave the matter there. The object of this new clause is to enable the claims officer to call on that work seeker to supply extra evidence of his real intention and activity in seeking work. That is why we need this new clause.

Is it at the discretion of the claims officer whether he requires it at all?

Yes, it rests in the discretion of the claims officer. But I should like to remind this Committee that our claims officers and our Labour Bureau officials are experienced people. They are people who can deal with work seekers. As a result of their experience and knowledge they are able to detect a “won’t work”. In terms of section 38 (4) they were powerless to deal with that type of work seeker, the man who is not really keen to get work. Now we are asking for this extra power which will enable him to call on that work seeker to provide the evidence, in whatever form it may be, of his activities in seeking work.

May I put this to the hon. the Deputy Minister: Is there not a limitation on the amounts of benefits that a “won’t work” can draw from the funds?

That is correct, there is a limitation. But as I stated before the dinner break, you get those people who go up to the limit of 26 weeks in any 52 week period, in other words, six months, which is the limit. Then they have to wait for another 26 weeks before they can start to call on the fund for more benefits.

For how long does this go on?

Unfortunately, believe it or not, we have people who wait for those six months, the ensuing six months, during which they receive no benefits. They simply stay at home and wait until the next six month cycle starts then they turn up at the office again.

Can they do this indefinitely?

No, not indefinitely, but they do it to such an extent that we regard it as an abuse.

I should also like to remind the hon. members of the right which these work seekers have of appealing against a decision against any claims officer. If they are not satisfied with a decision of a claims officer they can appeal to the Benefit Committee. And, as hon. members know, the trade unions are represented on those Benefit Committees in the proportion of 50 per cent of the members. And if they are still not satisfied with the decision of the Benefit Committee, they can then appeal to the Unemployment Board. So that they have all the channels for appeal and every opportunity of stating their case if they feel we have treated them unjustly or unfairly. I want to assure this Committee that we do not intend applying this provision in a harsh way. That is not the spirit in which the clause was drawn up or the spirit in which we propose excercising it. We will apply it in a fair way, in a human way. And if any hon. member of this House should receive any complaint to the contrary let me now invite them to come and see me personally after this has become law.

We appreciate the sentiments of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Labour when he says that he will apply this provision fairly, kindly and sympathetically. But he has no prerogative to the permanent occupation of the post of Deputy Minister of Labour. We are dealing here with legislation, legislation which goes into the Statute Book and according to which the future administration of this Act is determined. It is not in the power of the hon. the Deputy Minister to decide how this legislation shall be interpreted. It will become the law if passed by this House, and once it becomes the law it is within the power of a claims officer to act as he wishes. And I want to deal with that point. I want to raise a point with the hon. the Deputy Minister in regard to the wording of this clause.

Clause 2 states that—

and these are the key words—

I want to repeat those words “to the satisfaction of the claims officer”.

Now, Mr. Chairman, in law—and I am not a lawyer but this is substantiated by those who are—that means that there is no appeal, in fact, beyond the wording of that clause.

No, they can appeal to the Benefit Committee and to the Unemployment Board.

But neither the Benefit Committee nor the Board can legally reject any decision taken in terms of this clause as it is worded here.

Oh yes, the Benefit Committee or the Unemployment Board makes a decision which becomes the decision of the claims officer.

The hon. the Minister is wrong because the Benefits Committee or the Appeal Board would be acting beyond their powers if they upheld an appeal, because the wording of this clause clearly lays down, without any question of doubt, that the only person who must be satisfied is the claims officer. It says—

A person appealing against the decision of the claims officer has, in fact, no legal appeal, because the only person who has to be satisfied in terms of this Amending Bill is the claims officer. And if the claims officer decides that, to his satisfaction, this person is or is not entitled to benefits, then no other body may query that decision. The law of the land has laid down—if this becomes law—that the person to be satisfied is the claims officer, not the Committee and not the Appeal Board. The Appeal Board may consider that a man has a perfectly satisfactory case, that his case is foolproof. But legally they have no power to question the decision of the claims officer because, in terms of this clause, the person to be satisfied is the claims officer. And if a claimant is dissatisfied with his decision no Court of Law can upset that decision. No Court of Law can upset the decisions of a claims officer because, in terms of the wording of this clause, he is the only person who is required to be satisfied.

Have you the Act in front of you? If so let me refer you to Section 21 and Section 27 of the Act. But get Section 21 first.

Section 21 of the Act deals with the question of appeals and it states—

1. (a) applications for benefits; or
2. (b) other matter arising under this Act, may appeal to the board against such decision, provided such an appeal is lodged …

in the period as laid down. Then sub-section (2) says—

And now read Section 27.

That does not alter the position. Clause 27 lays down that—

1. (a) application for benefits; or
2. (b) other matter arising under this Act may appeal to the committee …

That is exactly what I have said.

Mr. Chairman, this provision in the Bill overrides both those sections. It excludes from the board the right to appeal against the decision of the claims officer.

Fortunately you are wrong.

We have, then, two conflicting clauses. One clause which, in fact, states that the decision of the claims officer shall be final because he is the person who is to be satisfied, and then you have Sections 21 and 27 which provide for appeal against such decision. This clause, quite clearly and without any shadow of doubt places the onus of decision on the claims officer and leaves no loophole whatsoever for appeal against that finding. Because it lays down that the claimant shall submit proof not of a fact, but proof to the satisfaction of a person. And there is a serious difference between proof of a fact and proof to the satisfaction of a person.

That is absolute nonsense.

I may prove that black is black, but if I have to prove that black is black to the satisfaction of the hon. the Minister of Transport and he believes that black is white …

You are trying to prove that black is white.

… which he probably does, the point is that his opinion will then be the deciding factor, because I do not have to prove a fact.

Then you do not understand Section 27 of the Act.

I understand them both.

Read it again and try to grasp its meaning.

I understand them both perfectly clearly. There is no doubt that a person may appeal, but this clause is in conflict with Sections 21 and 27, both of which provide for the right of appeal. But when the person appeals he appeals against the decision of a claims officer, and that claims officer must not show that he has taken the decision based on what is right or what is fact, but merely that he has been satisfied. He need not even show he has applied his mind to the matter. He may act mala fide. He need not apply his mind to the matter at all provided he has satisfied himself.

Try to apply your mind to this.

I have applied my mind to this very carefully and I am satisfied that in terms of this provision the claims officer does not have to satisfy the appeal board that a decision taken by him is right. He merely has to state “This is the decision to my satisfaction.” And the Appeal Board cannot over-rule that.

The contributor can appeal, then it appears before the Benefit Committee or the Unemployment Board.

No, Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister is wrong. On what grounds can a claimant appeal? I will sit down and ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to explain to this Committee on what grounds a claimant appeals against a decision of the claims officer in terms of this amendment to Section 38. If he will give me the grounds of appeal of an applicant who feels aggrieved in terms of this amending clause, then I would like to deal with that case.

I think I can assist the hon. member.

He won’t understand, it’s no use.

Well, I am going to make a final attempt.

Intellectual arrogance is a terrible thing.

We are dealing with unintellectual arrogance.

I have this official form, U.F. 43 (a) before me. This form reads—

Then it says—

and then they say one, two, or three things: you lost your employment through your own fault; you left your employment voluntarily or did not actively seek work, and so forth. But this is the point—

That has reference to sub-section (4). And now, coming to the benefits committee and the right of appeal it reads—

So that they know exactly what the procedure is, and that is what I have referred to in Section 27 of the Act which reads—

1. (a) application for benefits; or
2. (b) other matter arising under this Act, may appeal to the committee …

And so forth. Here is the right of appeal, and I hope the hon. member now fully understands and appreciates the position.

I thank the hon. the Deputy Minister of Labour for clearing up this point beyond any shadow of doubt at all. He has quoted to us the form which applies under the current Act, and that form is quite correct. Until now, in terms of Section 38 of the Act, the basis on which a claims officer could reject a claim are laid down clearly. Firstly, that he shall investigate it and be satisfied that he is entitled thereto; that he shall offer such proof of his continuous employment during any period as a claims officer may require, and that he shall satisfy the claims officer that he is unable to obtain suitable work. These are three issues on which any claimant can prove fact. In terms of any of those three issues he can produce evidence in support of his case. He can prove that he was unable to obtain employment. He can prove that he was entitled to benefits; that is a matter of fact which any court can test. He can prove that he was continuously unemployed during that period. Those are matters which he can prove, and he can present evidence to show that that evidence entitles him to benefits. On the basis of that evidence he may then go to the committee and then to the Appeal Board and, if dissatisfied, he may yet appeal to the courts, and prove his case on the grounds of evidence which substantiate the facts. But this clause; as it is now worded does not call for the substantiation of a fact. It enables the claims officer to interpret the evidence to his own wish. If the hon. the Deputy Minister were to delete the word “to the satisfaction of the claims officer” and the clause read—

then the man would have a legal basis for appeal.

Who must decide then?

The claims officer would be the first person to decide. Then the contributor could appeal to the committee, then to the board and, if necessary, to the courts. But once you incorporate the words “to the satisfaction of the claims officer” you, in practice and in fact, eliminate the right of appeal. You are now stating that it shall not be the fact of whether he has been seeking work that will determine the issue, but whether he has satisfied the claims officer. In other words, a claimant coming before the claims officer does not have to produce evidence that he has sought employment; he has to satisfy the claims officer. He may have whatever evidence he likes but if it does not satisfy the claims officer then the decision of that officer is the decision which will matter in this case.

The hon. the Deputy Minister can talk as much as he likes but that is the fact. That is the issue. The inclusion of the words “to the satisfaction of the claims officer” means that he does not have to prove the fact but he has to satisfy a person.

But he has to satisfy him in the first place and if he is not satisfied he proceeds with his appeal.

If he fails to satisfy him he then goes on appeal on the basis of fact, not on the basis of personal satisfaction. Now he cannot go on the basis of fact because this clause lays down what he must do is not prove a fact but satisfy a person. I am sure that if the hon. the Deputy Minister would take legal advice on this issue he will find that my contention is absolutely correct, that what he is demanding here is not the proof of something, not the proof of a fact, but that a man must produce not only proof but at the same time satisfy a person. And that person’s interpretation is what will ultimately determine the issue.

I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister —and I appeal to him in this regard—to give an assurance to this committee that he will investigate this matter—and that does not derogate from our opposition to this clause to which we are opposed in toto because we do not believe it is necessary—but I would ask him, in fairness and in justice to the people who will be affected hereby, that he will undertake to take legal opinion on this issue. Then at the third reading let him come back to us and give us his answer on the legal position. We have gone into this matter very thoroughly and we are completely satisfied that this clause places the onus of the decision within the hands of the claims officer. My hon. friend there is always right. He is like this Government in everything he does. It does not give a darn for the results of its legislation.

Order! That has nothing to do with the clause.

This clause will create a hardship for the workers of South Africa and this Government does not give a damn, if I may put it that way, what happens. Because the Minister has determined that he will use these particular words, his supporters say: “Ja, Baas, Bayete”, and they will vote for it, and they do not know what it is doing to the workers of South Africa. We as an Opposition are fighting this clause because of the harm it will do. Why must the Minister force such a clause through against the wishes of the organized trade unions? The trade union organization is opposed to it. I challenge his statement. I have a telegram dated 9 February from the Secretary of the Trade Union Council—

The decision of the board was not unanimous, and here I have a telegram from the Council dated last Friday stating that they do not agree with it and their representatives did not accept that decision. I have a memorandum from them stating that they did not accept it and that the decision of the board was not unanimous. The Minister tells us to-night that it was, but the Trade Union Council says it is not. I am not going to argue the veracity of the statement, but I am accepting that the Trade Union Council is opposed to this amendment. Why is the Minister determined to force on the workers of South Africa a clause which they do not want without producing a sound argument for the necessity of the clause? He has the powers here. He is admitting now that what his Department has been doing in using these forms demanding that an employer certify that an employee applied for work is illegal? Has the Department in fact been acting illegally, and must he now correct that illegal action by this amendment? That is the implication, that his Department in terms of the existing Section 38 has been demanding proof of the search for employment. Was that illegal? Was his Department not entitled to do so? If that is so, why does he not come to us honestly and say: My Department has been doing something illegally and I now need to put it right? Why does he come here and say: This is merely a technical amendment which is necessary for the administration of the Act? Because what he is asking here is exactly what his Department has been doing all along, and he knows that the average worker, especially the non-European, when he asks for employment, goes to the gatekeeper and asks whether there is work. [Time Limit.]

Let us deal with the legal point for a moment. I just want to say that a little knowledge is a very dangerous thing.

Hear, hear!

And a little legal knowledge is even more dangerous.

You’re telling us!

What we have here is nothing new, because when we look at Act 43 of 1956 and at Section 35 (4), we find the same provision there, only in different words. Let me read out the English for the edification of the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw)—

[Interjections.] Do not let us try to chase up a hare in a place where there is not even room for a hare to lie down. This principle that certain evidence must be submitted to the satisfaction of the claims officer is already embodied here, and as far as I can remember nobody objected to that section in 1946.

Then the Opposition was not doing its work.

It is quite possible that in those days the Opposition knew its work better than the Opposition knows it to-day, because they realized that it was not necessary to object.

This principle is already embodied in this Act. I want to go one step further. When we look at the Section to which the hon. the Deputy Minister drew attention, namely Section 27, we find that there it is stated—

that is to say, in respect also of the facts which the claims officer requires to satisfy himself. When we look at this Amendment Bill, we find that there is a new sub-section in Section 38, namely the new sub-section (5), and this is subject to appeal to the Committee just as much as all the others. The question that arises in respect of the appeal is what is the appeal against? The appeal is in respect of the adequacy of the facts which the work-seeker submits to satisfy the claims officer, where the claims officer says that he is still not satisfied because of the insufficiency of the facts. That work-seeker may then appeal to the Committee in respect of quantum of facts that he submitted, and if the Committee …

May I ask a question?

With all due respect, Sir, the hon. member had much more than his quota of time a moment ago. In any event, he bored me so much that I thought he was speaking for longer than a quarter of an hour. I do not want to reply to questions. I want to say too that even if the Committee were to find against the work-seeker and it then appeared that the Committee had acted with prejudice or in a way in which no reasonable person would have acted in the light of the facts, then he would still have a right of appeal to the Supreme Court, under common law, in as much as the persons clothed with this discretionary power did not properly exercise their discretion. The dissatisfied work-seeker really has a double appeal therefore, to the Committee and to the Supreme Court. I have a feeling that this opposition is being put up only because hon. members are not ready to go on to the Bill of the Minister of Defence. The arguments advanced by the Opposition are absolutely nonsensical, juridically nonsensical.

I should like to make an appeal to the Deputy Minister not to make up his mind finally that there is no justification for our opposition. I want to ask him whether he will not institute inquiries to find out, irrespective of what has been said by the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze), whether the legal position may not be that as the clause now reads, an appellant against the claims officer’s decision can only base his appeal, particularly to the courts, on two points, the first being that the claims officer did not act in good faith and the second being that he did not properly bring his mind to bear on the matter in investigating the case. I do not want to question the legal knowledge of the hon. member for Standerton, but, as far as I know, when a clause is worded as this clause is, the grounds of appeal are limited to those two points. Either mala fides have to be proved or that the investigating officers did not properly bring his mind to bear on the matter. It is practically impossible to prove that, and I do not think that that is the intention of the Deputy Minister. I accept that this is a genuine attempt to catch out the man who is unwilling to work, the loafer, but I do not think he would like to put on the Statute Book a section that will perpetuate an injustice to a person to whom that injustice is done through administrative action. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will inquire further into this matter.

I shall reply in a moment.

My other difficulty is how this clause will work in practice. I concede at once that in theory it is essential that contributors to this fund, whether they be employers or employees, must be protected against abuses by people who refuse to work. But do we not run the risk of placing an impossible burden through this clause on some people who do want to look for work? I know many large factories in South Africa. They have security officers posted at their gates, people without high qualifications. Their job is simply to keep undesirable visitors away from the offices. What happens to the work-seeker who goes up to the security officer and tells him that he is looking for employment and is then told by the officer that there is no work and that he may not enter.

You have a wonderful imagination!

That is what does happen. I am speaking from experience. This happens even on the Railways. Take the case, for example, where a security officer at the gate of a factory like Union Steel at Vereeniging refuses to allow a work-seeker entry. If the work-seeker is unable to get past that officer, he cannot get employment. That is the difficulty in practice, and this may happen during a period of large-scale unemployment such as we had recently in South Africa, when the big employers are inundated with applications from work-seekers. There is no obligation upon the employer to sign that certificate.

No, we invite their co-operation.

Yes, but what would happen during a period of large-scale unemployment, when work-seekers flock to the factories? Must they establish a special department to cope with that situation in order to comply with the provisions of this clause? Is there not an inconsistency in this provision in terms of which the onus is placed on the unemployed to prove that he is unable to obtain employment but no obligation is placed on the potential employer to help him to furnish that proof? Why should the onus be placed only on the person who is in difficulties? The only person who can furnish proof that such a person has sought employment is the employer, but there is no obligation on him to furnish that proof. Is that fair? Cannot the Minister realize that this lends itself to an injustice? I want to make a very serious appeal to him to reconsider this matter. He must not think that the sole purpose of the Opposition is to score debating points. We are here to assist, because this Act is one of the measures of which we as South Africans can be very proud. Is he not prepared to undertake to reconsider this matter, and, if necessary, to bring about a change in the Other Place? As the clause now reads we are unable to vote for it. I think there must be a certain amount of doubt now in the mind of the hon. the Deputy Minister.

I think I must direct the attention of the Committee to Section 17 of the Act. It deals with the duties of the Committee and reads as follows—

I think that is strongly worded. It says that “all claims” rejected by the claims officer must be reviewed by the Committee. It must review all applications rejected by the claims officer. In other words, it seems to me a very strong section which removes all the difficulties.

I want to revert to the argument that this sub-clause (5) may affect the original applicants. I would like to point out that in terms of the Act a person who becomes unemployed and applies for benefits has to wait seven days before he is paid. In other words, this provision cannot apply in the case of an original application for benefits. It can only apply in the case of a person who has completed his cycle of 26 weeks, and thereafter stays away from the labour bureau. I want to differ from the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn). I think that if a man in that second six months regularly keeps in contact with the labour bureau he will not find it necessary to furnish any other proof that he has been looking for work.

Where is that contained in the Act?

It is not provided in the Act, but that is the practice. [Interjections.] People seek work by registering themselves at the labour bureau, and they accordingly get their unemployment benefits. These people want everything to be put on an unreasonable basis. I feel that as the Act stands now it is strong enough to protect the work-seekers, and it is only an attempt to deal with the case of a man who stays away from the labour bureau for the full 26 weeks, so as to require him to furnish proof that he in fact looked for work in that period of 26 weeks.

Mr. Chairman, there is one point I want to raise, and that is in connection with the position that has developed in relation to the meeting of the Board when a unanimous decision was taken in respect of the amendments. The information which we have is this, and I will read it to the Minister—

Now I understand from that and from what the Minister has said that at the board meeting where the amendments were considered, the Board gave a unanimous decision, and then at a subsequent board meeting the representatives of the S.A. Trade Union Council asked for their opposition to be recorded. Is that the position?

It also refers to a later clause.

I just want to clear up the issue, which appears to be a little obscure, the Minister’s statement that he has the unanimous support of the trade union movement and this statement by the Council asking that their opposition be recorded. It would appear to me that the Minister was notified that there was opposition by members of the board to the amendment, but it also appears from what the Minister has said that the minutes of the board meeting where these amendments were considered in the first instance would reflect that there was unanimous support for their amendments. I think it would be just as well to get the point cleared up before we go any further.

I will clear it up now. Regarding the opposition or objection of the Trade Union Council, as I have stated, they agreed to these amendments on 21 September, according to the note I have. Perhaps I should read it again.

Did they agree unanimously?

Yes. The note reads as follows—

And then they give the names of the employee members present, one of whom was Mr. Tyler. But then I also received a telegram from the Trade Union Council stating that they did not agree, and then we started checking up. I received a telegram after my second reading speech, but I have not got it before me. But I asked Head Office to look into the minutes and tell us what the position was, and then I received this telex to-day—

I leave it to the discretion of the House to draw their own deductions. Now I would like to reply to the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn).

*The hon. member for Yeoville raised a matter to which we will devote attention. I do not feel that if there is a Bill it is the law of the Medes and the Persians. If serious doubts are expressed that it may enure to the detriment of the worker, we would be the last people to want to embody it in the legislation. I will ask my Department to get the opinion of the law advisers on the matter to-morrow, and if it appears that there are grounds for the objection I will move an amendment in the Other Place. But if it should appear that there is no objection to it I will say in the Other Place that this matter has been raised and that it has been duly investigated, and that it has been found not to contain the danger in regard to which fears were expressed.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. the Deputy Minister for the statement he has just made, which is what we appealed for in the first place, and I assure him that that is the attitude we seek in regard to improvements to measures affecting workers. But I wish briefly to raise two points. The first is that a second memorandum—he refers to the meeting of 21 September which considered a memorandum from the South African Trade Union Council dated 30 August—a second memorandum was submitted on 11 October 1960, after the Department had drafted revised proposals. There was an amendment to the initial proposals, and a second memorandum dated 11 October was submitted to the Unemployment Insurance Board in regard to the revised proposals submitted to the Board. Now he has stated that at the meeting of 21 September the only objection was to Clause 4, but I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether a meeting was held after 11 October, and secondly whether revised proposals were put to the board on or after 11 October, and whether there was any subsequent meeting at which the representatives of the Trade Union Council recorded their objection to the amendments in Clauses 2 and 4, because it appears to me that there were two meetings. The second memorandum was dated 11 October and the meeting was held on the 19th. Were there revised proposals and was objections lodged at the second meeting?

The other point I wish to make is this, and I think this is a matter of the most serious import to the workers. We are debating an issue here which affects the workers of South Africa very closely indeed and this Government, the workers’ friend, has one member, apart from the Minister, who gets up and tamely says: We do not intend to use the powers we are asking for; we will only use them in special cases. His duty as the representative of a workmen’s constituency is to defend the workers he represents. To come here and say in the name of the people who put him into Parliament: I will help to protect you from oppressive provisions in this amendment. Instead of protecting the people he represents he says: I know these powers go a long way, but we will not really use them. He is prepared to subject his constituents to excessive powers to deal with one or two “loafers”, and he does not care about the effect it may have on genuine workers. and not another Government member stands up to say one word in defence of the workers. Is it not shocking that we here should have to fight in the interest of the worker when the members they elected to this House sit silent and allow their interests to be steam-rollered merely because the Government has said so?

The Minister’s undertaking is very welcome. It will remove any doubt as to the legal effect of this clause, but at the same time I want to say that even if he does get complete assurance that the position is as he has stated, we are still opposed to the clause. I think it is only fair to say that, but I do hope that despite our opposition to the clause he will go on with his undertaking and make quite sure the position is as he has stated it to be.

Clause 2 put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and J. J. Fouché.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and A. Hopewell.

Clause accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 3,

I wish to move the amendment standing in my name:

I notice that the hon. the Deputy Minister also has an amendment on the Order Paper. I have studied that amendment and it appears to me that its objective is the same as my amendment. However, I am moving my amendment, but subject to the Minister’s reply to the points which I am now going to put to him, and subject to the approval of the House I will be prepared to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, in a later clause that we will deal with, claims officers are given the right to determine whether a contributor to the fund can carry out the work which he did formerly before he receives any benefits. If in the opinion of the claims officer such a contributor is unable to perform the work which he formerly did, the claims officer may assign any other job to him. This in effect, means that if a contributor who has been occupied in a particular job for, say, 15 years at a salary of £70 per month, becomes unemployed for reasons beyond his control, such as age or anything else, and applies for benefits to the claims officer, he can be told by the claims officer that in his opinion he cannot return to his former occupation but that he will assign work of a lower grade, say at £40 per month, to him. That means, Sir, that the contributor then becomes a contributor at the root level of £40 per month. But it is possible that that contributor may again become unemployed three months later and the question then arises on which scale will be paid benefits from the fund as an unemployed person.

Clause 39, which is being amended, not only lays down the scales of benefits that will be paid to a contributor, but it also provides certain safeguards in respect of the payment of those benefits, the scales at which the benefits will be paid and the different groups in which the worker will be classified. I move my amendment because its object is to ensure complete protection to a worker who, having contributed at a certain level and becomes unemployed through no fault of his own, now has to work for a lower salary because of the decision of the claims officer that he is unfit to return to his former employment, and if he becomes unemployed at that lower level, becomes unemployed as a lower grade contributor. If we pass Clause 4 (b) as it now stands, at a later stage of our deliberations this evening, it is quite clear that contributors to the fund under such circumstances would be prejudiced in the amount of benefits which they can draw. The effect of the amendment which I have just moved is to ensure that those people will not be prejudiced—those people who fall under the provisions of Section 4 (b)—in the amount of benefits they can draw from the fund in terms of their contributions over the years.

I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will accept the sincerity of my motives in moving this amendment. I accept his and I would like to hear from the hon. the Deputy Minister whether his amendment would provide the same safeguards which my amendment seeks to provide to contributors to the fund.

The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) did discuss this matter with me and I want to thank him for the courtesy and the consideration shown to me to discuss this point in advance. I consequently had the opportunity of considering it and also to discuss it with our law advisers. I think he has a point there.

First of all I want to point out that as I informed him yesterday it was never the intention under Clause 4 (b) as it stands at the moment, to inflict any hardship on any contributor or any work-seeker. As a matter of fact the proviso to Section 39 of the principal Act covers the case to a very large extent which the hon. member has raised. Perhaps I should read the proviso because it is relevant to the amendment we are discussing now. The proviso reads—

“more than one group”—that is the point which the hon. member has made. Say he was employed in group 11 and he is subsequently employed in group 8, let us assume, “then the claims officer can determine that benefits be paid in respect of the group in which he considers the contributor is normally employed”. Now the emphasis here is on the word “is” because we are adding “or was”.

“Or was at any time.”

Yes, “or was at any time”. The law advisers expressed the opinion that this proviso covered the case but seeing that there is doubt they have suggested the amendment which I am going to move now namely—

1. (b) by the insertion in the proviso to subsection (1) after the words “contributor is” of the words “or was at any time

I hope the insertion of this will remove all shadow of doubt about our intention. We do not intend to inflict any hardship on any contributor and I hope that the hon. member will withdraw his amendment in the light of my amendment which was drawn up by our law advisers. I have also spoken to the hon. the Minister about this and he and the law advisers are in full agreement about this.

I am grateful to the hon. the Deputy Minister for meeting the point I have made and I accept his assurance that on the advice of the law advisers his amendment does meet the point. I may say, however, that we are also in a position of discussing these matters with the parliamentary law adviser and we on this side, at any rate, accept his draftsmanship in respect of these matters. Frankly I must say that I like the amendment which the parliamentary law adviser drafted in this regard. It seems to place the matter in no doubt whatsoever, but because of the courtesy of the Minister and with the permission of the House I wish to withdraw my amendment.

With leave of the Committee, the amendment proposed by Mr. Durrant was withdrawn.

There is one point I would like to clear up with the hon. the Deputy Minister. Am I to understand now that as a result of this amendment benefits will be paid out to an unemployed worker to the extent of the credit which he has in that particular group—the higher group. And once those credits are exhausted he will automatically become entitled to the lower credit.

That is correct.

Amendment moved by the Deputy Minister of Labour, put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 4,

I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that we are fundamentally opposed to the provisions of sub-section (a) of this clause which seek to extend the penalty period from six weeks, as provided for in the existing Act, to a period of 13 weeks.

Clause 40 of the principal Act deals with the conditions relating to payment of benefits. In regard to this penalty issue where the Minister is seeking to increase the penalty which must be paid by any contributor for the large number of reasons listed in Section 40, it would appear to be palpably unfair for two reasons for him to do so. The first reason is: Take group 12 for instance. If a person in group 12 is penalized it means that person in meeting a six weeks’ penalty will be paying a fine equivalent to something like £45—R90. Now in terms of this provision which extends that period from six weeks to 13 weeks, the same person if penalized by a claims officer, will be called upon to pay something like £90 or R180. Mr. Chairman, I am sure there is no intention on the part of the hon. the Deputy Minister to impose such a heavy penalty on any contributor to the fund. We need only look at the Statute Book to see what types of crimes must be committed to make a person liable to pay such a high fine. It usually means 12 months’ imprisonment if the alternative is a fine of £100. I also want to ask the Minister this: Why has it become necessary now to increase this penalty period from six weeks to 13 weeks where the claims officer has the right under the existing Act to impose a second penalty on a contributor if he does not conform to the provisions of the Act or the regulations made under the Act. Why must it now be extended to 13 weeks if the claims officer has that power at the moment? Mr. Chairman, we are fundamentally opposed to this provision, and I therefore move, Sir—

I wish to support the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant). Now that we have resumed after a quorum had been called, I do hope more members of the Government side will come in and perhaps support us in this amendment, because during the second reading one or two members on that side of the House also expressed great concern over the increase of the penalty period from six weeks to 13 weeks. Mr. Chairman, the position is that under the present provisions as laid down in the principal Act, this penalty of six weeks as it now exists, is already proving to be a severe and hard penalty that has to be borne by a sometimes innocent contributor. I call him an “innocent contributor” because in practice when this penalty is imposed, the person has recourse to the Unemployment Benefit Committee and then to the Unemployment Insurance Board but that often takes a considerable time. I know of one case where it took four months for the matter to be dealt with. So if this penalty period is increased to 13 weeks it will become a most severe penalty indeed and in our opinion on this side of the House will be out of all proportion to the offence which the person had committed. This clause is really aimed at the small percentage of won’t-works so we agree that it must act as a deterrent but I do feel—and the trade unions feel the same—that to increase the penalty from six weeks to 13 weeks will be too severe and harsh. This will be subject to the discretion of the claims officer and show what tremendous powers have been placed in the hands of the claims officers. I do not wish to repeat the arguments that were put forward when we discussed Clause 2 but I would like to draw the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister to the fact that here again the claims officer is able to act arbitrarily and to severe detriment and hardship to the contributor.

We support the amendment which has been moved to this clause which provides for the increase of the penalty period from six to 13 weeks. I do not believe that any genuine worker is not in fact going to attempt to find work. This is a penalty which is aimed at the idler and the won’t-work but it will redound to the disadvantage of the genuine and honest worker.

The hon. the Minister said in his second reading speech that prior to 1957 the delay was an undetermined period—there was no specific restriction on the period—and that is correct. Section 8 of Act 9 narrowed the period of non-payment to six weeks. Now I would have thought that that was sufficient. Sir. The hon. the Deputy Minister has not given us a satisfactory explanation as to why over the period between 1957 and 1961, it has now become necessary to extend the period from six weeks to 13 weeks. There has been no satisfactory explanation given.

At this stage I also want to state our objections to Section 4 (b) of this Bill. We want to move the deletion of that section as well. In the second reading debate I said that it was obviously unfair to leave it to the discretion of the claims officer to decide on the definition of “suitable work”. There may be obvious cases where it is clear that the man will not be able to continue with his normal occupation but in cases where the man suffers from an ordinary illness or is merely ageing, I do not think it should be left to the discretion of the claims officer. Unless the hon. the Deputy Minister is prepared to insert some phrase such as “after certification by a registered doctor” I wish to move the deletion of Clause 4 (b). I move—

I wish to draw the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister to the fact that he is passing an amendment to the Bill which affects some million people on the Witwatersrand alone. I would like to ask him whether, apart from the hon. member for Geduld (Dr. Jurgens) who has just entered the Chamber, he has asked the advice of any of his own colleagues from anywhere on the Witwatersrand in regard to the effect of this clause. Because I would like to have it placed on record that not one, apart from the member who has just entered, Government representative of any workers’ seat on the whole of the Witwatersrand is in this Chamber to-night to represent those workers. And I want to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister what right he has to come to this House and to move an amendment to a Bill affecting the workers of the whole Witwatersrand and the whole of South Africa, an amendment which imposes upon them a penalty of an increase from six weeks to 13 weeks, when there is not a single representative of those workers on the Government benches even sufficiently interested to come into this House and to speak on their behalf. Is it going to be left to us, the Opposition, to speak on behalf of all the tens, the hundreds of thousands of workers of South Africa. Why is there nobody standing up to plead with their own Minister that this penalty which is imposed here is unjust? They are all unemployed, Mr. Chairman, completely unemployed and in terms of this provision they would have to satisfy a claims officer that they were seeking work—where I do not know; certainly not in this Chamber. They may be seeking work in the tearoom; they may be seeking it elsewhere but they are not seeking work in this Chamber, Sir. This clause provides that they would have to satisfy a claims officer that they were fit and proper people, that they were physically capable of carrying out their work in this House. I want to ask, Mr. Chairman, whether the Minister has considered the effect of this clause. These absent members who would now have to go to one of these claims officers and prove that they were fit and capable of carrying out their work in terms of this provision, would be subject to a penalty of 13 weeks suspension—suspension of 13 weeks from the service of this House, if one of his claims officers should decide, in terms of this provision, that he is not capable of doing the work in which he has been ordinarily employed. Now any normal person would obviously immediately decide that none of those members were fit or capable of performing their work. Any normal claims officer would know that they were not doing their work; that they were not fit and capable of doing it; in fact they are absolutely incapable of undertaking the work in which they have been ordinarily employed. Now if those people are incapable of performing their work—and they are normally employed here; they draw a salary or an allowance—all that has to happen is for a claims officer to determine that they are not capable of doing so and in terms of this amendment, they will be fined 13 weeks. That will be far more than the allowance they receive, Mr. Chairman, it will cost them £6 a day. Yet the Minister gives that right to a junior official of his Department when it comes to the worker; is the Minister prepared to give that right to a claims officer when his own colleagues in this House are concerned? Is he prepared to apply it to himself and to leave it to the discretion in any person in this House to decide that a man was not capable of carrying out his work? Perhaps he had black coffee and it disagreed with him and he was not capable of carrying out his work; will the Minister be prepared to allow an official to suspend that member for 13 weeks from the service of this House? [Interjections.]

You have not even had black coffee.

On a point of order, Sir, is the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) allowed to insinuate that the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) is under the influence of intoxicating liquor?

The hon. member for Durban (Point) may proceed.

Fortunately, Mr. Chairman, I am able to treat the remarks of the hon. member for Heilbron with the contempt they deserve. That hon. member has no right to come into this House and make comments such as that when we are discussing matters which affect the welfare of the workers of South Africa. This is an issue in respect of which he should be defending the workers instead of making inane interjections which have nothing to do whatsoever with the welfare of the people.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the clause.

I will, Mr. Chairman, if hon. members like that will also take some interest in the clause. I want to draw the attention of this House once again to the seriousness of this provision. I want to conclude by repeating my request to the Deputy Minister to state whether he regards it as fair and just that this power of imposing a 13-week penalty period should be granted to an official at his own discretion? I am not interested in appeals. As the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) has pointed out that in some cases of appeal it takes four to five months before the matter is decided on. I want to know whether it is fair to subject people to this penalty which can be imposed at the whim or wish of a claims officer, without any medical evidence or any other justification, apart from his own decision to penalize them for 13 weeks. I would like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister in all seriousness, in the interests of the people who will be affected, to tell this House why it has become necessary to penalize the whole body of workers, the whole mass, for the sake of one or two people who may be working a point. The cost of investigation under this section alone will cost twice as much as the few pounds which may be filched by the chancer, the man who is trying to work a point. Is it worth it? Are not the administrative cost of this provision alone going to be far greater than any cost to the State or the Fund which may be incurred because of the few people who try to get round the provisions of the Act. I would like the hon. the Deputy Minister seriously to consider the amendment moved by my colleague, the member for Turffontein.

With regard to Clause 4 (b), I think this is a matter worthy of consideration. This country is very fortunate, if I may say so, in having labour officers by and large of a very high standard both in respect of knowledge of their job and human understanding, so the last thing I want to do in anything that I say here, is to reflect on those individuals. But you are placing a very big responsibility, a very big onus, on a man who has to consider so many other aspects of his work in deciding whether a man is no longer fit for a given occupation, when it is not an obvious case. If a fitter has lost his right hand it is obvious that he cannot go out and do fitting and turning. But more and more in our industrial life we are managing to absorb people who suffer from insidious illnesses, but illnesses which can nevertheless be overcome; epilepsy is a case in point. It is perfectly competent to employ people with that weakness in certain jobs. There are other similar diseases which do not so obviously unfit a man for work, but nonetheless may more seriously unfit him over a long period on the negative side. In other words, although his strength and appearance may be good, it may not be fitting that he should continue in that occupation for any long period. I think therefore if it is possible to incorporate some such suggestion as has been made by the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) it would be a constructive approach to the problem from the point of view of sharing the responsibility of making a decision which is not typically a decision to be made by a claims officer. Where the understanding comes in in his job is the weighing up of the human personality—the Minister has made that point already—rather than weighing up the physical capacity of a man. I do not know whether it is possible to incorporate such an amendment but I do want to support the suggestion that it is done.

I do not know why hon. members are concerned about this clause, Mr. Chairman, because I take it that the normal procedure will still be followed and that the claims officer will be guided by the medical practitioner who is attending the patient. We know that the claims officer and the doctor decide on when the worker is fit and when he can resume work again. I do not think there will be difficulty in any of these cases. I think we are unnecessarily concerned about this matter. My constituents will be satisfied to know that if they want to work but are unable to do so, they will be covered, and that this clause only makes provision for those people who do not want to work.

Are you referring to 4 (a) or 4 (b)?

I am referring to Clause

1. (b) in connection with which the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) has suggested that the penalty should only be imposed on the strength of a medical certificate. I accept that that is the practice to-day and that that will continue to be the practice and that it will be done on medical advice only.

It seems quite clear that the hon. member for Geduld is satisfied with sub-section (b), but I wonder whether the hon. member really realizes the full implications of 4 (a). Is he aware of what this amendment purports to do? May I direct the Committee’s attention, Sir, to what we are amending in this provision? Section 40 of the original Act, and this I am sure will help the hon. member for Geduld lays down the conditions relating to payment of benefits. The payment is subject to certain conditions, and those conditions which we are amending here include inter alia “(i) for a period of six weeks or such lesser period as the claims officer concerned may determine from the date on which he refuses to accept or apply for suitable work notified to him, or of which he may become aware, or does not comply with any specific reasonable direction given to him by or on behalf of the claims officer with a view to helping him to get work, or presents or offers himself for work in a condition or manner which in the opinion of the claims officer concerned is likely to preclude him from obtaining employment”. Now under the existing provisions of this Act, if a claims officer has that opinion in respect to any contributor who applies, he can impose this penalty of six weeks and after the expiry of the penalty period, when the contributor again applies and is placed again in the same category, the claims officer has the right again to apply the same provisions of this section under Clause 4 of the Bill. So I ask this: If in each group of the benefits that are payable—let us take one group, group 12, or any group the hon. member for Geduld would like to choose, but taking group 12 alone, we find that a contributor actually pays if he has offended anyone of those provisions, if he has not assisted himself of getting work, or wilfully so presents himself as a prospective employee that the employer will not employ him …

His shirt may be soiled.

Yes, whatever condition it may be, then that contributor in group 12 in terms of the existing law, has to pay a fine equivalent to six weeks of benefits, which in terms of group 12 will be £42 a month, or R84. That is the actual penalty he pays as a result of a arbitrary decision of the claims officer. But what are we seeking to do now in this clause, Mr. Chairman? For exactly the same reason, that he may present himself in a soiled shirt as a prospective employee and is turned down, the claims officer may say “I am now going to fine you £90

If he does not accept the work offered to him …

No, if he presents himself in a manner which in the opinion of the claims officer concerned (not the employer) is likely to preclude him from obtaining employment, he can be so fined. The man may be a genuine contributor, but may have been brought to such straits of poverty in looking for work that his wife probably has not been able to clean his shirt in a proper manner. Then if he presents himself, the claims officer can say “no, you are a dirty fellow, your shirt-collar is soiled; I am going to penalize you six weeks, I am going to fine you £40 in terms of the existing Act”. But now the Minister is not satisfied with that and introduces this legislation, giving the claims officers greater powers over unfortunate contributors. He is now going to empower claims officers not to fine people six weeks, but 13 weeks. What does that penalty of 13 weeks in actual fact mean? It means that the claims officer is saying to the man: I am depriving you (in a case under group 12) of £90. But let us take a far lower group if hon. members think I am exaggerating. Take group 6. Then he says “I am going to fine you £28 because your shirt is dirty”.

Try to talk sense!

Why does the hon. member not get up and give us his views? Can you imagine such an observation from an hon. member who purports to be a Whip of his party. At least we would think that he would give an example to his members in taking an interest in the Bill. The plain fact of the matter is that the hon. member knows nothing whatsoever about what we are discussing now. He has not got the faintest idea. I appeal to the hon. the Minister. It was quite clear in the second reading that the hon. member for Pretoria (West), and his companion the hon. member for Bloemfontein (City) and also the hon. member for Langlaagte felt very unhappy about this provision. They know what the effect will be upon the workers of South Africa. There is no need for this provision. If it were necessary to take stronger disciplinary action against workers who were exploiting the fund, I would say “Yes, by all means”. But there are provisions in the Act as it stands. A claims officer can impose, two, three, four, five penalties upon any contributor in terms of the provision as it now stands. I ask the hon. Minister why then is it necessary to give such powers to claims officers to penalize workers to the extent that is contemplated here? Because willy-nilly the effect is going to be, and I am quite sure that in another year’s time I will be able to come with a further report of the Unemployment Insurance Board, showing larger and greater appeals made by workers against arbitrary decisions of claims officers. The evidence is all there, and I am going to ask the hon. the Minister to-night to stand up and say that he will withdraw this amendment. He has fought hard for this Unemployment Insurance Fund in the past before he was raised to his present heights. He fought many a great battle over it, and I am going to ask him now in the interest of the workers to withdraw this provision.

The hon. Minister is giving: the right to a claims officer to deprive families for virtually three months or more of any living at all. He may be taking away all forms of livelihood from them, because of a person who reports for work and does not get it for one reason or another. If that person were sent to prison, he would still be earning something, but here not a single penny will go to that family because the claims officer considers him not a fit and proper person to receive the benefits of unemployment insurance. Remember that this person has paid into the fund; he is not getting anything for nothing, and there are 101 conditions that may arise and may cause a claims officer to have a misguided opinion of the person who presents himself. He can’t always be correct; he is not infallible. What experience has he got of certain conditions which may make a person present himself in such a way that it gives him the impression that he is not a fit and proper person to get unemployment insurance? What would happen if this man dropped in the street from hunger and came dirty or soiled to the claims officer? And that does happen, as the hon. Minister probably well knows. I think the hon. Minister knows what happens to these people. They stand in queues sometimes for a long, long time. They go there without breakfast in the morning, their stomachs are not filled when they line up for work. Yet the claims officer has got the right to condemn this man to a further sentence of three months without food. That is what it virtually means. What right has he got to do that? What right has the claims officer got to deprive a person and his family from getting help? What right has the claims officer got to take away this man’s contribution? How many times will this happen? Why should the Minister have to introduce this terrible piece of legislation which gives the claims officer the position of a police officer, if you want to put it like that, or rather a Judge, and a gaoler, and the gaoler to say when he shall get food and when not. Don’t think, Mr. Chairman, that we are exaggerating the position. I am sure that if the hon. Deputy Minister went into one of these homes where people have been out of work for a few weeks, he would realize what a terrible thing it is to be out of work for 13 weeks and not getting in any money at all. It is a shocking thing to give the power to the claims officer to penalize people for three months. If we go on like that, this country will go to wrack and ruin, because we are delegating powers to people who have not got the judgment to exercise these powers.

This is a cheap attempt by hon. members opposite to pretend that they are making a stand on very important matters affecting the workers. I repeat that we all sympathize with the workers of South Africa and this side of the House has shown its sympathy very conclusively in the past. But I should like to direct the attention of the House to the present provision in order to show that all the Bill provides for is a maximum penalty which the claims officer can impose. It will not be 13 weeks in all instances. The maximum penalty which can be imposed. Let us read the section as it stands to-day. He can refuse to pay the benefits for a period of six weeks or such lesser period as the claims officer concerned may determine, from the date on which he refuses to accept or apply for suitable work notified to him or of which he may become aware, or does not comply with any specific reasonable direction given to him by or on behalf of the claims officer with a view to helping him to get work or presents himself for work in a condition or manner which, in the opinion of the claims officer concerned, is likely to preclude him from obtaining employment. I want to refer hon. members to the conditions which must be complied with before a claims officer will exclude such a worker. This is not simply an arbitrary refusal which will exclude the worker from benefits. Hon. members opposite have argued on the premise that all the workers who do not comply with these conditions will be excluded for the maximum period. All this Bill provides for is an extension of the maximum period in which the claims officer can enforce.

Why?

Let us make it clear that we are so confident that our Department will do good work that we are prepared to leave the matter in their hands. In addition the unemployed persons have the right of appeal. If the claims officer gives a decision which the person concerned thinks is too harsh, he has the right of appeal.

May I ask the hon. member a question? Will the Department make any payments to the unemployed person while the appeal is pending.

I do not think that would be possible. All I want to add is that if hon. members opposite can submit proof that the Department is enforcing this legislation in the unfair way which they have tried to imply, let them then bring that proof. The legislation must be enforced and we must help the Department to act against people who are abusing these benefits and we must help them eliminate these abuses. The claims officer is simply being given the opportunity to impose a heavier penalty on people who refuse to accept employment. They are first offered employment and they do not accept it. A heavier penalty can be imposed on these people, but I really think that hon. members are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

I am not going to follow the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) in his washing of dirty linen to-night. He contends that a worker wearing a dirty shirt may not get the benefits due to him. I’m not sure about that. I do think, however, that workers may not be aware of all the obligations placed on them by this particular section, and the trade unions have suggested that the workers should be made fully aware of their responsibilities. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he should take cognizance of the suggestion made that the information booklet which apparently is handed to workers be revised and extended and that a copy be given to every applicant for benefits. The trade unions suggest that the language should be simplified and that the information regarding what a man who is unemployed must not do be dealt with in this booklet, and they also suggest that the method of presentation be made more attractive so as to ensure that any worker who receives it will in fact read it. They say too that the present issue is suitable for information to employers and to the members of their staffs who deal with these matters, but that for the unemployed themselves the whole thing is too complicated and is not presented in a proper form.

We too, Sir, of course believe that this clause should be deleted and we are certainly going to vote against it. But I do want to ask the hon. Minister if he will consider an amendment to sub-section (b) following on what the hon. member for Geduld (Dr. Jurgens) said earlier, namely that it is the usual custom only to change the type of work for which a man is deemed to be suitable after a medical practitioner has in fact certified to that effect. But it is not enough to say that that is the usual practice. I should like to see it incorporated in the law, and I therefore wish to move the following amendment for the hon. Minister’s consideration—

I regret that I am unable to accept this amendment as it constitutes an alternative amendment to the amendment in the same clause proposed by the hon. member.

I want to return to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) to omit paragraph (a), and I want to ask the hon. Deputy Minister if he won’t give consideration to the plea which has been put forward in regard to this particular matter. Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with an aspect of legislation which strikes at the very roots of the principle of the Bill itself. That is, that the workers provide during the time that they are employed, for the evil day when they fall into unemployment. They provide in that way so that during the time of their unemployment they will be sure of certain finances to keep their family going. Although the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) pointed out that the penalties provided here are maximum penalties, we have got to regard that the maximum penalty can be applied, and if maximum penalties are applied it virtually defeats the whole object of the Unemployment Insurance Act by doing away with practically the whole …

Only after employment has been offered to him.

I know, but it virtually does away, or rather puts in the hands of the claims officer the right to practically do away with the relief which the man has paid for out of his own pocket, which the employer has contributed to and which the state in no way contributes to, except that it administers the fund. In other words, the individual concerned is asking now to be paid out of his own money which he has set aside and which he might have set aside in a private insurance company for such a rainy day, and then he can be penalized up to the maximum amount at the will of a claims officer. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) passed the comment that they have complete faith in their officers administering this Act. There is no question of lack of faith in those officers. As has been said here, generally speaking you have people who are well versed in that work, trained in dealing with labour. We also have the greatest confidence in them. The only difference apparently arises that we also have confidence in the majority of the working people in this country and we do not see why the majority of the workers in whom we have that confidence and who will not abuse the provisions of the Act, should be penalized because there are undoubtedly a few people who do abuse it. If there is a small section which abuses it, surely there is sufficient provision already in the current Act and in the amendments to deal with those abuses. In the very legislation we are putting through now, we provide certain additional penalties to simplify the task of the officers administering the law, to simplify their task in dealing with malpractices and abuses. There is no question that such abuses so exist. There are people, and always will be people who will try to find a loophole in any legislation that is imposed in order to benefit themselves. But that is no reason why the majority of the people who observe the law should be penalized on account of the few. Might I ask the hon. the Minister to regard it from that angle. It is probably one of the most human factors in this particular piece of legislation, the provision by a man against the time when, perhaps through no fault of his own, as a result of a wave of unemployment or a depression, he is out of work, and then for one reason or another, often a reason again outside of his own control altogether, he may have to submit to the dictation of an officer who tells him that he has transgressed in this, that or the other direction and therefore has to be penalized. It is something I think that goes far beyond the punishment of that individual. In our courts when a criminal goes up for trial, one very often finds the presiding Judge or the presiding magistrate taking into consideration the fact that by penalizing the man, the individual before him, who has earned his punishment, he is also penalizing the man’s wife and family. That is what this Bill is going to do. It is not only going to stop the individual himself from drawing benefits, it is going to stop him being in the position to sustain and maintain his wife and family, provision for which (as I stated) he made when he started to contribute to the fund. There is no question of not contributing. The Act makes it compulsory, just as the employer has to pay his contributions. There is a principle attached to those two payments, the principle that they are there as Parliament legislated for to provide against the day when a man is no longer in the position to work. We have to be very careful before we lessen that right of a man to that relief to which he has contributed, maybe for 15 or 20 years.

In reply to the criticism of hon. members opposite, I must say at once that I will unfortunately not be able to accept any of their proposals or amendments, and I shall give my reasons. In considering this provision we must know exactly with whom it deals. It deals with people to whom suitable employment has been offered and who do not want to accept that employment. That must be fully realized in the first place. These are people who are unemployed. We offer them suitable employment and they do not want to accept that employment. As the law stands, we said that we were going to penalize such a person to a certain extent; we were going to make him come to his senses a little by saying: “We cannot pay you benefits for six weeks.” This was in actual fact a method which we used to persuade the man to go and work. But now experience has taught us in recent years that even the six weeks “threat”—let us call it that—is not absolutely effective. Our divisional inspectors have complained that there are many people to whom suitable work is offered but which they do not want to accept. The hon. member for Simonstown has said that only the employers contribute, and the State contributes nothing, except that it administers the law. I just want to say in passing that that is not correct. The State contributes one-third of this fund’s income. In other words, we must also look after the money of the State and of the taxpayer which has been paid into that fund, so that it is not wasted.

We have had complaints from the divisional inspectors that there are people to whom suitable employment is offered, but who refuse to accept that employment. A penalty of six weeks is then imposed, and they stay away for six weeks. Then they once again come not to ask for work, but for further benefits. Hon. members have asked how many people refuse suitable employment. I have just received a statement from the Department and the figures show that an average of 511 persons per month refuse suitable employment when offered it by our labour bureaux in the Union. We certainly have every sympathy for the worker. As a matter of fact, speaking of sympathy, it was this side of the House which had such great sympathy for the worker that we amended the original United Party legislation on this point. The United Party to-day is talking about the harsh action which we are taking. But I wonder what we should think about the period when the United Party was responsible for this legislation. If a man refused suitable employment under the United Party he was not given the opportunity to return after six weeks but he was sent away for an indefinite period. What do hon. members think of that? I want to ask the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) who has been so outspoken in his condemnation, what he thinks of that United Party legislation. If this Bill is harsh, then that legislation was after all ten times worse. Out of the goodness of our hearts we have made this concession, but we now find that this concession is still being abused. We are not proposing to return to the United Party’s legislation which provided for the complete withdrawal of benefits; we do not want to be so harsh. On the contrary we want to administer this legislation in a reasonable way. For that reason we are now extending the period to 13 weeks, and we intend using this 13-week period more as a means of encouraging and as a means of compelling the work-shy to continue working. When our Department has taken the trouble to find employment for people and they do not want to accept it, I think our officials should be given the opportunity to make these people realize that they must accept employment when they can get it.

The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) has discussed the position of the physically unfit, or people over the age of 60 years under Clause 4 (b) and she says that when these people are to be placed in a different category, we should have them medically examined. That is actually done in practice. If someone refused suitable work and he does so because he says he is medically unfit to accept a certain type of employment, then to-day in practice we refer him to the district surgeon. There is no reason why that should not be done in future as well. As a matter of fact, I shall ask my Department to do so. It is not necessary to embody such a provision in the law. We cannot make provision for every administrative action in our legislation. That is the spirit in which the legislation has been enforced in the past, and the hon. member can rest assured that the same will apply in the future.

In conclusion, as regard these objections, I just want to say that the period of 13 weeks which we are now laying down does not compare unfavourably with the position in other countries elsewhere in the world. During my second reading speech I tabulated these countries and I do not want to repeat what I said then, but there are a large number of countries whose unemployment insurance legislation provides that if a man refuses to accept suitable employment, he is deprived of benefits for an indefinite period, just as was the position under the United Party régime. The House can rest assured that this measure is a reasonable one and that it will be implemented in all fairness. The workers know that they have a sympathetic Government and a sympathetic administration.

I cannot allow the hon. Minister’s suggestion to go by the board, in his reply to the points raised by this side of the House, that the penalties under the original United Party Act were very much more severe. I think the hon. Minister will agree with me that he is painting a one-sided picture, and a picture which is not entirely true. The hon. Minister is making use of his position to give an entirely erroneous impression of how the original Act stood. The hon. minister overlooks that not only are we dealing with sub-section 4 (a), but also with 4 (b) where a discretionary right is now being given to a claims officer to assign a worker to a job that he may not want. And the Minister forgets that the provision in regard to the relaxation that was brought into the Act in 1954 was introduced as a result of representations from this side of the House. The hon. Minister of Transport will remember, because he was at that time Minister of Labour.

I do remember that we brought in the change.

The hon. Minister may conveniently allow his memory to slip for a moment, but I remember it very well. But who was it who came with the other stricter provision which went very, very much further than the original provision? The hon. Minister does not claim the benefit now of the extra provision that claims officers in their discretion whether or not they like the look of a person, can decide whether they will impose a penalty or not. I refer to the number of appeals that are continually lodged against the wide discriminatory powers that are given to claims officers. The hon. Minister is quiet now. He does not want to be reminded of the fact that it was the Nationalist Party Government that brought in the provision that when a worker presents himself and in the opinion of the claims officer he does not look so good, he can be fined six weeks. Here it stands in the Act. The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) a few minutes ago when she talked about the dirty shirt to which I referred, forgot that we here are not only fighting for the male worker, we are also fighting for the interests of the female workers in this country who fall under the provisions of this clause, and of which 315,000 contributed to the Unemployment Insurance Fund. Because how will it be if a female worker presents herself before the claims officer in Johannesburg or Pretoria and he looks at the young lady who presents herself for a job and he says: “No, I don’t like the way you are dressed, I am going to fine you six weeks.”

At 10.25 p.m. the Chairman stated that, in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave asked to sit again; House to resume in Committee on the Bill on 20 February.