Mr. Chairman, when last the Committee sat, I proposed that Clause 18 stand over to give me the opportunity to go into the whole matter once again and to see whether it was possible for me to meet the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) by accepting his amendment. I can assure the Committee that I gave my full attention to the matter because I would like to have the support of the whole Committee on military matters, and especially in regard to the powers I ask for in this clause. Sir, if ever there was a time when it was necessary to have full co-operation on military matters, it is now. Right in the beginning of my term of office I made it very clear that it was my policy to get that co-operation in military maters. Of course I realize that it is impossible for all hon. member to agree with me on all matters whenever I come forward with new ideas, but it is my endeavour to try to get the co-operation of everybody. Sir, I agree that in Clause 18 we ask for certain specific powers, but not powers beyond those which we already possess. Some of the hon. members seem to think that we are asking for powers which are not generally allowed in a Bill of this type. I might just say that according to Section 76 (1) I possess powers far beyond those which I am asking for to-day. Section 76 (1) reads as follows—

The Minister may do all things which he may deem necessary.

But that does not apply to internal disorder.

I agree, and I will come to that. I presume that in a democratic country or in a country with the style of life to which we are accustomed, it is not the correct thing to do to make use of such an over-riding power when once you are certain that under certain circumstances certain powers are required. It is only correct, when we find that we do want certain new powers, to come to Parliament for them. Experience has taught us that for the sake of safety, new specific powers are necessary, and those powers we ask for in Clause 18. I am asking for them because we do feel that we really need those powers in these days in which we are living. If hon. members read this morning’s newspaper they will see that in Rhodesia they are at the present moment using powers of that type. Sir, some hon. members have suggested that I am asking for a sort of blank cheque; that is not correct. I have that blank cheque in Section 76. What I am asking the Committee to do is to fill in that cheque, or portion of it It is true that I am asking for a substantial sum to be filled in, but it is said that desperate diseases are cured by desperate appliances. Sir, it is my opinion that we are living in times which make it necessary for us not perhaps to use desperate appliances, but certainly appliances which are in conformity with the difficulties that we foresee at the present time.

After having gone through the whole matter very carefully I came to the conclusion that I could not possibly accept the amendment. As I have said I gave my full attention to it. I called in my law advisers and I asked the officer who was originally responsible for the drafting of the Bill to come down and I had a conversation with him, but we found that it was impossible to accede to the Opposition’s request. The present law is full of examples where the decisions of the Minister are not laid upon the Table. The question is when is the Minister expected to lay certain documents upon the Table and when not. When reading through the law the difference becomes very clear. It is abundantly clear that when specific rights are given to the Minister his actions under those rights are never tabled. It is only when the Governor-General or the Minister has the right to add what you might call new additions to the law by way of rules or regulations that those new additions must be laid upon the Table so that Parliament can decide whether it wants those new additions or not. These regulations are of a lasting nature. Emergency regulations too must be laid upon the Table for the same reason. They are unknown factors and are really new laws on their own account. It is very clear that when new additions are made, where rules and regulations are laid down or emergency regulations called out, these are really new additions to the law, and those are required to be laid on the Table, for very good reasons, because it is Parliament’s prerogative to decide over maters of law. I want to be very specific on this point that regulations and rules are really integral parts of the law as such. We find that Section I (19) says this—this Act includes any rule or regulation made thereunder. Only in one other instance is the laying of documents on the Table a requisite. Section 82 (5) states that any order for the mobilization of the Permanent Force Reserve or a portion of such Reserve must be laid upon the Table. It is clear why that is the case. Section 91 states that all mobilization orders must be laid upon the Table and Section 52 (5) also envisages mobilization. Sir, let us now examine the other powers of the Minister, powers which have nothing to do with new additions to the law by way of rules and regulations. We find examples of this in Sections 76, 89, 92, 138, 149 and also in Sections 82 and 79 (2). I want to quote the powers given under Section 92 (2)—

And, Sir, this is not required to be laid on the Table. In Section 89 (1) we find this—

Then Section 79 (2) reads—

That is similar to the example of a traffic constable who stops traffic in the street.

There is no reference here to country constables.

It is not an emergency; it is done for the sake of safety.

Sir, in this last case whole towns may be evacuated. Here the Minister gets the right to administer civic protection services and order the evacuation of whole towns without being obliged to lay anything on the Table. It must be evident that powers of this nature may be necessary even where and when civilian protection services have not been established. I have with me this morning’s paper from which it is clear that Rhodesia is already using these powers. We read in this morning’s paper that—

All we ask in this clause is for that same type of power.

The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) had several objections to this clause. I met one of the main objections of the hon. member when I introduced a time limit in so far as the assembling process is concerned. I cannot add much to my previous arguments. Perhaps I can be more explicit on two points. I take it that there can be no objection to the powers asked for in this clause in time of war and that there can be no objection to these powers in time of actual internal disorder. The only possible objection can be that these powers are also being asked for during actual operations for the prevention of disorder. Sir, the principle has been accepted right through this amending Bill that certain powers which have been granted for use during war or during internal unrest, may also be used during actual operations for the prevention of unrest. The question is why is it necessary to have these additional powers in the case of prevention also and not only while actually suppressing unrest. Let us take one spot for argument’s sake. Let us take Cato Manor where people of different races live very close together. When it becomes clear that unrest is brewing there, it might be unwise to declare a state of emergency but it may be very wise to send some of my people down to prevent the brewing of unrest from developing into actual fighting and rioting. For that reason it may be necessary to close a street or sections of a street in that area. After a day or two the whole trouble may have blown over. If we have not got this power we will have to wait until actual disorder or fighting has begun. We will have to wait until property has been destroyed or life taken. I want to point out again that we need not wait until an actual state of emergency has been declared because Section 100 is very clear on that point, but I think it will be wise when trouble is brewing to try to prevent that trouble from developing into actual riots, the taking of lives and the destruction of property. The hon. member was also very suspicious about the expression “any particular class of person” which may be removed.

Not suspicious; I was just wanting information.

Well, I will give the hon. member some information. This principle of classification has been accepted in the law as it stands to-day. In Section 103 (2) (b) we read—

Why not apply that to the new provisions, which is the effect of our amendment?

That provision is in the section as it stands.

Well, our amendment asks that it should be.

Order! The hon. member must give the hon. Minister an opportunity to complete his argument.

In this morning’s paper we see that they have made the same type of classification in Rhodesia. Let me quote the following—

But they have an emergency.

Order!

I want to put it this way, that in time of war or internal trouble or for the prevention of trouble, it may be necessary to remove women and children from danger spots to some place of safety. It may be necessary to remove Europeans who live far apart in expected trouble zones to spots where they can be protected. It may be necessary to remove Indians or Coloureds from spots where they may be slaughtered. It may be necessary to remove certain classes of Bantu out of recognized European areas. Sir, all kinds of circumstances may arise where it would be necessary to exercise these powers.

Mr. Chairman, I have explained to the best of my ability what is meant by different classes of people and I hope I have now satisfied the hon. member for Salt River on that point. In conclusion, I want to ask for the support of the whole Committee on this question. We are living in perturbed times and if we can have unity of purpose on this question it must have a very beneficial influence in the country. It must give our own people a feeling of security if we can stand, together on military matters. I can give the assurance that no hardship to any section of the community is contemplated in this clause. All we ask for is a better opportunity to protect the lives and property of the people. Sir, life is valuable. Whether it is the life of a Black man or a White man or a Brown man makes no difference; life is valuable and all we ask for in this clause is for the opportunity to protect our people better.

I have listened with great care to the hon. the Minister. I have said previously that he is carrying out his duty with a sense of responsibility, but it seems to me that the hon. the Minister was very naïve when he posed certain propositions to us this afternoon. He says that we are living in perturbed times. Why are we living in perturbed times in South Africa? What does the Minister mean by saying that? Does he mean that it is necessary to organize the Defence Force of this country on a basis of war in order to maintain peace in this country?

Look at the Congo.

Sir, members of the Government are constantly telling us that we are not the Congo. Hon. gentlemen must make up their minds; either we must be equated with the Congo or we are South Africans. If hon. gentlemen over there wish to equate South Africa with the Congo, then I agree at once that the powers which the Minister is asking to-day are essential. But you cannot have it both ways. You cannot suggest that South Africa is not a Congo and then ask for these totalitarian powers which may be necessary to deal with internal disorder.

What about Rhodesia?

Sir, hon. members ask “What about Rhodesia?” A situation has arisen there which is very delicate and I do not propose to discuss it this afternoon. It is a delicate situation; the precautions which have been taken have been adopted lest there may be troubles and outbreaks between the White group and the non-White group. But as far as I am aware they have not been taken under any powers such as the Minister wants to exercise now in times of peace. They have been taken because in the opinion of the Prime Minister of the Federation of the Rhodesias and Nyasaland an emergency has arisen …

There is no emergency there whatsoever; where do you get that from?

I want to get back to the clause for a moment. I appreciate what the hon. the Minister has said to-day. I appreciate the explanations which he has given while I do not accept all of them. I appreciate the fact that he was prepared to limit the operation of the section to four days; and that, as I have already said on a previous occasion, takes a great deal of the sting out of one particular portion of this clause. Without that amendment this clause must be construed, on an ordinary construction of words, as meaning that the Minister would have power to put citizens in a concentration camp. But now I come back to the clause. And what does it say? The clause says that in time of war— and I am not dealing now with war-time because in time of war obviously the Minister must have unrestricted powers—but in time of war or during operations for the prevention or suppression of internal disorder, the Minister may—

I raise this point with particular reference to the amendment of the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) who suggested that any regulations issued by the Minister should be laid upon the Table of the House. What I want to ask the Minister is whether he proposes to issue any regulations at all. The Minister must take this Committee into his confidence. He is now asking for these supreme powers in times of peace; he is asking for powers over the life and liberty of individuals in this country; he can order them about; he can order them to evacuate buildings and to move into certain areas. But how does the Minister propose to give those orders? Are those orders going to be verbal or in writing? And if the hon. gentleman suggests that he must have these powers because a situation may arise in which he has to act immediately, the Minister may be big-game hunting in the Koue Bokkeveld, and how is he going to issue his orders? Are his orders going to be verbal or written orders? And if they are written orders, when does the Minister propose to give these orders? Does he propose to delegate authority to his military officers at this time? If he is going to delegate authority, then he must do so by way of written instructions, and therefore it seems to me that if the Minister is going to do so, he should do so by way of regulation. That, Sir, gives point to the amendment of the hon. member for Simonstown. At the moment I agree that the amendment of the hon. member for Simonstown really does not help because you cannot lay verbal orders on the Table of the House. As I suggested the other day, you cannot lay the Minister on the Table of the House. But he can lay regulations on the Table of the House. I want to know from the Minister how he proposes to implement these extraordinary powers that he seeks to assume by virtue of this particular clause. The Minister has suggested this afternoon that he already has very wide powers and he has referred to Section 92 (2) of the Defence Act. That Act gives him very wide powers indeed. It says—

He may call them out. In other words, the Minister has the power to-day to call out the Citizen Force, the Reserve Force and the Commandos before a proclamation is issued. He can do that to-day. Well, if that is so, why is he asking for these additional powers? The Minister would not call out the Citizen Force and the Reserve and the Commandos unless there really was an emergency. But he has the power to call them out to-day. His predecessor called them out last year when it was felt that the situation in Cape Town was dangerous. He can do it to-day. And once having done that, if the situation demands the proclamation of a state of emergency, the Minister can proclaim a state of emergency. The very section on which the Minister relies is the very best argument he has given me to support my claim that these additional powers for which he asks should be exercised only in a state of war or after the proclamation of a state of emergency, bearing in mind that a state of emergency may be declared retrospectively. For those reasons, Sir, I have difficulty about the amendment of the hon. member for Simonstown. I have sympathy with him. I think the clause might have to be reframed so as to provide for regulations. If that could be done I would certainly support the hon. gentleman because I think he is approaching the matter in the right way. But I see the Minister’s difficulty; I see the technical difficulty that the Minister has, and that is that you cannot lay verbal instructions on the Table of the House. It is a physical impossibility. In those circumstances my original objection to this clause stands. It is based not so much on the fact that the Minister is not ex post facto laying regulations on the Table but because inherently it is wrong to assume powers of this kind at a time when there is no state of emergency. [Time limit.]

I am surprised at the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) for using the argument which he did use. He is a former Minister. In days gone by he was a responsible member of this House but he is no longer one to-day. Mr. Chairman, look at the position in the world to-day. The Federal Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia has called up the troops. He has called up all the forces and nothing is said about that. This clause simply provides for the removal of people for their own protection from certain areas in the case of disturbances. That is nothing new; that has always been done in the past and it is being done throughout the world, and here we have the hon. member advancing a long legal argument against the clause. He is unnecessarily wasting the time of the Committee and he knows it. The hon. member knows as well as every one of us in this House that in the past measures were taken and certain things were done and absolutely nothing was said about it. Mr. Chairman, the law exists and under the law the Minister has certain powers. The object of this clause is merely to state the position clearer. We are not looking for trouble. It is not the intention of the Government and of this side of the House to create trouble; we want to maintain peace and in order to do so we have to take the necessary steps. In case of trouble the Minister must have the necessary power to take action. All the arguments advanced by the hon. member fall away. The hon. member over there (Mr. Gay) is an old soldier and he knows it. He said at the beginning that he supported this amendment.

He is an old sailor.

Yes; I have a great deal of respect for him but he can be very unwise on occasions, as he was with this amendment of his. He ought to withdraw it, Sir. We are living in dangerous times. We should stand together and pass legislation of this nature unanimously. We should not obstruct as the hon. member for Salt River has done.

Order! The hon. member may not accuse another hon. member of causing obstruction.

Well, let me put it this way, Sir, that he is looking for trouble where there is no trouble. To-day South Africa is the most peace-loving country in the world and we should see to it that peace is maintained in this country.

On a point of order, Sir, may I have your ruling in connection with the use of the word “obstruction” Surely it is parliamentary custom, also in the British House of Commons, to make use of obstruction.

The hon. member accused another hon. member of committing obstruction, and he is not allowed to do so; it is actually a reflection on the Chair.

Well, in that case I shall say that the hon. member employed delaying tactics. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to say anything further because in view of what I have said I think hon. members opposite will not say anything further because they will only be wasting our time. We are in any case going to accept this clause as it stands at the moment. This clause makes it easy for the Government and for the Minister to maintain peace in South Africa in times of disturbance.

The hon. Minister in his opening remarks made it quite clear that he is out, and quite correctly, in matters of defence to try and get agreement of the House in general to any defence measures he puts forward, and I would like to give the hon. Minister the assurance right away that that is the policy and the principle on which we, the official Opposition, work in matters of defence, matters which are of joint interest and responsibility. Therefore one does not lightly oppose any proposal which a Government puts forward and which can be supported by circumstances and which deals with the security of the country. Not only is that our policy, but we have noted with considerable interest and appreciation the line he has taken in defence matters. He does take a line in his approach and that has helped us to accept other features in the particular Bill before us which otherwise we also might have taken strong objection to. But there must come a time when the Opposition, if it is true to its principles, has to call a halt in regard to particular powers which are going to be given to a Minister in cases where we feel that the powers are unwarranted or in excess of what the situation demands, and I believe, Sir, that this is one of those occasions. You see, Sir, we have had a lot of talk and cries from the other side such as “Look at the Congo!” or “Look at Rhodesia!”; even the hon. Minister has quoted the situation in Rhodesia. In reply I just want to say in passing, Sir, that the time might come when guns have to be used, but guns never provide the final answer to any of the situations which this particular piece of legislation is dealing with. The only final answer is to remove the underlying cause which has created the situation which has to be dealt with. That is the only real answer.

What is the underlying cause?

The hon. the Minister quoted a number of sections in the 1957 Act in support of the claim for the powers he is now asking under Clause 18. When you examine those sections, Sir, wide and far-reaching as those powers are in the majority of cases, those powers in the majority of cases apply either as consequential on other provisions in that particular Act 44 of 1957 or they apply to situations where the country is at war, and it is an accepted principle in any democratic country that once a country goes to war, civil liberties to a very large extent have to give way to the security of the state. Therefore you accept under such conditions the over-riding of civil liberties which in peacetime you would never accept. This particular Clause 18 deals with a very wide and drastic power under peacetime conditions. The hon. Minister dealt with one of the reasons for laying on the Table only orders which created new situations which justify the call for the laying of the relevant orders on the Table for the confirmation of Parliament. Sir, I see no difference, I see no difficulty such as was raised by the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) with regard to orders. It is true that the hon. Minister may in time of emergency, under pressure of time, have to issue a verbal order to his Commendant-General or to his senior officer in command of the police. Having issued such an order, followed up by confirmation in writing otherwise it creates an impossible situation, and all we have asked for here is that the principle enshrined in Section 103 which deals with regulations—in this case issued by the Governor-General—should apply to such top-level orders, issued by the Minister, which would be translated into writing and placed upon the Table for the information of the House.

Let us examine this matter a little bit further. Certain hon. members have likened this power the Minister asks for a blank cheque, and the hon. Minister disagrees with that view. But what is it? We are asked under Clause 18 to give the hon. Minister what is virtually a blank cheque, whether he likes to call it that or not. The clause states—

The Minister’s amendment now is “within a certain time specified—

That power can affect whole classes of people and it is a fundamental power over civil liberties in times of peace. At an earlier stage we made it quite clear that we stood for the prevention, wherever possible, rather than the suppression of difficulties. It is a much better principle. But when the hon. Minister exercises that power and gives instructions under which the defence and the police (as a part of defence) will in future act, will be giving orders tantamount to the regulations issued by the Governor-General, then those orders should be translated into writing. If they are not to be laid on the Table of the House, what will Parliament ever know with regard to any orders issued to deal with a situation such as this? It is the only means by which Parliament can get the information. Unless the orders relating to the actions of troops or actions of the police, the orders under which they were authorized to act, in other words, the top level orders of the Minister to the Officers in command are made available to Parliament at some stage, Parliament itself will never be in the position to criticize or judge whether the Minister acted rightly or wrongly. It is the only means which we have. I see no difficulty in the circumstances. If we were asking for all orders issued to be laid upon the Table—the Minister quoted the example of an officer of the police having suddenly to disperse a crowd—that would be quite a different matter.

I do not know where to draw the line in practice.

The line is the orders issued by the Minister. That corresponds with the Act itself in respect of the regulations issued by the Governor-General. The Minister now takes the place of the Governor-General, and should accept the same control. We ask that when an order is issued by a Minister, it should be tabled in the House for the information of Parliament, and Parliament will then have the right to criticize them, accept them or reject them, just as it is Parliament’s right to do so in similar cases. It seems to me that we are not asking for too much. With the best will in the world and endeavouring to try to meet the hon. the Minister, I do not think that we are asking too much. I agree that the limitation of four days meets to some extent or lessens the objections to this clause, but this particular clause is the most important one in the Bill before us in its interference with the civil liberties and rights of the citizens. Therefore we are not able to agree that the clause as it now reads, even with the hon. Minister’s amendment, can be accepted by us. It is not a question we lightly adopt. We have discussed it at some length, knowing full well that the hon. Minister is endeavouring to meet us. But I am afraid there the limit is reached to which we are prepared to go in this particular respect. I would again ask the hon. the Minister, even at this stage, to give it another thought. His own orders, the orders issued by the Minister, under which his Commandant-General and his head of the police will have to act, should be put in writing and laid upon the Table of the House. It does not hold up the Minister’s actions. They are only laid upon the Table after the event has occurred. So we are not jeopardizing the success of the movement in any way. But it is Parliament’s right to have an opportunity to criticize such orders. The hon. the Minister questioned the idea of terming this a “blank cheque”. I would go so far as to say that it is very much akin to a blank cheque, and unless we get at a later stage the information we asked for as to what orders were issued, it is not only a blank cheque, but we are then debarred from any audit of the use that cheque has been put to.

I am very heartened by what the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) has said, because it is quite clear to me that if this Committee were to permit the hon. the Minister to assume these extraordinary powers, not only would it be creating a most dangerous precedent, but it would also be making it possible for some successor of the hon. the Minister to abuse these powers. The whole argument this afternoon, and on previous occasions, has not been directed against the Minister himself, and the Minister knows that. We are dealing here with this matter as a matter of policy, possibly as a matter of opposing views, not necessarily opposing ideologies, on a current situation.

I want some more information from the hon. the Minister. In the course of his speech this afternoon he said that if there was ever a time for full co-operation on military matters, that time was now. I should have thought that there was never a time when there should not have been full co-operation on military matters. There was a time in the history of this country, when I happened to be a member of General Smuts’s Cabinet, when there was not full co-operation on military matters. We happened to be involved in World War II and we did not get full co-operation then. But that is past history, and I only say it in order to leave it there.

I should think so.

No, my own view is that we are entering a new phase in our history now and the sooner we forget the old battles the better.

Why then do you mention this?

The hon. Minister made a remark in that respect and I am pointing out that it is not only now, at the present time, when full co-operation is necessary. But I raised this point for another reason. Why does the Minister particularly suggest that there should be full co-operation in military matters now? Why specially now? That very appeal, it seems to me, has a sinister connotation. What does the Minister fear? What does he expect? Are we about to have to go to war with the Rhodesias against Great Britain, or are we about to go to war with Great Britain against the Rhodesias?

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

Mr. Chairman, with the greatest respect, the hon. Minister has asked this Committee to vote for this clause on the basis that full co-operation on military matters is essential at the present time, and I am asking the Minister to tell us why he feels that specially at the present time full co-operation on military matters is necessary. If we are not fearing some outside aggression—and I do not think we do need have fear of that; I mentioned Rhodesia only on the reductio ad absurdum argument, because obviously we are not going to meddle in other people’s affairs and I do not believe that we are likely to be attacked by some foreign power at the present time.

That is not relevant to the clause under discussion.

Mr. Chairman, if that is not relevant to the clause, then what is this clause about?

This clause deals with the evacuation or concentration of persons.

Yes, Sir, but when? During a time of war or in a time of civil disorder? Surely the hon. the Minister of Defence is asking for powers to deal with a situation in this country, in war or in peacetime. But he made this very cryptic remark: “If there was a time for co-operation on military matters, it is now.”

Don’t you know that a cold war is being carried on in the world?

I would ask the hon. the Minister to reply specifically to these categorical questions: Has the Minister in view some possibility, in the near future, not merely the foreseeable future, of our being attacked by some aggressor, some foreign power? If not, is the need of this particular military co-operation at the present time, a fear on the part of the Minister that a situation of internal insurrection is likely to arise? I put that question because the hon. the Minister, in his introductory remarks this afternoon, referred to Cato Manor, and he said that a situation may arise at Cato Manor in which the Defence Force would have to be called out overnight. Is that what we are legislating for this afternoon? To me it is an awful, a very sombre, thought that the Defence Force has constantly to be called in to deal with riots in Bantu townships.

Why did you ever pass the Defence Act? Did you expect war at the time?

So far as my recollection goes, neither I nor any member on this side of the House supported the Defence Bill on the basis that the Defence Force was to be used as a supernumerary of the Police Force to maintain internal order in this country. We never passed it on the basis that we were going to be in a perpetual state of emergency in this country, a perpetual racial volcano which might erupt at any moment, and in which the Defence Force would have to be called in. If this is the situation, I want to know from the hon. the Minister whether that is the attitude of the Government at the present time. Is it the view of the Government at the present time that we have reached a stage in the history of our country, on the advent of the republic—a republic which, I hope, is going to be a success—where it is necessary to bolster this country up on the basis of a military junta? Those are my questions, Sir.

The hon. the Minister has stated perfectly clearly that this Bill is being introduced at a time when we feel that circumstances have changed in comparison with the circumstances which have prevailed hitherto. Hon. members on the other side are aware of the fact, as they themselves have shown to-day, that the modern technique of agitators has also changed, and here the Minister has simply introduced a measure which enables him to act quickly. The Minister’s object in introducing this Bill is to protect lives. The object is to assemble and to remove people, not because he is keen to do so, but in order to be able to protect lives at a dangerous time. The Minister has also pointed out that when one sees what is happening in Africa one must realize that incidents may arise overnight which make it necessary to act quickly, and if hon. members on the other side want to try to prevent the Minister from acting quickly and effectively in this way in these times, when the whole pattern of inciting unrest has changed in Africa, then we want to ask them what their motive is in obstructing this measure. What is their motive in making it impossible for the Minister to take effective steps to be able to protect people? Judging by the way in which hon. members over there are acting, one cannot help gaining the impression that they do not want the Minister to have the power to act quickly when it becomes necessary to do so. What is the motive behind their conduct?

The two previous speakers have both created the impression that they refuse to recognize that it is necessary to be able to act quickly at this time. But surely they know that we are living in unusual times. After all, the hon. the Minister has stated perfectly clearly that he wants this measure to be able to act quickly at a time when we do not know what awaits us. And I think the whole country supports the Minister in this respect, because I feel that if there is anything that we need, it is a Defence Act which has been so adapted to the changed circumstances that we can make provision, without any loss of time, for the present-day demands under present-day circumstances.

I would like to deal with a couple of arguments used by the hon. the Minister in justification of the stand he has adopted in rejecting the amendment of the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay). But just before I do so, I think I should disillusion the House about the entirely erroneous impression that the hon. member for Salt River tried to create in regard to the circumstances when the Defence Act was pased in 1957. The hon. member for Salt River’s memory, with respect, is a bit short. When the Act was approved by this House and supported by this side of the House, the hon. member for Salt River sat on these benches. And at no time was there any thought of discarding the principle that the Defence Forces of our country can be used for the suppression of internal disorder. May I remind the hon. member for Salt River that the original Act of 1912 did not provide for the use of the Defence Force in time of internal disorder and that it was during the war, in the time of General Smuts, that that principle was first written into the Act that the Defence Forces could be used for those purposes, and the hon. member for Salt River himself supported the provisions of Section 89 (1) which provide that the Defence Forces can be used for that purpose.

The hon. the Minister will recall that when he suggested that Clause 18 should stand over last time when we had a discussion, I think it arose out of my giving the hon. the Minister a little bit of the background of the discussions that ensued when the Bill was before the Select Committee in 1957 which led up to the inclusion of Section 103 of the Bill requiring that regulations promulgated in time of war in the defence of the Union should be laid upon the Table of this House. Since then I have had cause to look at the record of that committee’s discussions. The Minister to-day has said that he has very wide powers, they exist already. He quoted Section 89 which deals with the prohibition of access to military barracks; he quoted Section 92 which deals with powers for the mobilization of the forces; he quoted Section 138 which deals with the training of the forces, Section 149 which gives exemption from licences, Section 82 which deals with the civilian protective services. I admit that those powers exist, but let me tell the hon. the Minister that it was the very discussion of the powers that the Minister could take in time of war that led up to the inclusion of Section 103 as it appears at present in the Act. It was felt that in spite of giving the hon. the Minister these powers, no side of the House could accede to the principle that any Minister could take those powers without being responsible to this House, and without giving the representatives of the people, if they so desired, the opportunity to discuss the powers the Minister takes under one of these sections. It is quite clear that that is the position. I understand that the advice given by the law advisers to the select committee at that time was that these wide powers contained in all these sections (and there are many more) are absolutely subject to Section 103. It is quite obvious that if a war is going to be conducted, then for the conduct of that war, regulations made under the 1957 Act fall under that proviso that they have to be laid upon the Table of the House, and if not approved by this House, they only remain in force for a limited period of time.

Now the hon. Minister made a very powerful appeal this afternoon for co-operation on a matter of this kind, where he seeks powers to be able to evacuate or concentrate people in times of internal disorder and in times of war, for public safety and in the public interest. The hon. Minister says that he wants to cooperate. Sir, we are prepared to give the Minister these powers, and we are prepared to co-operate, but you cannot have a one-sided co-operation, it must be a two-sided co-operation if you want to represent this aspect of the Bill as the hon. the Minister wants to represent it outside.

I have shown my desire for co-operating by imposing a time limit.

That is so. but the principle still remains that the wide powers the hon. the Minister seeks, he can give to others in regard to the evacuation or concentration of people. A limitation of one day, of seven days, of 14 days, does not affect the principle of these new powers that the Minister is taking, and I for the life of me cannot see that if the Minister wants co-operation and we are prepared to give him all these powers, why he should not grant us this one concession that if he takes those powers, he should at least come to the representatives of the people and place it on the Table of this House. By doing that, he does not affect the matter of urgency in the slightest, there is no question of them first having to be laid upon the Table of the House, and then to apply them. The Minister can go ahead, he can do what he likes, he can evacuate whom he likes and concentrate whom he likes, but after having done so, if there is objection and it is done while this House is sitting, we should have the opportunity to voice our objections to the actions taken by the Minister. There is no restriction whatsoever on the Minister. If the hon. Minister can come and tell me that his law advisers informed him that if he were to accede to this amendment, the Minister will not be able to act, then I say to the hon. the Minister that I am prepared to review my attitude and advise my side of the House to review their attitude. But there is no question about that whatsoever. The Minister can go ahead in terms of the powers he is seeking now just as he likes, and we only ask one thing and that is that he should come to the House and place the orders and regulations and whatever action he takes on the Table of this House, which shows to the public that there is no high-handed action in this matter, that there is sincerity in it, that it is done in the public interest, because if the Minister acts wrongly, he will have to stand the charge of having taken an action which is not considered to be in the best interests by this hon. House. Surely there can be no objection to that? So I say to the hon. Minister: We will give you that co-operation, but show us a little co-operation in the duty that we are performing here to protect the rights of every man in the street in respect to wide powers such as the hon. the Minister seeks to take in this Bill.

The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) created the impression in his speech that the only possible way of voicing criticism of the steps which will take place in terms of the powers asked for here is when these things are placed on the Table of the House. I also have experience of this House, and I can give the House the assurance that the most severe criticism I listened to here was voiced not in regard to documents which were tabled, but in regard to the policy and the actions of the Minister during the whole of the year. The opportunity to oppose and to criticize is always there; it is there during the Budget debate and it is there when the Minister’s Vote comes up for discussion. The opportunity to criticize is always present.

But to come back to the clause, if I am to table the documents in regard to my actions in terms of this clause, and if it is to have any meaning at all, then all the steps taken as the result of those powers will have to be tabled. Now supposing we have trouble in South Africa, in time of war or in time of internal disturbance, and simultaneous action has to be taken in seven or eight or ten of our cities, is it humanly possible to table the orders issued, as, for example, that portion of Adderley Street has to be evacuated or portion of a main street in Johannesburg? Is it possible to table those orders? It is impossible. If I could say that only the orders directly issued by me as the Minister should be tabled, that would still be acceptable. You can appreciate, Mr. Speaker, the tremendous row which will be made in this House because the orders issued in terms of these powers can never be tabled. When regulations are issued, the emergency regulations or other regulations in terms of one or other of these clauses, these things can be tabled as a whole, and they can then be discussed. That is the prerogative of Parliament, and Parliament can approve or disapprove of the manner in which the legislation was applied, and not only can Parliament discuss these regulations, but it can also amend them. Parliament has the right to curtail them or to declare them null and void. Parliament has that right when rules or regulations are tabled. But when it comes to orders given in consequence of certain powers granted in the Act, they cannot be tabled in that way. Hon. members will always have the opportunity to discuss and criticize the policy or the orders issued. But one cannot withdraw an order. One cannot negative it if that order was given a long time ago and the resulting action is a thing of the past. In those circumstances, what would be the value of tabling these orders? It is easy to say here that we can draw a distinction between an order issued by me or one issued by my officers during the process of taking action.

How are these orders given?

I tell my executive officials: This is the power you have in terms of the law, and if you go into action you have the right to act in terms of it.

Of course.

Then it is a very brief document which I would have to table. No, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) is continually quibbling. The difference in principle between us is that the hon. member for Salt River does not want us to take any powers at all to prevent internal disorder.

No, that is not so.

But the hon. member said so the other day. He said that they could never agree to it as long as a state of emergency had not been proclaimed. Those were his words.

You could make it retrospective.

The hon. member spoke in English, and these were his words, that he could never consent to granting these powers unless a state of emergency had been proclaimed. That is the difference in principle between us. I will not be so mean as to say that that hon. member will perhaps be glad if a state of emergency should arise in the country, because no decent man will be glad. But the hon. member’s actions can lead to the fact that a state of emergency arises in this country which could have been prevented if timeous action were taken. The hon. member continually asked me whether I wanted to declare war against England together with Rhodesia. I cannot imagine a more irresponsible question.

That is unfair; I did not continue asking the question.

Now my reply is this. We are living in dangerous times. The hon. member for Soutpansberg (Mr. S. P. Botha) states very clearly that we are living in times in which a totally new technique has been evolved in connection with the incitement of riots. We are now living in a country where order and peace is being preserved. But we are also acquainted with the fact that we are living in a period in which a cold war is being waged right throughout the world. We are acquainted with the technique of fomenting riots right throughout the world. Last year frightening things were revealed in this House in connection with the incitement to riots in our country.

But we admit all of that.

The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) accepts it, but not the hon. member for Salt River.

Forget about him.

The hon. member for Turffontein says I must forget about the hon. member for Salt River. I cannot do so because he is still sitting in this House. If you will allow me to say so, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say that judging by the results at Green Point it seems as if he will not sit here for long.

We shall see.

I just want to say very clearly that I am not irresponsible enough to say that we are living in a period where we should not be prepared for possible trouble. We are now living in a time of peace in South Africa, but world conditions are of such a nature that we should also prepare ourselves for possible trouble. That is why we are taking these steps. The hon. members for Turffontein and Simonstown (Mr. Gay) pleaded that I should also make concessions if there is to be co-operation. I have gone far towards making concessions. I accepted an amendment from the hon. member for Turffontein which will make the implementation of the Act very difficult for me. I went further and also made a concession in connection with this clause, which proves that we want these powers only during times when active steps are actually being taken for the prevention of internal disturbance or during a time of war or of riots. If the hon. member now says that I have made no attempt to cooperate, then we do not have the same idea of co-operation.

You made no concessions in regard to the principle of this clause.

I made a very big concession in regard to this clause. Hon. members have seen what is happening across our borders; they have seen that people can be told to go to a certain place. Can hon. members imagine that if people are transported to a certain place, or have to change their residence, it can be ascertained how many days the riots will last so that these people can be kept there? But because hon. members were so serious about the matter, and because certain hon. members read sinister motives into that clause, and because it has already appeared from the Press that the hon. member for Salt River saw sinister ideas in it, like the idea of establishing concentration camps, I made a very big concession, a concession in principle. I want to point out further that if Parliament is in session and these orders issued in terms of the powers we ask for are of military value, what will then happen to our military secrecy in connection with the action we take if those orders have to be tabled? Surely that cannot be done. Then there will be no military secrecy at all in connection with our actions. If Parliament is not in session it can be said that the action taken is a thing of the past. It would be fatal to military secrecy if we accept the principle contained in this amendment.

Now what can actually go wrong? The fact is that the principle of tabling documents hitherto applied only to the promulgation of rules and regulations, and surely it is a fact that rules and regulations form an intergral part of the legislation. Because Parliament has the right to approve or reject legislation, therefore regulations and rules must be tabled in order to give Parliament the opportunity to approve of or to amend this new legislation which really consists of rules and regulations, but nowhere in terms of this legislation is it necessary to table a right which is granted in terms of the letter of the law. I would very much like to ask the hon. member for Simonstown for his co-operation, and I would like to make a concession to him but really, Mr. Chairman, I have gone into this matter thoroughly. I gave it my full attention, and I can only come to the conclusion that if we are to table something which is really worth while then we must table all the orders issued in terms of this legislation, and in practice that will be quite impossible.

I want to repeat that we live in difficult times, and we hear rumours. We hope they are not true. But hon. members are as aware of them as I am. We heard the revelations made in this House last year. When we know that it is not impossible that trouble may ensue, when we know that there is that possibility, cannot we then stand together? Cannot we then be granted powers such as these so that we can make use of them? Mr. Chairman, I again want to point out that, as the Act reads now, we have certain powers which can be used during times of internal disorder, and it is left to the Government arbitrarily to decide when it regards any period as a period of internal disorder. Section 100 does not say that there should be a declared state of emergency. It simply says “in an emergency”. But we are now improving the position as far as that is concerned, and we say during actual operations for the prevention or suppression of internal disorder. That is more definite wording. In fact, it is limited. I regret, Mr. Chairman, that I cannot make any further concession, but neither will I stand for the accusation of the hon. member for Turffontein that I did not do my share towards obtaining cooperation.

Mr. Chairman, it hardly needs me to repeat that as far as this side of the House is concerned the hon. the Minister will receive the fullest possible co-operation that we can give him on any matter affecting defence. But, as I have said, there comes a time on a matter of principle when one has to call a halt, and this is one of those cases. I am sorry that despite the hon. the Minister’s most eloquent appeal and, the examples he has quoted which in many cases appear to have a bearing on this matter, we are unable to go with him on this particular clause. The hon. the Minister quoted his acceptance of certain amendments and the co-operation which, up to now, he has shown in this matter. We do not query that reasonable spirit. He has shown that, in endeavouring to overcome some of the difficulties of this Bill. But I might say that we, on this side of the House, by our acceptance of some of the clauses to which, in normal circumstances, we would have objected most strongly, have also shown ample evidence of our desire to co-operate. I made it clear earlier on in this debate that under to-day’s conditions, to draw a line as to where civil disorder ends and real warfare begins is most difficult. And that situation undoubtedly exists. I can fully understand the position of the hon. the Minister who is responsible for the defence of the country in finding it necessary to ask for very extensive powers which will give that security and enable him to get his defence forces to function efficiently. One understands that very well. However, this particular clause goes beyond the ambit of the Defence Act. It is a new clause to be added at the end of Section 103, going well beyond the safeguards enshrined in the Act itself. It goes beyond the provisions of the Act for, as the clause terms it, the prevention of unrest. It takes the Minister’s actions in this regard beyond the control of the safeguards enshrined in the present Act. As it is his duty to do, the hon. the Minister has asked Parliament to give him these powers, and he wants to extend this clause to give him, as the Minister of Defence, these powers. Only Parliament can confer these powers upon him. But once Parliament has given these powers, we claim that Parliament has the right to know exactly how that power is being exercised. The only way in which we can know how these powers are being used is by getting information from the Minister after he has used them. He then advises us as to what orders he has given.

In his remarks the hon. the Minister has again dealt with the wide ramifications which may be covered by orders which he might find necessary to issue. But surely the Minister is not so naïve as to think that we believe that he, as the Minister of Defence, is going to instruct his staff, the Commandant-General of the Forces and the Commissioner of Police, to act within the ambit of the Defence Act and then take no more interest in the developments. If he does he has no right to be Minister of Defence. The hon. the Minister knows full well that when he gives an instruction, that instruction has to be clear and he has to be responsible for his instructions under which the forces will operate. If his staff officers and their subordinates do not act within the authority that he gives them then, as Minister, he has all the authority at his command to take action to deal with them. He has all the necessary power to see that they carry out his instructions. But Parliament requires that power to see that the Minister himself does not exceed the authority conferred on him.

The hon. the Minister and other hon. members on the Government side of the House have referred to the gravity of the times in which we live. We all fully appreciate that position. The Minister has quoted what is happening on our own borders. Again, we fully appreciate that. Speed is the essence of everything that is done in the circumstances of the world to-day. There is no doubt about that. But we are not putting the slightest brake on the speed with which the hon. the Minister can act. All we are asking for in our amendment is that if the hon. the Minister is given this power, that after he has dealt with the situation he then informs Parliament in the customary manner of the exercise of parliamentary control of what action he has taken by placing the orders he has given on the Table of the House in order that Parliament can judge whether those orders were necessary and how they were carried out. That is all we are asking and that will not delay the hon. the Minister by one minute in the action which he wishes to take. Therefore that argument falls away.

Mr. Chairman, Unfortunately I was not able to be present during the whole of this discussion, so I did not hear all the arguments. But one can only express one’s regret that the Opposition, which so far has adopted a reasonable attitude —something that one cannot say for the Progressive Party—is now ruining the fine attitude that they adopted in connection with the defence of South Africa. The hon. the Minister has explained to the House at great length and with great patience that he is taking these powers as a result of the experience that was gained last year. This afternoon he has again explained to the House that it is not possible to lay on the Table of the House all instructions that are given, except for the brief instruction which he personally issues. It is perfectly clear that such instructions may be given at widely separated points at different times and by quite a number of officers.

Order! That argument has been used repeatedly. As a matter of fact, I do not think there is a single argument left on this clause which has not already been used on two or more occasions. The hon. member may proceed but I shall be glad if he will refrain from repeating arguments.

I merely wanted to refer to the circumstances that will make it impossible to table those orders. When there are widespread disturbances, it may happen that instructions have to be given on the same day at numerous different places and by numerous different officers, instructions which may differ in content because of the circumstances of the city or the area in which the disturbances are taking place. One can understand that such instructions have to be given at the time when the disturbances take place. That is why it is impossible to provide for such instructions to be laid on the Table. Let me just say this to hon. members. I daresay they are anxious that South Africa should be able to contribute her share in any defensive action taken by the West. They also know that in any future war, if a conventional war is going to be waged, it will be the technique of the communists to wage a cold war before embarking on a hot war, and when the hot war comes they will do everything in their power to cause unrest amongst the populations of the countries taking part in that war. South Africa will not be able to make her contribution if her energies have to be wasted in combating agitations and disturbances, because that would mean that South Africa would not be able to contribute her share in such a struggle. Once there is war, and there is widespread disorder, it may become quite impossible for South Africa to make any contribution in that struggle. While granting these powers, the opportunity always remains for a full discussion in this House of the disturbances in which these powers are used in the same way that it happened last year when we had these disturbances. Those disturbances were discussed here last year and they can be discussed even during this Session, and in the same way hon. members will have every opportunity in the future to discuss anything that is done, and that they do not regard as being in the interests of this country. We are living under circumstances which make it necessary to take extensive powers, powers which one takes reluctantly, so as to be able to cope with any circumstances that may arise. I want to make an appeal to hon. members to continue to adopt the reasonable attitude which they have adopted so far, and which we appreciate, and to help to get this clause through.

As usual, when the Government get into a difficult position they put up a smoke-screen just as the hon. gentleman who has just sat down has now done. All we are asking is that if we give the hon. the Minister these powers he should then lay on the Table in this House within ten days of the House assembling, or during the current Session, a report of the actions taken and the orders given by him in terms of this Act. The last speaker has stated that in times of emergency commanding officers will be issuing hundreds of orders, and how can all these be laid on the Table of the House? We have never suggested that they should. We demand that where the Minister is given these great powers that we are giving him in terms of this Bill, he should lay on the Table of the House the orders that he has personally given, so that a full debate can take place on those orders, and the House be in possession of information to which it is entitled. Let us get away from these other points which are not at all germane to the argument. We want tabled the orders the hon. the Minister has given, that is all. Surely that is reasonable; for what the Minister does he should be responsible to Parliament for.

I rise again because I feel we are making some progress with the hon. the Minister in respect of this particular clause. I am going to make one final appeal to the hon. the Minister on the basis of his own argument and the reasons he has put forward for not being prepared to accept the amendment moved by this side of the House.

The hon. the Minister has rightly said that throughout the Committee Stage of this Bill there has been a spirit of co-operation between both sides of the House. It is in that spirit that I now put this argument to the hon. the Minister. The Minister has made great play on the possible situation that may have to be faced in times of disorder. He has pointed to the Congo and to the Federation, and has indicated that the tendency towards disorder may make itself felt within the Union. But let us argue this principle. As I have said before, the hon. the Minister has conceded nothing in the way of principle by merely setting a time period for the utilization of these powers of evacuation and concentration. What is the hon. the Minister hoping to suppress in times of internal disorder?

Order, order! That subject has been fully discussed, and I cannot permit the hon. member to continue discussing it.

With respect, Mr. Chairman, I am replying to the arguments put forward by the hon. the Minister a few minutes ago in response to the points I put to him. I am putting a final point to the hon. the Minister based on his own argument. What the hon. the Minister is seeking to suppress are those elements which seek to destroy the liberty of our citizens and to destroy their property; the disruptive elements; elements of which we are highly suspicious. But what are we seeking to protect in this amendment?

I am trying to protect our people and their property.

From what? From the loss of their liberty and the destruction of their property? I have no objections to that. I have no objection to the principle of this clause in that respect. We are here fighting for precisely the same thing as the hon. the Minister is, for the liberty of the citizens of our country. But we are also fighting for the representatives of the people to have some check on the powers which the hon. the Minister wishes to take.

Order, order! That argument has been used frequently. I must ask the hon. member to go on to a new argument or to resume his seat.

I will then leave that point, Mr. Chairman, except to put this to the hon. the Minister. He is seeking our cooperation, and we, therefore, asked his cooperation in recognition of what we are fighting for in the protection of the rights of the ordinary citizen.

There are two other points I wish to put to the hon. the Minister very briefly. The first point is this: That the hon. the Minister has made great play of the fact that this amendment is of no force or effect whatsoever, that it can serve no useful purpose; that it cannot check the powers he wants to take in terms of this clause.

I did not say that.

Well, the whole trend of the hon. the Minister’s speech was that this amendment was of no force whatsoever.

I did not say that. It has too much force. It would make it impossible for me to do what the hon. members want.

A minute ago the hon. the Minister said he saw no value whatsoever in laying anything on the Table of this House in terms of the powers we now seek. If that is so, what is his objection? As I said a little while ago, if in our view our amendment would prevent the hon. the Minister from taking immediate action in times of internal disorder in the interests of public safety, we would have to reconsider our amendment. But we have maintained throughout that this does not in any way derogate from the powers of the hon. the Minister in terms of the action he was enabled to take.

Order, order! That argument has also been used before. The hon. member must not repeat arguments that have been used.

If the hon. the Minister were to exercise these powers in terms of evacuation and concentration in times of internal disorder, and a question was placed on the Order Paper requesting details in that regard, does the hon. the Minister think that he will give us that information? Would we not again be told, as on so many occasions in the past, that it is not in the public interest to disclose information of that sort? That is the stock answer we always get in matters of this nature. That is why we have moved our amendment, because if it were accepted that position could never arise.

I plead once again with the hon. the Minister. We desire to co-operate with the hon. the Minister, and we should appreciate a gesture from him on this principle, just as we have made a gesture from this side of the House.

Amendment proposed by the Minister of Defence put and agreed to.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Gay put and the Committee divided:

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

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

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

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

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

Clause, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

Title of the Bill having been agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments; amendments to be considered on 28 February.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, Section 2 (1) of the Census Act of 1957 reads as follows—

It was decided during 1957 in terms of the enabling provision to cause a census to be taken during 1960, for several reasons. Firstly, the Union experienced in 1951, the year in which the latest census was held, a period of extraordinary social and economic bloom, together with the considerable migration, the extent of which had to be measured in the national interest as soon as possible. Secondly, the preparation for the taking of a census takes from two to two and a half years, and thirdly, a great number of important countries decided, on the recommendation of the United Nations Organization, to make 1960 a world census year and to take a population census. This will facilitate the comparison of national statistics with the statistics of other countries. A population census was therefore held in the Union on 6 September 1960. In terms of Section 2 (1), which I have read, the Governor-General must, however, cause a census to be held this year, i.e. 1961. If another population census is to be held in these circumstances, after an interval of only one year, such census will be of little, if any, statistical value and will only result in fruitless expenditure. For this reason it is considered necessary to substitute the year 1970 for the year 1961 in the sub-section in question. Therefore it will be compulsory to cause another census to be taken ten years after the recent population census, and if at any stage later on it is considered expedient to take a census before 1970, such census can be taken in terms of the same subsection.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side agree with the hon. the Minister that there would be no sense having a census taken in 1961 and that it will have to be postponed, but in the Committee Stage we will move a small amendment to substitute the year 1965 for the year 1970.

That can be done.

Yes, but the fact is that the target date in this Bill is 1970, ten years hence, and as the Minister has implied, it is only if something extraordinary happens that that census will be expedited and held in 1965. Now, this does not mean for one moment that we on this side are in favour of a five-yearly census rather than a ten-yearly census, but we feel that the special circumstances that exist at the moment so far as our statistical services are concerned make it essential to have a census much sooner than 1970, namely in 1965, and I will tell the Minister why.

It is quite clear from the 1960 census, of which we have just had the preliminary results, that our normal population statistics which one requires to bring your population up to date in between the census years is not functioning accurately, because as is remarked in this preliminary report of the population census on page 5—

In other words, there was an under-estimate, if one compares the census results of 1960 with the normal estimates made by the Department of Census and Statistics in the Bantu population of very nearly 900,000. There was also an over-estimate of the White population by 60,000, and an under-estimate of the Coloured population by 38,000 and an under-estimate of the Indian population by about 16,000, which shows that at this stage of our development the normal statistics of births and deaths and the migration statistics do not seem to be adequate to fill in the picture in between the census years. I think the Minister would be the first one to agree with me as to the absolute necessity for economic and social reasons and for policy reasons for the Government always to have an accurate picture of what precisely the population is and how it is spread between the country and the urban areas and between the different industries. I can just quote in this respect what was said in a UN mimeograph where they point out that the population census is a statistical operation of great value to every country; it is the primary source of basic population data for administration and for many aspects of economic and social planning. The census provides a basic reference point for current statistics. This indicates how important accurate census figures are to a modern Government. They go on to say that although the economic and social development of the country requires the strengthening of the entire range of statistics, it is recognized that the population census is one of the important methods of collecting basic data required for many national purposes. The original and perhaps fundamental purpose of the census is to provide the facts essential for Government policy and administration. Then they go on to point out that if one wants to govern efficiently in a modern state, one must have fairly accurate statistics, not only of the population but also of the projected population growth for the future. In many fields where the Government must take responsibility, the provision of transport, water and housing, they can only do so intelligently and economically if they have a fairly accurate idea of how rapidly the population is increasing. It is quite clear from our existing statistical services that we do not have an accurate picture of how rapidly the Bantu population in particular is increasing. I think the Minister will agree with me that our birth and death statistics as far as the Bantu are concerned are so inadequate that it is impossible to make a projection of the population growth on that basis. We have had to rely in the past entirely on census results. There is a method of calculating future population growth from census results, provided these are accurate. Now it is quite clear from the passage I read from the last census report that either this census result was not very accurate or else the 1951 result was not very accurate. The position to-day is that nobody can with any certainty predict how rapidly the Native population is growing or is likely to grow in future. I do not want to go into the political aspects of the matter and show for how many reasons it is necessary to know how rapid the growth is, but I think I can say without fear of contradiction that at the moment we simply do not have the raw material on which demographers can work to make an intelligent estimate of how rapidly the Native population will grow in future. I do not have to give many examples to show how important it is for all long-range planning to have those figures. I need only refer to the Tomlinson Report and how they found it necessary to make projections as to what the growth in the Native population would be for the purpose of providing the Government with information on which to base its future policy. We had the same thing in the report of the Viljoen Commission, where they also found that it is absolutely essential for the Government, for its long-range planning, to have an idea of how rapidly the population is growing. It is now quite clear that if the 1960 census results are correct, the estimates made of the futre growth of the Bantu population in particular in both the Tomlinson Report and the Viljoen Report was a hopeless under-estimation. It is therefore in the Minister’s own interests and in the interests of the Government to try to check up on the 1960 census again within a reasonable period of time. If they wait for ten years until 1970 they will be in the dark for ten years, as to how rapidly the Bantu population is growing. It is only when you reach the stage where what might be called your ancillary statistics for bringing your population up to date from year to year are fairly accurate—in other words your birth and death statistics and your migration statistics— that you really dispense with the quinquennial census and go in for censuses every ten years. Here I would like to point out that the United Nations recommend that every country should develop a census programme which will provide for a population census to be taken every ten years—

If the hon. the Minister does not see his way clear to have a full census in 1970, let him then have not quite such a detailed census in 1965, which will at least give him the vital information which he requires on the rate of the growth of the various population group in this country. It is no use saying that he can do that in any event under the law as it stands. If we lay down 1970 as the target date, the chances are that the next census will be in 1970.

The next date was laid down as 1961 and we had a census in 1960.

The Minister has explained to us that the main reason for that was that the United Nations asked that that date should be the basic date.

That was only one of the reasons.

I suggest that that was the main reason. I take it that the Government will follow and is in fact now following the practice of the United Nations to bring all nations in the world in line by having censuses at ten-year periods. They now have a nice round figure—1960 and 1970. But, as they point out, one should have quinquennial censuses in between if your other ancillary statistics are not adequate, which the last census proved clearly to be the case as far as the Bantu population is concerned. How can the Government go on governing properly, particularly this Government which wishes to plan in far greater detail than most democratic countries where each person is likely to be at some future date. How can they know whether their policies are being successfully implemented if they do not have far more accurate information than they have at the moment? As I have said before, nobody can tell us to-day with any certainty at what rate the Bantu population is really increasing in S.A., and it is for that reason that I am sure that the Minister will in the Committee Stage accept this amendment which will be in the interests of good government.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what really motivates hon. members of the United Party in trying to fling a bone of contention into this House over a matter of this nature. The hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) says that he wants a census to be held every five years.

I did not say that.

We had a census in 1960 and he wants another one in 1965; surely that means that he wants a census every five years.

You were not listening.

The Act as it reads at the moment states perfectly clearly that a census may be held at any time but that another census must be held in 1970 again. If the hon. member feels in 1964 that it is desirable to have a census then he can ask the Government, by way of motion, to hold one.

The Minister himself has stated that it takes two and a half years to prepare for a census.

Very well, then the hon. member can ask for a census in 1963 or at any time when he sees fit to do so. It is not necessary to change the Act for that purpose. Sir, I am just as aware as the hon. member of the importance of statistics and information; I know how important statistics are, but one can also make the position impossible for the Department of Statistics by constantly loading it with statistics which it has no time to tabulate. It requires an enormous amount of administrative work to tabulate the information obtained in a census. It is perfectly clear to me that the hon. member has no conception of the census history of this country. I am speaking without my book now.

That is quite clear.

Yes, but even without my book I still have a much better memory than the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) with his book, because the hon. member for Hillbrow was a member of this House when the United Party Government amended the Census Act by altering the period from five to ten years. They did not even make provision for an interim census. The old Census Act provided for a census to be held every five years and for a delimitation of constituencies, based on the census figures, to take place after every census. The United Party then came along and changed it to every ten years and said that that Act would come into operation after the census of 1951. That is the position as far as I remember. In other words, after 1951 no census was to be held again except once in ten years and there was to be a delimitation immediately afterwards. The National Party Government then separated these two things. It said that delimitations would be based in the future on the number of male voters—I think to-day it simply says “voters”—and no longer on census returns. The 1957 Act amended the principal Census Act by providing that a census could be held every ten years but that the Government could also hold interim censuses, and that is why we have this clause in this measure of 1961. The only thing for which we are asking here is that the Government should be given a free hand to hold a census when it sees fit to do so, but even if the Government does not see fit to do so, a census must be held in 1970. I should like to know from the hon. member why he chose 1965 as the date?

Because the 1951 census figures were so wrong.

Mr. Speaker, if the 1951 census figures were wrong and the 1960 census figures were right, how is a census in 1965 going to help him, because he now wants the census to be held at such an early date, in 1965, that it may not be possible to have a reliable census, and in any event he will still not have all the information from the 1960 census to enable him to judge whether or not it was a reliable census. The hon. member knows that it takes at least five years and perhaps even longer to break up the information. Sir, that is our difficulty with the United Party. They themselves laid down the principle of a census every ten years, without the option of holding a census in the interim. The Government has now advanced the date of the census but they are not satisfied with that, and now they want to stipulate in the Act that a census must be held in 1965. I think the hon. member is simply trying to find arguments here to score some little debating point and to try to prove to the House how greatly he is interested in census and statistics. I have no objection to anybody taking an interest in census and statistics, but then at least he should also know how to use them, and that is something the hon. member over there will never learn.

I concur with the lucid explanation given by the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) about the basic purposes of the taking of a census. However, I want to put one or two questions arising out of the fact that the hon. the Minister is now asking permission to hold another census in 1970. I think there is no doubt that in the census that was held last year there were many gaps indeed. I am told—and I would like to know whether the Minister would be prepared to confirm this—that in regard to the Bantu for instance, there were very many gaps indeed in places like Cato Manor and other places of that sort. Where every attempt was made to get a proper enumeration of persons living in an area, that information was not obtained. I should be glad to know whether the hon. the Minister could give us any information in that regard, because quite obviously if the census is to be of any real value, then it must reflect, with a reasonable human degree of accuracy, the number of persons of every racial group in the country.

Sir, my reason for intervening in this debate is to say that I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to give the assurance to this House that any information which may be given by persons compulsorily, as they must do in terms of the Census Act, about their race will be regarded as confidential and will not be used for purposes of race classification under the Population Registration Act. Last year when the census was taken there were a great many people who had great difficulty in knowing how they should describe themselves. As the Minister probably knows there are persons in certain parts of this country whose birth certificate may describe their race as “mixed” and who, because of that, are uncertain as to how they should comply with the law. I hope the hon. the Minister knows that in terms of the Population Registration Act it is the duty of the Population Registrar to classify persons according to certain criteria which have been laid down; and the two main criteria are appearance and association. I want to tell the Minister that in my experience, certainly in the course of the last six months or the last year, I have found that a very liberal interpretation has been placed on that test by his officials, so what I am saying this afternoon is not an attack upon his officials; it is an expression of appreciation of what has been done by officials administering a law which I feel should not be on the Statute Book. But it does happen that every now and again reference is made to the manner in which a particular person has described himself or herself in, say, the 1951 census, and I do want to urge upon the Minister that he should ensure, as far as is humanly possibly, while it may be necessary to look at statistics given in a census enumeration, that his officials will not regard any statement which may have been made by persons quite bona fide and possibly without recognition of their legal rights, as prejudicing them at a subsequent stage. In other words, if it so happened that my birth certificate described my parents as mixed, it may very well be that in a census enumeration I would consider it wrong to describe myself as White, which is the term used at the present time, and I might therefore describe myself as “mixed” whereas I normally associate with White persons and am regarded and accepted as a White person in the European community. That is the position of a great many White people in the country to-day. It may be that somewhere there may have been an admixture of blood, but in the stratum of society in which those people move they are regarded and accepted as Europeans, to use the old term, or as Whites, to use the new term. In my view it would be the utmost folly, apart from the utmost cruelty, to classify as Coloured and not as White persons who because of ignorance of their rights in terms of the Population Registration Act may have described themselves as “mixed” in days gone by. I want to emphasize again that in my experience—and I have had to deal with a great many of these cases in recent months—the officials of the Department have shown a human sympathy which I appreciate. But I think if the Minister himself would give an assurance that anything that may be disclosed in the population census will not be regarded as decisive in a subsequent race classification, it would have a very great reassuring effect upon persons who may be affected.

The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) failed completely to answer the argument put up by my colleague, the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje). I trust that the hon. the Minister will deal with those arguments and will not try to evade them as was done by the member for Pretoria (Central), whose sole reason for speaking seemed to be to say that the Government has the power to hold a census in 1965 if it wishes to do so. He gave no reason why it should not be held in 1965. He advanced no arguments which refuted those put forward by the member for Jeppes. In fact, what he said to the House was, “Why don’t you just leave it to the Government to do what is right?” Sir, the hon. member for Jeppes has explained why in this particular instance we wished to make a plea for a special census in 1965, if not a full census then at least a census to obtain certain basic information. The reason which he gave was a very clear one and one from which no one can escape, and that is that it has been proved that the estimate of the growth of the non-White population, the Bantu in particular, has been inaccurate. The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) says that if the 1951 census was inaccurate and the 1960 census has now put it right, why then do we want another census in 1965? Sir, that is typical of the logic of that hon. member, that he is prepared to take a false figure and then an accurate figure and then take the difference between them and accept that as a criterion of the growth of the population.

I never said that.

That was the implication of the hon. member’s argument; if 1951 was inaccurate and 1961 was accurate and the growth during those years, from a false figure to a true figure has been established, he is prepared to base his whole political thinking on what is fundamentally a false premise—typical of his thinking and the thinking of his party in regard to every issue which they approach. They take a false basis and then they are prepared to build upon it. We have stated that the 1951 census was inaccurate, that the estimates have been inaccurate since then and we want an early re-count so that we can have a true picture on which the country can plan its future development. I think if that hon. member is going to disclose the basis on which he works it would be better if in future he did not participate in debates of this nature, where we are seeking to get this Government to introduce legislation for the benefit of the country. Let me give the hon. member another reason, and that is that if in a normal country you are able to establish a figure showing the trend and the changes in population over fixed periods you can apply that as a basis for forecasting in the future, but, Sir, no country has a Government like this which is not satisfied to allow the natural trends to continue; oh no, it must interfere with the natural movement of people.

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

The point I want to make is that when people are moved by legislation from one place to another, it affects the natural trends upon which one would normally base one’s estimates, and therefore when the Government changes natural development, it is necessary for them to obtain basic statistics more often than would be necessary in a normal country where there is no interference with natural movement. A further reason is that the Government itself has shown the extent to which the platteland is becoming depopulated. That is another reason why we should not wait ten years for another census. We should know exactly to what extent that process is continuing. A fourth reason why there should be a census sooner than 1970 is that we have been told that by 1970 the flow of the non-Whites to the towns would be reversed and that the non-Whites will be going back into the country, into their own areas again. But, Sir, that date is always being changed, and we require statistics sooner than 1970 to find out whether that forecast is in fact proving correct; whether the policy upon which this whole Government stands is in fact being implemented and whether this flow to the White areas, this flow which is now supposed to be turning, is in fact going to take place. But how can we do it without statistics? Is the Minister going to estimate those population changes and those movements of population, apart from the growth of population, on the basis of a wrong figure in 1951 and a correct one in 1960, as the member for Pretoria (Central) wants to do, or is he prepared to have an intermediate census in order to establish a true basis? If those are not sound enough reasons for our asking for a census to be held in 1965 then there is no point in having a census. A census is essential, as the Minister himself and the member for Pretoria (Central) have said, to obtain statistics, but we want them to be useful statistics. The Government has the power to hold a census. It takes some two and a half years to prepare for a census. We are asking now, not two and a half years beforehand, but four years beforehand, for a census to be held so that there will be ample time to plan and if necessary to simplify the procedure so as to get the necessary basic information. We are not waiting, as the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) wants to do, until 1963 when, if it then becomes necessary to hold a census, you are going to load the Department with work at short notice. We want to give the Department four years’ notice so that they can plan without any rush. That, Sir, is the case we have put up and I hope that the hon. the Minister will help the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) out of the difficulty into which he got by dealing with those arguments in his reply.

I merely wish to support the point made by the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) in regard to the information which is given in census returns by people of doubtful race or who believe that they are of doubtful race. I believe that the hon. the Minister will do a great favour to many thousands of people who have a dread in regard to returns which they have to complete because of the fact that there is some doubt about their race. What has worried many young people is this, that to-day in 1961, ten years after the last census in 1951, they are being prejudiced in regard to their race classification because of information which was given when they were youngsters some ten years ago. This has brought a lot of heartache and a lot of fear, and I should like the hon. the Minister to give the assurance that nobody need be afraid to put down in the census form the race to which they believe they belong. Sir, if you hold a census in ten years’ time, then the children who are eight or nine to-day will be 18 or 19 and they may very well be penalized for what their parents put down in the census return …

And it may not be their parents; it may be somebody else.

Yes, I agree with the hon. member. The form may have been filled in by someone other than their parents. They may have been visiting other people at the time …

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill and the amendment. I have allowed this matter to be discussed, but it is not relevant.

With respect, Sir, it is relevant in this sense that if people know that they will not be prejudiced in 1970 …

Order! I have given my ruling and I have allowed the hon. member to state his case.

The hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) has advanced a few arguments here as to why I should consider the question of allowing a census to be held in 1965 instead of in 1970. I want to point out to the hon. member once again, as I did in my introductory speech, that it takes about two to two and a half years to do the preparatory work for a census. Our second problem is the very high costs connected with the holding of a census. One must, of course, weigh up the advantages of a census in the light of the costs. A preliminary estimate of the cost of the census held on 6 September 1960, is R1,800,000. Then there is a third factor which the hon. member must carefully consider and that is that it takes about three years to tabulate the census figures. In the first place we must take into consideration the fact herefore that there is a 21-year period of preparation; in the second place a period of three years is required to break up the information because there is a great deal of information which has to be tabulated, as the hon. member, as one who knows a great deal about statistics, is aware. One must therefore ask oneself what the advantages of a census are. The first point made by the hon. member is that the figures in connection with the Bantu, according to the preliminary report, are rather disturbing in this sense that nobody anticipated that there would be such a great increase. Either the 1951 figure was wrong or the 1960 figure is not quite correct. Sir, those of us who know the Bantu are all aware of the fact that he is very suspicious and reluctant to furnish figures. He does not like having things reduced to writing. I had that experience with my own domestic servants during the last census. When one starts asking questions, the domestic servant wants to know why he is being asked all these questions and what one wants to do with all this information. The Bantu Commissioners are more and more gaining the confidence of the Bantu in connection with the registration of births and deaths. The Bantu Commissioners are really collecting that information therefore, if we should want an interim return, and they are gaining the confidence of the Bantu more and more. As far as the Whites are concerned there is not much difficulty. Births and deaths are registered, with very few exceptions. The cases which are not registered represent a very small minority. If therefore we want to know at any time what the population figure is, it can be obtained with a great degree of certainty from the Population Registrar. Let me also repeat the argument advanced by the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever). If anything should happen at any time which would justify this heavy expenditure, then a census can be held before 1970. as the section reads at the moment.

Is the present uncertainty not sufficient justification in itself?

I cannot agree with the hon. member that there is any uncertainty at the moment with regard to the census. With the possibility of fully implementing our population register this year, with the mechanization that we have in our various census and statistics offices, with constantly improving methods as well as with educational work amongst the Bantu, this is certainly not the time to depart from the principle of holding censuses every ten years, with the right, if necessary, to hold an interim census. I do feel that it would be a retrogressive step to provide specifically at this stage for a census to be held in 1965. We have still not got all the facts at our disposal, and, moreover, the census forms have changed completely. In the last census we called for much more information than we did in the previous census.

As far as the hon. member for Salt River is concerned I should like to give him the assurances for which he asked. I think I have already dealt with the question of the Bantu and with the question of Cato Manor and I have admitted that we do not always get the correct figures. But as far as the second point is concerned, I can assure him that we shall not make use of confidential information, where it is unnecessary, to affect people adversely in any way. But what the hon. member refers to is not my fault, nor does the fault lie with the Census Department. That is something that was done in terms of the Population Registration Act.

Whose fault is that?

Surely the hon. member does not want me to contravene an Act passed by this Parliament?

Order! The hon. the Minister must not allow himself to be put off by questions.

No, Mr. Speaker, it is not a question here of blaming anybody else, but I am not going to contravene the Act, and at the moment the Act reads that the particulars that are required in terms of Section 3 for the composition of the register in respect of the population of the Union on the fixed date, will be extracted by the director from the forms and returns received by him in terms of the Census Act of 1910 and from other documents which may be available to the director.

I also want to tell the hon. member for Salt River that I am very grateful to him for having adopted this very fine attitude of expressing his thanks for the arrangements made by the Department to deal in such a very nice way with all appeals from individuals in connection with their classification.

In recent times.

Yes, the position has been very satisfactory since my predecessor ordered that no publicity was to be given to these cases. According to the reports that I have seen in connection with the small number of cases which still remain to be dealt with, these cases are being dealt with in such a way that we can expect this whole matter to be finalized in the near future to the satisfaction of the persons concerned. I should like to give the assurance here that we shall continue in the same way and that we hope that it will not happen again that people will publicly have to face problems as a result of information which comes to light.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on the Bill on 28 February.

I move—

This is a very trivial and innocuous Bill and the amendments are not of a far-reaching nature. The Bill contains only two clauses. Clause I amends the principal Act in respect of persons who are appointed in terms of the Bantu Education Act of 1953; they are exempted from the provisions of the principal Act, just as in the case of teachers falling under the Department of Education, Arts and Science. The Bantu Education Act, purely as the result of an oversight, was not taken into account when the principal Act was framed. This is simply an omission, therefore, that we are rectifying here. As hon. members are aware, all teachers are excluded from the public service regulations; they operate under separate regulations.

The second is an amendment of Section 11 of the principal Act, and the position is that sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the principal Act provides, inter alia, that nobody shall be appointed permanently in any of the divisions of the public service mentioned therein, whether on probation or not, unles that person, in the opinion of the Public Service Commision, is in good health. It has been the firm policy of the Commission for a long time to appoint on probation, under certain circumstances, people who do not fully comply with the health requirements, on condition, however, that such a probationary appointment is not confirmed until such time as the person concerned has submitted a certificate of satisfactory health. A person may have weak eyesight or some other defect which at the time of his appointment on probation really disqualifies him from an appointment on probation. Strictly speaking such action is in conflict with the provisions of the Act. A health certificate must be produced first, even before anybody can be appointed on probation. The amendment which is being proposed here is designed to eliminate that defect. May I just inform the House that this contemplated amendment of the Public Service Act has been unanimously approved of by the Public Service Joint Advisory Council.

Although at first glance this appears to be a very innocent and simple Bill, I cannot agree with the hon. the Minister that in fact it is so.

Section 2 of the Public Service Act, which is about to be amended by this Bill, is the section which excludes officials and other persons who are employed in the Government service from the operations of the Public Service Act. Therefore it also excludes them from the protection and security that that Act guarantees to the public servant and to the public official. The Public Service Act has correctly been described as the charter for the public official, and amongst other things that Act of Parliament confers valuable rights on the officials in regard to security of tenure and as regards retirement benefits. Moreover that Act by prescribing definite grounds for his dismissal, protects the official from any summary dismissal at the will or pleasure, or even arbitrary discretion of Executive Government. And I say that those rights are valuable rights for the public official, and that the public official looks as much to Parliament as to the Executive to protect and preserve any statutory rights which he has. Now Clause I of the Bill is designed to exclude from the operation of the Public Service Act—that is from the charter of the public official—those persons who derive their appointment and their employment from the Bantu Education Act of 1953. Sir, I frankly admit that the terms and conditions of employment in the Government service are subject to change, but only with the sanction of Parliament. That is why we in this House must be vigilant to protect the rights of the Government servant. I accept that there may be justification for following the proposed course in the future. But in that case, of course, this legislation, the terms of this Bill, should be applied prospectively, that is from the date on which it comes into operation. I accept the hon. Minister’s explanation that technically the present proposal to exclude these people from the Public Service Act might have been followed in 1953 when the Bantu Education Act came into force. But, Sir, we are faced with facts, and the fact is of course that that was not done for reasons which are entirely locked up in the minds of the Executive. The second fact is that the persons concerned, that is the person whose appointment and employment is derived from the Bantu Education Act, are now to be deprived of a right and of certain benefits which were given to them by law and which they have had since 1953. If I understood the hon. Minister correctly, they are to be deprived of these rights without having any say in the matter at all, because they apparently have had no voice in the matter—only the Advisory Council of the Public Service has been consulted. One strange factor which I hope the hon. the Minister will explain to us is the fact that they are now to be deprived of those rights from August 1957, which, as far as I can see, is a completely arbitrary date. You see sub-section (2) of Clause I says—

The reason for choosing that date, August 1957, when rights had accrued since 1953, is not clear to me. I think it is just an arbitrary date that has been chosen because August 1957 happens to be the date when the Public Service Act in its consolidated form came into operation. But the Public Service Act has been in operation since 1912, and so without some explanation, I can only conclude that this date, “August 1957”, is a date which has been chosen completely arbitrarily. As I said earlier, the terms and conditions of employment of the Public Service may change, but only, as I emphasized, with the sanction of Parliament. And if the persons here concerned are to be deprived of rights and the protection which have been guaranteed to them by law since 1953, then I say they should be deprived of those rights for good and sufficient reasons which are stated in the Bill itself. They should not be deprived of rights and privileges by this questionable process of legislating backwards. Legislating backwards may be regarded as having the virtue of being a parliamentary sleight of hand trick which gives to fiction the appearance of fact. But legislating backwards is a thoroughly bad form of legislation and has no virtue in it itself. The legislative fiction which is now being placed before us does not remove the fact that people are being deprived of rights and privileges retrospectively. To apply laws retrospectively has become a legislative habit of this Government. I have heard it described as a disease. But whether it be a habit or a disease, it is the duty of an Opposition to expose just as much as to oppose where rights and benefits of individuals are being placed in jeopardy. Sir, that duty is all the greater when the individuals concerned are people who cannot speak for themselves, people who are giving service not in their own particular interests but in the interest of the state. I repeat, therefore, that if the guarantee of rights and the protection which has existed for upwards of some eight years, that is from 1953, is to be withdrawn, then the reasons for doing so must be set out in the Bill, and we must know how many persons are involved. We are also entitled to know that the views are of the people who are going to be affected and whether they wish any existing right or benefits to be preserved to them as from the date of coming into operation of this Act. I say, therefore, that, in the absence of this information, in the absence of having in the Bill itself the specific reasons why rights should now be withdrawn and in the absence of knowing how many people are involved and what their own views are in regard to the matter, I say that we are simply being asked to legislate blindly. Not only are we being asked to legislate blindly, but we are being asked to legislate in reverse for what seems to be a completely arbitrary period of some four years. It seems to me that we are possibly turning a blind eye also to how the rights and privileges of these people are going to be complicated by legislation of this nature because of this big gap between 1953 and 1957. Certain rights accrued then and they are not dealt with in this Bill. I feel, therefore, that we are in danger of also turning a blind eye to that aspect of the rights and privileges of persons. I would appeal to the hon. the Minister, therefore, to withdraw the retrospective provision of this Bill, and by doing so to preserve the rights of individuals. If a change then has to be made and if existing rights and benefits have to be withdrawn, then I say it should be done by a substantive provision and not by a mere process of legislating retrospectively. It seems to me too that if that is done—and there might be good reasons for it—then it should be done in a substantive provision, and it should be done in a substantive provision of the Bantu Education Act and not an extraneous Act such as we have before us now. Therefore, I make that appeal to the hon. the Minister to withdraw the retrospective provisions of this clausethe moment and they and to reconsider the position as to whether those rights should be withdrawn which existed since 1953 and, if so, whether they should be withdrawn and put right from 1953 and not from 1957.

But the matter does not rest there. There is a principle introduced in the second clause of the Bill that I find equally disturbing. I can sympathize with the hon. the Minister. I know that in administering Acts consideration has to be given to the individual, but Section 11, which is also to be amended, has, as the hon. the Minister rightly points out, been in operation now for nearly half a century. And it seems to me it has worked well and should not be lightly altered. The obligation on the Government to provide for those unfortunate persons who may, through no fault of their own, have to be given some form of sheltered employment, is a very real obligation on the Government, and this side of the House will always help the Government to fulfil its obligation in that regard. But, Sir, the Public Service is not a welfare organization and it should not be used as a channel through which the Government fulfils any part of its welfare work. Nor, of course, should the Public Service Commission embark on welfare experimental work such as is contemplated in Clause 2 of this Bill. The new principle, as I see it, is that the Public Service Commission can now defer expressing opinion in regard to the mental or the physical fitness of the applicant to the Public Service, and that body can also authorize his employment on probation for some completely indefinite time. I am perfectly aware that the hon. the Minister accepted an amendment in the Other Place which has the effect of trying to expedite the position, but the fact remains that there is going to be employment on probation for an indefinite period. That I think is something that should also be avoided. We know that hard cases frequently make bad law, but we should not overlook the opposite case, namely, that bad laws often make hard cases, and they sometimes make hard cases even harder. I think in matters of this nature it is right that decisions should be made expeditiously and that the applicant should not be left in an embarrasing position when decisions are made. But as the Bill now reads, the Public Service Commission will have to disclose to the applicant that it is either his mental fitness or his physical fitness which is in question. It is true they will offer him employment, but it is employment on the disclosed position that there is some mental or physical defect which is holding up permanent appointment. Sir, I ask how long is that individual to be kept in suspense? But the other point is that, having been in employment, having been employed on probation, if the applicant is then turned down, say after a year or more of suspense, surely a hard case will then be made still harder and the Public Service will have gained nothing. I repeat therefore that it is not the function of the Public Service Commission to embark on welfare experimental work of this nature, and I again urge the hon. the Minister to reconsider the advisability of introducing this form of legislation into the Public Service and into the Public Service Act. Until we hear what the hon. Minister’s views are there will be no opposition to the second reading from this side of the House, but I make an appeal to the hon. Minister to have regard to the two points that I have put to him, firstly that he should withdraw the retrospective provisions of Clause 1, and next that he should have second thoughts in regard to the provisions of Clause 2.

I am very sorry that the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mr. Plewman) has thought fit to oppose Clause 1, because there is nothing sinister in Clause 1, and nothing will happen to any of these people employed by the Bantu Education Department.

Have they been consulted?

Persons under the Bantu Education Act have their own conditions of service, as provided by that Act, as all teachers in the Department of Education, Arts and Science, and also the provincial teachers have their own provisions. They were accordingly treated since 1953 as though the Public Service Act did not apply to them. They were excluded. This was an oversight, as I have pointed out in my opening remarks. No existing rights whatsoever are affected by the amendment. We administer the Act as if these persons were excluded, and the only reason that the date 1957 was chosen was because that was the date on which the Public Service Act came into operation, as amended, and as it was framed in 1957 in the consolidated form. At that date the Bantu education people were left out. That is the only reason why it was made retrospective to August 1957. We are not legislating backwards in the same sense that I know hon. members opposite always complain about.

As far as the second clause is concerned, I am very pleased that the hon. member did not make out a very strong case. I accepted an amendment in the Other Place and in the Other Place members were satisfied after I accepted that amendment, because we did not intend in any way to do anything harmful to the Public Service and to public servants as such. The only reason was, as the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) pointed out rightly, that it is a difficult position to accept anybody in the service having first of all to wait for a doctor’s certificate to see if that person is fit. One may find afterwards that there are some ailments, something that can be rectified, but that must be done before a permanent appointment can be made. I really think that after these explanations, the hon. member will not press his objection, and will not have any severe criticism of Clause 2 any longer, and as far as Clause I is concerned, I hope he will accept my explanation as being the correct one.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on the Bill on 28 February.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, it is just over four years ago that the Industrial Conciliation Act of 1956 came into force, and it is more or less two and a half years ago that the Act was amended for the first time. In spite of all the objections which were raised at that time against this measure, and in spite of the hullabaloo that was made about the possible disintegration of trade unions which was predicted—I emphasize the words possible disintegration of trade unions—I have pleasure in stating to-day that not one of those prophecies have proved to be true. This Act has, to a great extent, contributed towards the prevention of industrial unrest in this country. I want to avail myself of this opportunity to-day to express my appreciation to all responsible trade unions and employer organizations, particularly those who serve on industrial councils, and who probably played an important role in safeguarding industrial peace in this country. Mixed trade unions have realized more and more that it is to their own advantage to change over to uni-racial unions. The one discordant note which was struck at the time when we placed this legislation on the Statute Book was to say that they did not desire it. In practise the opposite has been proved to be the case, and they are continuing to make use of the machinery which the law provides to obtain that objective. Far from causing the disintegration of trade unions, something which was predicted in this House, we find to-day that trade unions change to uni-racial trade unions on a voluntary basis. The reason for that is obvious. They realize more and more, particularly when it comes to negotiations between employers and employees on industrial councils in regard to conditions of service, that each race is best able to look after its own interests.

In order to prove this, I think the House will find it interesting to hear what has actually happened. The main accusation was— and I expect to hear that again in this debate, Mr. Speaker—that it would cause trade unions to split up. At the end of 1956 there were 184 trade unions, and at the end of 1960 there were 186. Two new ones had been added. I now want to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether that looks like splitting up? If there had been any splitting up, there should have been hundreds to-day, and small ones at that. In 1960 there were two more than in 1956. What had happened on a voluntary basis? At the end of 1956, 29.9 per cent of the trade unions were White; 8.7 per cent were Coloured and 61.4 per cent were mixed. What happened under this legislation, without any compulsive measures? There were 49.5 per cent instead of 29.9 per cent White trade unions at the end of 1960; instead of 8.7 per cent Coloured unions there were 20.4 per cent, and instead of 61.4 per cent mixed trade unions there were 30.I per cent. I repeat: That happened without exercising any force; it happened on a voluntary basis! I want to give further data to the House. At the end of 1960 there were 56 mixed trade unions as against 113 mixed trade unions at the end of 1956. I know the accusation will be levelled against us, because, strangely enough—and I have to tell this to the House—since this legislation was published in the Extraordinary Government Gazette of 2 December 1960, no complaints had been received on or after that date from any trade union, until the legislation was discussed in the Other Place. We had complaints from employer organizations, but not from trade unions. Suddenly, when the legislation was discussed in the Other Place and published in the Press, all the trade unions which were not well disposed towards the Government, particularly those who were inclined to the left, objected strenuously to it. I know that will be referred to. A cry went up from that group that the trade unions would disintegrate under this legislation.

What is the position? If you wish to break up anything, Mr. Speaker, you must at least have something to break up. Hon. members must remember that Clause I (a) only deals with the objections which mixed trade unions make against the registration of new trade unions. Please remember that, Sir. Hon. members should not make a general issue of this. I warn hon. members opposite because I already know their mentality. Once they get going on this subject there is no way of stopping them. We have the 56 mixed trade unions to which I have referred and what do they look like? Five of those trade unions have fewer than 50 members; nine have fewer than 100 members; fewer than 300 members in the case of 22; and fewer than 500 in the case of 26. I want to know this in the first instance: What will the Government gain by breaking up those unions? Those are small trade unions; I shall deal with the bigger ones at a later stage. Twenty-four had fewer than 50 members of the other race, either White or Coloured. One had only one member of the other race. Six had no members of the other race, but was registered as a mixed trade union. What is the numerical ratio? It is very interesting to study this, Sir. Thirty-three of these 56 trade unions are predominantly White, namely 77,481 White members divided amongst 33 unions, with 11.I per cent Coloured members. The balance, namely 23 of the 56, are predominantly Coloured with 52,398 members with 16.4 per cent White members. I want to know what purpose will it serve, what will the Government gain, what will the Department gain, to attempt to separate these people? We are not afraid of these people. There are ten mixed trade unions with a membership of over 5,000. In the case of three the Coloureds are in the majority and in the case of seven the Whites are in the majority. Those are the big trade unions. If I mentioned their names I think this House would agree with me that they would not allow themselves to be broken up. They would feel insulted if they thought there was anybody in this House who thought that they could be broken up by a law. All these years they have withstood the test of time. They are: The Garment Workers’ Union of South Africa—with 10,582 members, of which 32.3 per cent are White; The Garment Workers’ Union of the Western Province; The Garment Workers’ Industrial Union of Natal of which I.7 per cent of its members are White. There are seven cases where the Whites are in the majority, namely the South African Typographical Union, Amalgamated Union of Building Trade Workers, National Union of Leather Workers, Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers, National Union of Distributive Workers, South African Boilermakers’ Society, and the Amalgamated Engineering Union.

The Government has Section 8 (a) in order to enforce its policy. Of these 56 mixed trade unions 31 comply with the provisions of Section 8 (a) of the Industrial Conciliation Act. That is to say. they hold separate meetings, they have separate branches and they have White executive committees. Thirty-one of them comply with all the requirements of Section 8 (a). The following arrangement has been made in respect of the balance of 25 because they have a small membership of either one or the other race: Six have been completely exempted; 12 of them need not have White executive committees because their membership is too small; they cannot do it. Seventeen are not required to hold separate meetings and 18 of them need not establish separate branches. In a case where there are only one or two or three members of the one race, they cannot be expected to do that. I gave that assurance at the time in 1956. Some of these exemptions have been granted for a definite period and others for an indefinite period. Mr. Speaker, I am giving these data in the hope and the firm belief that when we come to deal with Clause I of this Bill hon. members will not make themselves guilty of raising a batlte cry by merely hitting the drums, but that they will adhere to the facts. If they do that they should not hold it against me if I do not pay much attention to the noise they are making.

The amendments which are contemplated in this Bill do not affect policy issues, but are intended to rectify certain defects which have manifested themselves. In certain respects the Industrial Conciliation Act of 1956 is suffering from growing pains and only practical experience can show us where it is necessary to operate to remove the trouble. I now wish to discuss the important clauses with the House.

I deal in the first place with Clause I (a). As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Act as it stands at the moment makes provision for members of a certain race to establish separate organizations if they object to belong to mixed trade unions. That is the personal freedom for which hon. members opposite so often plead. If anybody belongs to a mixed trade union and he wants to agitate, on a voluntary basis, for a break-away, then nothing whatsoever should be placed in his way to interfere with his personal freedom to do so. The hon. member for Queenstown (Dr. Steytler) will be the first one to grant me that.

I hope you will do the same in respect of other legislation.

The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) wants too much freedom. In terms of Section 4 (3) (c) of the Act, if a uni-racial organization applies for registration as a trade union, a mixed trade union can object to such application. That is according to the section as it stands at the moment. The section goes further, however, and provides that it is not necessary for the Registrar to consider such objection if the full membership of the applicant in the area in respect of which it seeks registration, is more than half the total number of persons employed in that industry in the whole area in respect of which the mixed trade union is registered. Let me give a practical example. Take the case of a Coloured trade union which seeks registration in respect of the Western Province, but there is, however, in existence a mixed trade union registered in respect of the whole Union. In terms of the existing law this mixed trade union can object to the registration of the prospective trade union and the Industrial Registrar is obliged to consider that objection, unless the member in the Western Province of the new trade union is more than half of all the employers in that industry throughout the Union of South Africa. That is a practical example. It is not a case of White people wanting to leave the Coloureds in the lurch, but it is a case of a number of Coloureds wanting to break away. As I see it the position is very incongruous and I do not think it was ever the intention that an existing mixed trade union should successfully object against the registration of a new union in an area where the applicant union consists of more than half the number of people employed in that industry. That could not have been the intention. Had that been the intention it would only have meant that breaks-away and voluntary breaks-away would have been impossible.

The proposed amendment amounts to this that where a uni-racial union consists of more than half the numbers of persons employed in the industry concerned in the area in respect of which registration is sought, the Registrar need not consider the objection of a mixed trade union. The democratic rights of those members in the Western Province are thus retained. Now people from the north who do not have the same members come along and say, “No, you may not exercise those democratic rights.” After this exposition of mine I trust that not only will the hon. member for Houghton talk in favour of this amendment but that she will also vote for it.

Then I come to Clause I (b). This clause seeks to amend Section 4 (4) (b) of the Act. In terms of this section the Industrial Registrar may, in determining the representative nature of the registered trade union which is objecting, ignore the members who as a result of the closed shop provisions belong to that existing union but who are also members of the prospective union, if the Registrar is convinced that those members would have resigned from the existing union but for the closed shop provisions. The closed shop provisions have forced those people to become members of that union but now they have expressed the desire to join the new union and in future it will be possible for them to do so. In the past the Registrar has always ignored those members. That was a discretion vested in him not only in the 1956 Act but also in the 1937 Act. But in the judgment given on 7 March in the case of S.A. Motor Industry Employers’ Association v. the Minister of Labour and the Genootskap van Werkgewers in die Motomywerheid (T.P.D.) the Judge held that although the Registrar had the discretion to ignore such members, the Registrar was in the circumstances surrounding that particular case not justified in ignoring them. That was the legal judgment and it is not quite clear to me as a layman, or to my Department who knows more than I do, or to my own legal advisers, who are certainly not laymen, because the reasons for that judgment in that case were not further discussed.

Was an appeal noted?

It is not quite clear why the Judge came to that decision and in order to remove any doubt which may exist and to restore the status quo, it is proposed to deprive the Registrar of the discretion he has in terms of this section and that he must ignore such members; that he simply must ignore them because in the past in exercising the discretion which he had he had ignored them.

Clause 1 (c) contemplates the deletion of Section 4 (4) (c) of the Act. In terms of this section the Registrar, in determining the extent to which an objecting employers’ organization or trade union is representative for the purposes of (3), having regard to the nature of the undertaking, industry, trade or occupation concerned and the situation of any area in respect of which registration is sought by the would-be new employers’ organization or trade union, may regard the existing organization or trade union as sufficiently representative in respect of the said undertaking, industry, trade or occupation in that area, irrespective of the number of members it has in that area.

Although this section is not compulsory and the Registrar is vested with discretionary power in its application, the Supreme Court Judge ruled in the case which I have mentioned above that the Registrar was in fact obliged to take into account the considerations and circumstances mentioned in this section in determining the representative nature of the objecting union or organization. The Judge consequently came to the decision that in view of the fact that the objector was sufficiently representative of the employees in the motor industry in the Union as a whole, the fact that its members were in the minority in various areas was of no consequence.

In view of the fact that according to the court ruling this section has to be applied in the Transvaal it will practically be impossible for prospective new employers’ organizations or trade unions to obtain registration in terms of the law as long as that judgment stands, in instances where existing organizations or unions are registered on a national basis and where such existing organizations or unions have a monopoly in respect of the areas and the interests for which they were registered to the exclusion of new organizations or unions who probably serve the same interests as regards the majority or even all the members in a smaller area. That is despotism in the strongest sense of the word and any new organization will be excluded as I have already explained. We therefore propose deleting this sub-section.

Hon. members will realize that you may have a national union, either of employees or employers, which has been established in respect of a whole area, but with one bad patch in that area where the union is not interested at all in organizing the members because it is so thinly populated. The new union organized there, but they simply could not obtain registration nor can they become registered as the law stands at the moment. Here is a specific instance in the Transvaal where that other motor industry undertaking became active in that area in which the Motor Employers’ Association was not interested. For that reason, where the Registrar had the discretionary power in the past, we felt that it was no longer necessary to vest him with that power and we decided to delete this section so as to do away with this despotic and monopolistic position which employers and employees enjoyed because they had entered the field first. Where there is no competition a monopoly develops. This is the most important clause.

I shall deal with the other clauses in brief. We are inserting Clause 2 of this Bill merely as a complement to Section 13 of the Act. This section provides that when a trade union or employers’ organization is liquidated and the union or organization has neglected to appoint a liquidator the Registrar may appoint a liquidator only to the extent that he considers the provisions of the constitution of that organization in regard to winding up to be inadequate, although it has happened that the provisions of the constitution have been adequate but that the trade union or the employers’ organization have not given effect to them. In such a case the organization cannot be finally wound up and the Registrar may not issue any directions in respect of any assets. The law also provides that when an organization has appointed a liquidator, but has failed to determine his remuneration before it ceased to function the Registrar may not determine such remuneration. The object of this amendment is to remedy that defect.

Then I come to the under-payment of employees. As hon. members know the law provides that a court of law can order an accused to pay the arrear amount due to the official concerned, but there is no similar provision in the case of money due to an industrial council or a fund which is controlled by that council. The object of Clauses 5, 6 and 7 are to remedy that defect.

The final clause is Clause 8. I just want to say a few words on this. As you know, Sir, the Industrial Conciliation Act of 1937—the old United Party Act about which the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) is so proud—provided that the Minister could decide whether any class of business or work or undertaking or process fell or had fallen under a definite undertaking, industry, trade or occupation. When the present Act was passed in 1956 it was felt that the provisions of Section 76 (1) were sufficiently wide to vest the industrial tribunal with the same powers as those which the Minister possessed at the time but in the case of Createx Knitwear (Pty.) Ltd. v. the Industrial Tribunal and the Garment Workers’ Union (T.P.D. 1960) the Supreme Court ruled that the Industrial Tribunal did not have the right to classify certain processing work undertaken by the employers concerned as falling under the clothing industry whereas other similar processes did not fall under that industry. The judgment, which in parenthesis, was a majority judgment, amounted to this that the Industrial Tribunal had to give an unqualified “yes” or “no” as it were, which was quite impossible in the circumstances. The Supreme Court Judge was of the opinion that the words in question as contained in Section 76 (1) (b) of the previous Act had been deliberately omitted from the present Act and that Section 76 (1) (a) of the present Act was not sufficiently wide to cover the cases which Section 76 (1) (b) of the previous Act envisaged. Seeing that that was never the intention it is desirable that the relevant words as contained in the previous Act be reinserted in the present Act so as to place the Industrial Tribunal in a position where it can decide on issues of that nature on the old tried-out basis. I move.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister, in some of the earlier measures that he has had before the House to-day has had an easy passage. I very much regret that on this particular measure it is not possible for us to give him an equally easy passage, and to indicate our intentions without further delay I would like to move the following amendment—

Sir, that is the strongest protest that we are capable of making in terms of our parliamentary procedure. We were in this difficulty that, as is always the case with most of the labour legislation we have had from this Minister, he has a Bill which contains much that is good and necessary, but it has an ideological content in it which makes it impossible for the Opposition to accept it. The difficulty is that in our approach to this question of the separation of trade unions there is no common ground whatever between the outlook of the hon. the Minister and that of the Opposition. We saw it in the very manner of the Minister’s presentation of the Bill. He could speak with great satisfaction and use terms like “ras-egte vakbonde”, “eie-rassige vakbonde”, and one could see that the Minister was using those phrases with great delight and satisfaction. But we on this side feel that in principle the Minister is doing S.A. a disservice with the emotional ideological approach which is so evident of his attitude towards the question of trade unions. Now, all the objections that this side of the House had against the 1956 legislation are still valid. We were not reassured by the Minister’s statement that so many trade unions had availed themselves of the machinery of the 1956 Act in order to establish separate racial trade unions. We knew that was inevitable once the 1956 Act was passed. We knew that it was all the more inevitable because from time to time there were threats, even ministerial threats, that unless the trade unions separated themselves voluntarily other action would have to be taken. It reminds one of the famous introduction of the poll tax in the Cape Province, in the old Cape Parliament, when the then Prime Minister, Mr. Cecil Rhodes, announced that it had become necessary to tax the Natives in the reserves as a “gentle inducement” to them to come out and work in the White areas. I say that the 1956 Act and consequent ministerial statements were more than a gentle inducement to mixed trade unions to avail themselves of opportunities to separate in order to avoid what might befall them if they did not do so. I am afraid that all this talk about the voluntary separation of trade unions does not impress the Opposition. Certainly anyone who is closely asociated with the trade union movement in South Africa must know that it just does not wash. You see, Sir, our worry is fundamental. It is that this type of legislation and this amendment, which in spite of what the Minister has said, is going to make it easier for dissident groups in a trade union to break up that trade union, run counter to the fundamental principle of collective bargaining which was enshrined in our legislation as long ago as 1924. After all, the principle of collective bargaining mean* the creation of recognized machinery by employers and employees to make possible exhaustive discussion in the case of disputes, and even where there are not disputes then in the common interest of the employers and the employees, so that the settlement of differences and the advance of industry and the interest of workers should be achieved without resorting to the drastic methods of strikes and lockouts. But surely the success of that principle depends on a balance between the influence of the organization of the employer and that of the employee, but in Clause 1 especially of this Bill the Minister must inevitably create an imbalance between employer and employee. The situation is arising, and it will be greatly accelerated as the result of this legislation, that while you will have unified employers’ organizations you will have split organizations speaking for the workers, and sometimes speaking for the workers from the point of view that there is a divergence between the interests of the White and the non-White trade unions. I shall come back to that because I believe that the Minister, perhaps unintentionally, because of his devotion to the ideology of apartheid, is creating a dangerous situation in this country, which he does not really wish to achieve. The Minister has pointed out that Clause 1 (a) of the Bill, as amended in the Other Place, has been slightly improved, and I was pleased to hear that.

That was my amendment.

That is the only reason why I argue with the Minister. If I thought all was lost I would not argue with him, but I have hope. I hope that as time passes and the Minister matures, his common sense will prevail. It may be a forlorn hope, but I still have hopes. Now Clause 1 (a) is a most peculiar provision to me and to the trade unions. It is provided that where a racial group in a particular area or portion of an area wishes to break away, they should be allowed to break away, and that the objections of a more representative mixed union should be ignored. How can the Minister say in his introductory speech that that does not mean that these unions will be split if they are strong enough?

But what is there to split?

Let us take a concrete example. Take one of the unions to which the Minister referred, the Typographical Union, which I believe is historically and to-day one of the finest examples of what trade union organization can mean for its members. It is one of the greatest unions in South Africa; and indeed throughout the world the Typographical Unions are always the acme of trade union organization in responsibility and in what they achieve for their members. Under this legislalation, if a majority of one race in Paarl or Worcester wishes to break away from the Typographical Union they can do so, and if the Union objects its objections must be ignored. Surely one can only call this a charter to the most irresponsible elements in the trade union. I cannot understand how the Minister can introduce such a measure. In the original Act of 1956, although it was wrong in conception, at least in his implementation of that wrong conception the Minister showed some reason when he indicated that such a union could only be split if the majority of the members of a particular race wanted it. But now he wants to make possible local eruptions in the organization of a mighty trade union. One can only hope that the responsibility of the members of such a union will not permit that to happen. It is possible that ambitious people, people with political motives or with other ulterior ends in view can set about systematically to destroy some of the greatest and finest trade unions in South Africa. It is inconceivable to us that the Minister should wish to do something like that.

The other two sub-sections of Clause 1 to which the Minister devoted a considerable part of his speech of course do not apply to questions of racial organizations at all. They apply equally to White unions and mixed unions. In the past, as the Minister pointed out, the Registrar of Trade Unions could exercise his discretion in certain respects. The fact that in the past, in the case of the one clause, the Registrar has consistently exercised his discretion in one way, and as I understood it in the case of the second of these two clauses, almost consistently exercised his discretion in one way, does not alter the fact that he must have been given that discretion originally by Parliament for a certain purpose, in order to avoid injustice to an existing trade union. Now the court has held in one instance that the Registrar did not exercise his discretion properly, or did not have proper regard to the fact that he had this discretionary power. As a result his discretion is now being taken away completely. This seems to be a very drastic remedy for dealing with one particular instance. It does not seem to be justified by the history of this legislation. We know what can happen. We know that it is very easy for a group of people who for some ulterior motive want to form a new trade union to invade the territory of a well organized, existing union and to go to the members of the existing union and offer them the moon and ask them to enlist in the new union without their having to accept any responsibility towards that union and without having to pay a penny subscription. Surely that is the sort of thing that the Registrar should take into consideration? But now under this legislation if people are members of two unions, if they have been induced to become members of a new about-to-be-registered union, subject to inducements and without making any contribution to the funds of the new union, they have to be considered in the decision of the Registrar as being members of this new union. It can obviously lead to injustice and to abuse, much greater abuse than could be possible under the existing legislation where the Registrar has the discretion which, provided he applies his mind properly, cannot be upset. I really think the remedy is far too drastic. The remedy will kill the patient much sooner than the disease will.

But I do not want to spend much time on this legislation. I think we spent 84 hours discussing the principle in 1956, and I think the Minister knows we cannot accept it. But I do think that I would be failing in my duty if I did not utter a word of warning to the Minister. I want to warn the Minister that by this type of legislation he may be creating a situation in South Africa which in race relations can become fatal to the peaceful life of our country, and I say this very seriously indeed. You see, Sir, our present Government in South Africa has systematically been depriving the non-Whites of any political rights, and where they have not deprived them completely they have weakened their position. They have done it quite openly and they have said again and again when that type of legislation was introduced in the House that they could not allow the political power, e.g., of the Coloured people, to develop until it was in proportion to their numbers in the Cape Province. I cannot criticize that now; I merely state it as a fact. But when people have desires and aspirations and when they suffer frustrations and they cannot exercise power in one way, they will try to exercise it in another way. What the Minister is achieving under this legislation is that where the non-White people who are entitled to be registered in terms of the definition of this Act cannot effectively exercise political power, they will exercise economic power, and when that day comes, as it might well come, it will be a catastrophe. There are signs to-day of attempts to organize against the arbitrary policies of the Government. The warnings are there. The writing is on the wall. I am sure that this Minister would not like to be cast in the history of South Africa in the role of the man who created the economic machinery for the non-Whites to unite against the Whites. Sir, the more we in South Africa can create a situation whereby the various races in the country can realize that they can develop together, and the civilized sections of all races can realize that they have a community of interests, a common patriotism and common economic interests, which they should try to further together wherever possible, the better will be the hope of survival of Western institutions and civilized living standards in this country. Sir, it is so easy. The trouble about the hon. the Minister is that I like him very much indeed, but my trouble with him and with the Government is that they yield so easily to the political temptations of the moment and they forget the need for a long-term policy. The political temptation of the moment for this Minister and the whole Government is to pander to the racial sentiment and the prejudices of too many people in this country, and they do not stand up and lead the people away from what is irrational. I do hope that the Minister will consider this because it is important. As the world is developing to-day, and in view of the dangers that beset South Africa, this type of legislation will not lead to greater safety and happiness or security for the people. I hope the Minister will withdraw this legislation, that he will vote for my amendment; but if he will not, may we hope that this is the last time that this hon. Minister will come to this House with further racial division and a division of economic power amongst the races of South Africa as he is doing in this measure.

I second the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) has come again to-day with the old cry about the splintering of the trade unions. I simply cannot understand how, without blushing, he can again raise this old cry, particularly since he hon. the Minister has told us to-day that all their wild prophecies in 1956 about the splintering and the breaking up of the trade unions have not materialized since the Act came into force on 1 January 1957. You will no doubt remember their wild forecasts. On that occasion the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) stated that the Government wanted to break up and divide the trade union movement. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) said that we wanted to undermine the strength of the trade unions and to-day the hon. member for Yeoville has told us that they still stand by every single allegation that they made in 1956. The hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) was so carried away by his wild prophecies in 1956 that he claimed that the 1956 Act was being introduced by the Minister with the sole object of ultimately placing wage control and wage determination entirely in his own hands. Mr. Speaker, this Act has already been on the Statute Book for five years and I want to ask hon. members whether this fear that wage control and wage determinations will be entirely in the Minister’s own hands still haunts them? No, when the Opposition makes these prophecies of dire events, as the hon. member for Yeoville did to-day, they are not serious, they do not mean what they say. Their only object is to frighten the workers, to make them afraid of the good measures which the Government is placing on the Statute Book in the interests of the workers themselves. The hon. member for Yeoville says that he still stands by every single allegation he made in 1956. You will recall that on that occasion he said that there would be a multiplication of trade unions; that every decent trade union would produce a number of offshoots which would be without a father, without a mother and without any responsibility. Has this happened? No, as the Minister has said there are in fact only two more trade unions. Instead of the large trade unions producing offshoots, the United Party has produced a number of offshoots, such as the Torch Commando, the Black Sash, the Progressive Party and the “Natal Stand”.

The hon. member is now going too far.

I will not go any further, but what has happened to all these wild prophecies, which have been made again to-day by the hon. member and which he wants workers of South Africa to take seriously—these accusations that we intend breaking up and destroying the trade union movement? What do the facts show? They show that far from having retrogressed, the membership of the trade unions has increased since the Act of 1956 was placed on the Statute Book. At the end of 1956, the total membership of the trade unions was 399,421. The Industrial Conciliation Act came into operation on I January 1957, and at the end of 1959 after this Act had been in force for nearly three years, the total membership of the trade unions stood at 418,182. In other words, the membership increased by 18,761 over a period of three years. Far from having been broken up and destroyed the trade unions have grown and their membership has increased by 18,761. Instead of a multiplication of the trade unions, as stated by the hon. member for Yeoville, we find that the number of trade unions has increased from 184 to 186. But it is also interesting to note what the hon. the Minister has achieved with this Act of 1956 in respect of separate trade unions. This is the other side of the story that we will never hear from the Opposition. What have we achieved? The membership of exclusively White trade unions has increased by no less than 68,902. The membership of exclusively Coloured trade unions has increased by 19,663, while the membership of the mixed trade unions has decreased by 68,804. That is the progress which has been made in the direction of separate trade unions. Mr. Speaker, do you think that this cry which has been raised here this afternoon by the hon. member for Yeoville about the splintering of the trade unions is one of which any notice will be taken again? Do you think a single worker in this country will take it seriously and will be impressed with it? The hard facts are that the trade union movement, far from splintering is growing and that is why the Opposition are expecting too much if they think that anyone is going to take them seriously when they come along with the accusation that this amending measure will only result in a further splintering of the trade unions. All they are doing is to try to frighten us by saying, as our fathers said to us and we in turn say to our children, “look out for the policeman”. They are behaving as though the workers of South Africa are a lot of children who will take them seriously and believe that there is some substance in this accusation. I say that the statement that this Bill and particularly Clause I seek to destroy the trade unions is just as untrue as the statement that the Industrial Conciliation Act of 1956 was designed to destroy or break up the trade unions.

What was their further standpoint? The hon. member for Yeoville has stated this afternoon that they still stand by every allegation they made in 1956. The hon. member for Yeoville said—

The hon. member for Turffontein spoke more or less in the same vein and said—

What did that amount to? It amounts to this that the policy of the United Party in respect of this matter was, as they put it on that occasion, that it should be left to the free choice of the trade unions and their members to decide whether they wanted separate or mixed trade unions. Is this the correct interpretation? May I have an answer from the hon. member for Yeoville? No, it appears to me that the hon. member is already in difficulties again. It has been shown by the Minister here to-day that since 1956 the workers have preferred uni-racial trade unions. The Minister has given the assurance to the House, and I think it is the duty of the Opposition to accept this unless they can prove the contrary, which they cannot, that without any compulsion the trade unions have freely chosen to become separate trade unions. This has taken place on an absolutely voluntary basis. The hon. member for Yeoville may shake his head now, but if he is unable to prove to this House that the contrary is true, he is obliged to accept the word of the Minister that this has occurred without any compulsion and on a voluntary basis. That is precisely the attitude that was adopted by the United Party in 1956. What fault can they find to-day with the fact that the trade unions have proceeded on a voluntary basis and without any compulsion to establish uni-racial trade unions for the various races? Moreover, in this amending measure nothing whatsoever is being done to interfere with the free choice of the members themselves. Why then are the United Party opposing it? I want to go further. In this amending measure no compulsion is being brought to bear upon the trade unions to become uni-racial, and if the hon. member for Yeoville shakes his head, I challenge him to show me where in this Bill the trade unions are forced to become uni-racial unions.

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

Mr. Speaker, when business was suspended, I had advanced two propositions. In the first place I had said that notwithstanding what the Opposition had said about the splintering and the breaking up and destruction of the trade unions, the trade union movement was still growing in South Africa. The facts and the figures prove this; the experience gained by the Minister and the Department of Labour prove it; the fact that we have industrial peace in in South Africa proves it, and, Mr. Speaker, the clearest proof of this fact that the Opposition is not in a position to prove the contrary in this debate. I should like to challenge hon. members of the Opposition to prove the contrary, but they are simply not in a position to do so. I would be challenging them in vain.

The second proposition that I was advancing was that in this Bill no compulsion whatsoever was being brought to bear on the trade unions to become uni-racial unions. I wish to return now to the hon. member for Yeoville and ask him whether he and his party can show where in this Bill, which they regard as a highly contentious Bill, the slightest degree of compulsion is being exerted on the trade unions to become uni-racial. There are no such powers in this amending Bill. It is still taking place on a voluntary basis. I cannot understand how hon. members on the other side can be so hostile towards this Bill. After all, the attitude adopted by the United Party in 1956 was that if it took place on a voluntary basis they would have no objection to it if the trade union members decided to establish uni-racial trade unions.

In other words, the 1956 legislation was unnecessary.

No, the hon. member is now evading my question. I want to ask the hon. member a perfectly clear question: Do they still adhere to their standpoint of 1956 in respect of voluntary secession? The hon. member nods his head: why then are they opposing this legislation?

I will tell you why.

No compulsion is being exerted upon the trade unions to become uni-racial. All that I can say is that the United Party has gone a good deal further on the road to integration than they have in 1956. What the Minister is doing with this amendment is to remove the stumbling-blocks and obstacles so that it does not become impossible for the trade unions to establish uni-racial unions. Mr. Speaker, in 1956 the Act removed two stumbling-blocks. Before that Act was placed on the Statute Book it was very difficult for members of trade unions, under the closed-shop provision to break away because the danger existed that they might lose their employment if they resigned under those closed-shop provisions. The 1956 Act made provision for the closed-shop provisions to be amended in such a way as to permit members to break away. In the second place the 1956 Act also removed a further obstacle. Before 1956 they could not break away because the members then lost all the money they had paid in. The 1956 Act laid down what portion of the funds could go to the union which seceded. The 1956 Act thus helped to bring about uniracial trade unions; that Act made it possible for persons to establish separate trade unions. It opened the way for it because it removed two obstacles. What the hon. the Minister has said here this evening proves that the workers of South Africa desire to have separate trade unions. The Minister has quoted figures to show how many trade unions have since become uni-racial on a voluntary basis, and those figures prove that the workers want separate trade unions.

What does this amendment do? This amendment removes further obstacles. In the first place, in order to bring about registration of trade unions, Clause 1 (a) abolishes the provision that there must be a majority of the total number of persons in the industry in the whole area, and it amends the provision to read “the majority of the persons employed in the industry concerned in the area in respect of which the application is made”. And “area” is defined in the Bill as an area which is not smaller than that of a local authority. If the Act were to remain as it is at present, Mr. Speaker, it would mean that any union which is registered on a national basis would be able to object successfully every time to the establishment of uni-racial trade unions, provided they have the majority of the persons employed in the industry over the whole area …

Of that particular race.

Yes. In other words, the Whites in the Transvaal in any industry would be able to object to the establishment of a uni-racial trade union in the Cape Province, and if the Transvalers were in the majority in the industry the Registrar would have to take into account their objection. Mr. Speaker, that is an unhealthy state of affairs. It is a stumbling-block in the way of the establishment of uni-racial trade unions, a stumbling-block which will now be removed by Clause 1 (a) of this Bill.

But in the second place this legislation also removes a second obstacle in the way of the establishment of uni-racial trade unions. In order to bring about the registration of trade unions, Clause 1 (b) overcomes any difficulty that may arise as the result of any closed-shop provision with reference to the establishment of uni-racial trade unions. The present Act provides that the Industrial Registrar may ignore the members of an already registered trade union which objects and which is subject to the closed-shop principle, if he is convinced that those members will resign from the objecting trade union and will join the applicant trade union once it has been registered. Because there is some doubt about the meaning of the words “may ignore” as a result of the judgment in the case of the South African Motor Industry Suppliers v. the Minister and Others, as the Minister has said this afternoon, the Registrar is now being deprived of his discretion and instead of “may ignore” the words “shall ignore” are now being inserted, so that there can be no doubt that such agreements which are subject to closed-shop provisions will not be an obstacle in the way of the establishment of uni-racial trade unions.

What is the Opposition’s attitude in connection with this matter, as set out here by the hon. member for Yeoville? The United Party opposes this measure and regards this measure as a highly contentious one because it removes the obstacles which stand in the way of the establishment of separate trade unions. The only logical inference therefore is that the United Party is now openly opposing the establishment of separate trade unions; that they are entirely opposed to the principle of separate trade unions. Mr. Speaker, they cannot say that any compulsion is being brought to bear upon the trade unions because in this measure there is no question of compulsion. Nor can they be fighting for a free choice for trade union members because nowhere in this measure is there any interference with the voluntary choice or the democratic right of the trade unions or their members. Nor can they be fighting against the splintering or the destruction of the trade unions because the history of the trade unions since the application of the Act in 1957 indisputably proves the opposite, namely that the trade union movement has grown and flourished in South Africa, and there is absolutely nothing in this measure which brings with it any danger of a possible split in the trade unions. The only correct conclusion therefore is that the United Party is inexorably opposed to the principle of separate trade unions. That is why the hon. member for Yeoville says that as far as the separation of trade unions is concerned, this side of the House and that side of the House have absolutely nothing in common. That is why they are opposing this clause. They are opposing it for no other reason than that they want these obstacles in the way of the establishment of uni-racial trade unions to remain. Sir, how the United Party has wandered away from the attitude which the late Gen. Smuts adopted in this House in 1947! In 1947 Gen. Smuts stated that the United Party’s policy was to bring about separate trade unions.

Repeat that please.

I say that the United Party has wandered far away from the attitude which the late Gen. Smuts adopted in this House in 1947 when he stated that the United Party’s policy was to separate the trade unions. I can well understand the surprise of the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw). I suppose he has never heard of it, Mr. Speaker. They have wandered so far away from it that they have not been able to keep pace with all the confused thinking about their policy. In spite of that attitude adopted by the late Gen. Smuts, the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) stated the attitude of the official Opposition in this House in 1956, and that was that they were neither for nor against mixed trade unions. But the matter did not end there, Sir. We warned them time and again that once you take one step on the road towards integration you are forced to follow that road the whole way. And the United Party on this occasion has also been forced one step further on that road towards integration by the attitude which the hon. member for Yeoville has adopted here this afternoon. It is true that they are still not in favour of mixed trade unions; no, Mr. Speaker, that is the next stage. That is where they are going to end. That is the attitude of the Progressive Party. Let me just say this to the Progressive Party; they must exercise a little patience. The official Opposition is moving in the same direction in which they are moving. The only difference is that as far as this matter is concerned the United Party are heading for this road in a motor-car while hon. members of the Progressive Party are heading for it in an aircraft because, as the Friend pointed out, “it is quicker by air”. But eventually they are going to end at the same destination.

I want to conclude but I cannot do so without referring to the very irresponsible statement or the very irresponsible attitude which the hon. member for Yeoville adopted here this afternoon. The hon. member for Yeoville says that this type of legislation may have fatal consequences for race relations in South Africa. The hon. member went on to say—and I should like the hon. member to listen to me because I do not want to put words into his mouth—that this type of irritating legislation may result in the non-Whites getting together in the economic sphere to form a united front. But, Mr. Speaker, surely it shows a lack of argument to say that sort of thing; it shows that you have no arguments when you have to resort to weapons of that kind. It is an irresponsible attitude, Mr. Speaker. I want to tell the hon. member for Yeoville that I expected a greater sense of responsibility from a member in his position. What is their purpose in saying this? They want to instil fear in the minds of the people, to make them afraid of this Government and of the policy advocated by this Government in the hope that in this way they will gain the confidence of the voters in the country. Surely that is an irresponsible attitude to adopt. Surely it is an open invitation to the non-Whites of this country and an encouragement for the non-Whites to proceed with the formation of such a united front. What is it other than open encouragement? The hon. member puts the idea into their minds as to what they should do eventually. When they see that the official Opposition expresses these opinions, that a member of this House who is supposed to be one of the leaders of the Opposition expresses such ideas, they will certainly use it as a weapon, but they will not use it against this Government only; my friend over there will also become a victim if they have any success with this weapon.

Who is creating the weapon?

They will not only use it against this Government; the White Opposition will also suffer. That is why I say that the statement which the hon. member for Yeoville made here this afternoon is a far-reaching, irresponsible statement and I want to express my strongest disapproval of it. I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that the workers and the voters of South Africa will never tolerate such irresponsibility, and the attitude which the hon. member for Yeoville adopted on behalf of the Opposition will again lead to one result only and that is that the workers will once again express their confidence in this Government and in the Minister of Labour.

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat referred to the warning that was given to the hon. the Minister by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) and he has taken the very strongest exception to that warning. He has as much as indicated that in the eyes of the Government the statement which came from a front bencher on this side of the House was tantamount to giving a lead to the non-Whites to do that very thing. Mr. Speaker, I want to say right away that from the very beginning when the splitting of the trade unions was first introduced we warned the Minister that the most effective way of checking the irresponsible and ambitious elements in the trade union movement was through that trade union representing all sections of the population. We made that point repeatedly and now because we realize the power that a group can acquire, a non-European group in this case, by having a separate trade union of their own—economic power—and because we have repeatedly warned the Minister that this would be the result of this type of legislation and because of the fact that the non-European people, particularly those in the Cape, have realized the advantages attached to having their own separate trade unions, I think it ill becomes the hon. member to tell us that we are creating difficulties for the Europeans of this country. We warned the hon. the Minister that this was the development to expect where separate trade unions were set up for separate races and where they lacked the years of experience of old established trade unions. This is a most important factor, Mr. Speaker. The separate racial trade unions which are now being created represent a section of the workers that is not as well off economically as the members of the White trade unions and that factor in itself is going to give impetus to the members of such a trade union to justify their existence, to agitate for improvement and when the employers are not prepared to accede to their requests the economic power that they as a trade union will have will come into play. And, Mr. Speaker, if that happens we are not to blame. We did not forge this piece of legislation. We fought against it because we realized the dangers inherent in a piece of legislation which would enable a group of people—whether it be Coloured or Indian— to organize and to attack. And who do they attack? Not only their employers but the Europeans in this country whom they feel are in a position which they, the non-Europeans, themselves should occupy. We can see that this pattern is developing and we are not going to accept the responsibility although we may have to pay the price for it. The responsibility must rest on the Minister’s shoulders. He has created these separate unions by means of the legislation he has introduced. The outcome of it will not be an easier industrial future for this country but a more difficult one, particularly in view of what is happening in the rest of Africa.

Another theme which the previous speaker emphasized as well as the Minister, was the splitting of the trade unions which has already taken place. The figures that I took down when the Minister was speaking was that in 1956 there were 182 registered trade unions of which 113 were mixed and to-day there are 186 trade unions of which only 56 are mixed. The Minister and the previous speaker emphasized the fact that all this splitting and this establishment of separate trade unions took place on a voluntary basis. The simple question to put to the Minister is this: Would these unions have taken the action which they did if the Minister had not introduced the measure which he did in 1956 in relation to mixed unions? It is quite clear, Sir, that all the unions have acted in terms of an Act of Parliament according to which the Minister made it quite clear to them that if they did not comply with the terms of the Act, namely to separate on a voluntary basis, he would take steps to ensure that they did comply with the Act and that he would amend the Act at some future occasion. It is no use the Minister coming along now and boasting that all the unions have acted in terms of the Act on a voluntary basis. It does not make sense, Mr. Speaker. Another point is this. The Minister said to-day, and I think we must accept that he has announced a change of policy as far as the Nationalist Party is concerned, that it was not his policy that all the mixed unions should go. That has not always been the outlook of the hon. the Minister. I remember the arguments that took place in this House at the early stages of this legislation when the Minister was quite adamant that there would not be any mixed unions left at all by the time he had finished with them. I do not think the Minister can deny that. That has been the Minister’s claim that all mixed unions must disappear. Does the Minister deny it? You see, Mr. Speaker, the Minister cannot deny it because of what he said in this House. What did he say in this House? He said this about mixed unions (Hansard Vol. 100 of 1959 col. 4248)—

That was what the hon. the Minister said. And now the Minister and the hon. members opposite find it most gratifying to be able to say that all these trade unions have complied on a purely voluntary basis with the provisions of the law! They did so with this threat over their heads. What I have quoted to the Minister was dealt with in an editorial by the South African Typographical Union. They drew attention to this factor in an editorial because they were one of the unions that were still mixed and with such a threat hanging over their heads it was quite obvious that they would be concerned about what steps the Minister was going to take because they had not allowed their union to be broken up on a racial basis. The Minister has indicated that whereas there were 113 mixed trade unions at the beginning there were now only 56 and as far as I can understand from the information which we have been given, in the two years to which the Minister referred in his former speech he said he was sure that there would be no mixed trade unions left. But since that time, according to the figures there has not been any further reduction in the total number of mixed trade unions. There were 56 mixed trade unions two years ago and there are still 56 mixed trade unions to-day. So there has not been a reduction at all, but that threat was hanging over them. So I say that it is quite clear that the Minister has on behalf of the Government announced a change of policy. It is not their intention to see every one of the mixed trade unions go to the wall. That is not their intention. When we argued in the early days that it would be impossible for some of the mixed trade unions to have completely separate racial unions, the Minister told us we did not know what we were talking about, that it was the policy of his party to see that every mixed union disappeared. Now we have the admission that that part of their policy cannot be put into effect, it is not practicable and to-night we have had the admission from the Minister that it is not their intention to see that every mixed trade union splits up. So you can see, Mr. Speaker, that where we were accused of not knowing what was in the interests of the workers, the United Party is not the one that has shifted ground; it is the Government that has shifted ground because they have been unable to give effect to what they thought was a practical policy. The actual figures prove that they have not given effect to that policy. When we pointed this out to the hon. the Minister, he told us that we were being unreasonable. I mention this, Sir, because here we have a very clear indication of how this Government, when they started off full of determination to achieve one objective and criticized us because we were not supporting them in their objective, has at a later date moved their own ground themselves. Not that we are objecting to this change, Mr. Speaker, we only wish it had come about a long time ago. Less damage would have been done then.

I have an editorial here, Sir, published in the Typographical Magazine and for the benefit of the House and the Minister I will read the heading; the words they use are “Compulsive voluntariness It is an Irishism, but that is how they put it. The Minister said: “You do it on a voluntary basis and if you don’t I shall introduce legislation that will put the matter right.” That is all it is. So I think for the previous speaker and the Minister to be proud of the fact that such a large number of the unions have complied with the Act on what they call a voluntary basis, is nothing short of being extremely naïve, to say the very least.

When we pass legislation year by year increasing income tax, can we imagine that the citizens of this country pay that on a voluntary basis? They pay it because the law says they must and if they don’t pay the penalties are there. They know what will happen if they fail to pay their income tax; the penalties are very severe. And here we have the same sort of position in the case of mixed trade unions taking steps to bring about separation of the races within their unions.

It is quite clear that the amendment proposed by the Minister in respect of the manner in which breakaway unions can be recognized by the Registrar is another step in the wrong direction. I am not at all satisfied that the reasons given by the Minister for this movement are sound. The Minister has quoted the case of the employees in the motor industry wishing to set up a separate organization to be called The Rural Motor Employees Association or something of that sort, but because of the decision of the Appeal Court they were not able to do so. The Minister has now indicated by the introduction of this amendment to Section 4 that in future it will be possible, not only for Coloured unions to break away more easily from mixed unions, but also for. say a White union, to be recognized by the Registrar even although an existing union is registered for the particular area in question. I want to put it to the Minister quite clearly. As far as this side of the House is concerned we believe in the solidarity of the trade union movement and that goes for the trade union movement in respect of a particular trade or undertaking. We do not wish to see some two or three unions representing the same group of people in the same area. We do not wish to see that. Up to now it has not been possible unless the breakaway union could prove that they had more than 50 per cent of the members of that particular union supporting them. But now with the amendment which the hon. the Minister has introduced the position will be changed. Let me take the case of the Typographical Union which the Minister has used in the Other Place. In terms of the Act, as it will be after this amendment has gone through, it will be possible for the Typographical Union to have its power as a national union destroyed bit by bit. If in the Municipal area of Cape Town 50 per cent of the members of that union decide that they want a separate union in Cape Town they will be able to obtain registration as a union. This may be repeated all over the Union. All they will have to do will be to prove that in an area they have more than 50 per cent of the members of that particular craft supporting them. Now what does that mean in actual practice, Mr. Speaker? It means that a trade union will no longer be able to control its own affairs. The Minister may know, perhaps he does not, what happens when you get a dissentient group within a trade union. The constitution of that trade union provides the machinery to deal with the dissentients and they also have their annual congresses. If at an annual congress they are not able to persuade the majority of the members attending that congress to change their direction, then obviously they have to admit defeat and leave it at that. But now the hon. the Minister has left the door wide open for dissentients under those conditions to get together in their municipal area if over half of the members of the Typographical Union in that municipal area support them and they can then apply for registration as a union representing that group. Mr. Speaker, what has this got to do with democracy? The hon. Minister has justified this amendment on the basis of democracy, but what has it got to do with democracy? The democracy of the trade union is that the majority will rule, the majority will dictate policy. That is their democracy. But the Minister says: Look if that democracy works against the interests of a minority, I have got to give the minority the opportunity of forming their own trade union.

The Natal stand!

No, but it is the stand that is going to go right through the country if the hon. the Minister is not very careful. I am against that in principle. I have had the experience in the trade union movement where it has taken me years and years to get the majority of the members at a congress to take a particular direction; sometimes I have succeeded, on other occasions I have failed, but at no time because I may have failed have I suggested that we now should form a separate trade union and to try and achieve our objectives that way. I say that this provision in the Bill is not in the interest of the trade union movement. It is not in the interest of a trade union that a minority in that trade union has the right to create a new trade union. And it is not always a case of economics. It can happen that you have a trade union that is, say, in favour of the principle of “the rate for the job” and a minority in that trade union in favour of job reservation, and because the minority cannot persuade the majority that job reservation is a good thing, the Minister is now going to say to those who favour job reservation: You form your own trade union, and I will recognize it, and the Registrar will not be able to say a word about it, because his powers have been taken away. There you have it, that is the simple issue. I know the hon. the Minister has said that this is only done because he wishes to give the trade unions democracy. I say that it is not to give the trade unions democracy; it is to make it possible for disruption within the trade union to defeat the very essence of democracy, and that is the rule of the majority. That is the position. I do not know to what extent members of the trade union movement are going to fall for this sort of thing, because after all said and done in their own interests, if collective bargaining is to be effective, it must be binding on as large a number of the members of such a union as possible. But under this provision, I know exactly how it is going to work out, and I want to put it to the Minister: I will take as illustration the Typographical Union again, because I think it is one of the best known unions which the Minister mentioned that is still a mixed union. Take the case of the Typographical Union which is now registered in terms of its articles to represent the whole of the Union. It is a national union and at the present time when they negotiate an industrial council agreement, it is binding upon all of their members in every part of the Union. If it so happens that the majority of the members of the union in the municipal area of Cape Town decide to break away and are registered as a breakaway union, what happens then when a national agreement is concluded in respect of the minority of the members of that union? I assume that they will benefit from whatever negotiations are entered into with the employers. But now in respect of the breakaway union which is now also registered, will they have the right to have bargaining powers on the industrial council in the Cape area? That is a question I wish to put to the hon. the Minister. Will it mean that where you have a break-away union and it claims to represent the majority of the members in the municipal area in terms of this amending Bill, that they will have the right to industrial council privileges? It is not clear to me from the terms of the Act. I know that it is possible for the Registrar to amend the Certificate of Registration of a trade union to exclude certain areas if the Registrar is satisfied that the union is not representative of that area or that another union is more representative. But what happens after that if there is an application for an industrial council to be set up in this area, the Cape area, for that particular union to negotiate with the employers in this area? Would the Minister be in a position to refuse it? So you see, Mr. Speaker, that it is not as simple as it would appear to be, and I hope that the Minister when he replies will deal with this aspect.

Another point that arises here is in connection with Clause 8, this question of demarcation. The position at the moment is that the hon. Minister has the final say. But whatever the Minister may decide in respect of demarcation, it leaves uncertainty. Perhaps I can best illustrate it by taking a particular case. There is at the present time a dispute in the motor industry in respect of the work that should be done by members of the motor industry and the work that should be done by members of the engineering industry in respect of manufacturing work in the motor industry. The dispute as I understand it, is that the work in a particular factory is not classified as work for the motor trade as such, but is classified as work that falls under the manufacturing industry. And because there are two wage determinations operating—a different wage rate for members of the motor industry as against members of the engineering union, there is this problem of under whose union the work should fall. Now at the moment the Minister can determine that, and whatever decision the Minister gives is open to appeal by the unions concerned. In terms of the amendment which the Minister now proposes, the power will now go to the industrial tribunal and the industrial tribunal’s decision is final. So that we have this retrograde step, as I see it, of an industrial tribunal making a final decision on demarcation, whereas in the past whatever was decided was subject to appeal to the Minister in the interests of the particular trade or union. So I ask the hon. the Minister to clarify that point, because it does appear to me that it will be preferable in the interest of the smooth working in the factory or in a trade union that there should be every opportunity for representation before such a determination were to become final or binding.

There is also the question of how the hon. the Minister hopes to achieve these objectives in relation to demarcation. It is a most intricate procedure. It is not a simple yes-no. The hon. the Minister knows that it is a most intricate thing to decide on the question of demarcation of work as between one industry and another, between one trade union and another. It is a matter that should be the subject of the very closest co-operation between all parties, and I do not think that the method that the Minister now proposes is going to help negotiations. I think it is going to make it far too rigid. I do hope that the Minister will give some attention to this factor when he replies to the debate.

We have given some of the reasons why we are opposed to this legislation, and I want to say in conclusion that the hon. Minister, and here I am thinking in particular of the introduction of the separate racial trade unions, should be very careful. I am not so concerned about the European trade unions. They have been established for a long time and are well able to look after themselves. I am thinking now of the Coloured trade unions. It would be easier for them to gain separate recognition in terms of this Bill, and I am thinking now of the frustration which they are going to encounter as and when they are established and operating as a separate trade union. They are going to discover that although they may have the necessary negotiating power, that they may go so far as to negotiate a wage agreement which is in favour of their Coloured members, the Minister can interfere in such an arrangement by the application of job reservation. I do not want to go deeply into the question of job reservation, but I do want to indicate that it is only because the Minister has proceeded with this splitting up of the trade union movement that it has become necessary to apply job reservation. In other words, the hon. the Minister in creating these separate unions has made it almost essential that job reservation should apply. My complaint here is that job reservation in respect of the Coloured people in South Africa is something which they do not like. But they have got to accept it because it is the law of the land. That being so, I ask the Minister what is going to happen when with the power that they have as a separate trade union, they find that they are up against difficulties because of job reservation. What are they going to do, where are they going to be led in their opposition against job reservation? Because they have now sufficient economic power to create all sorts of chaos, particularly in the Western Province. And make no mistake about it, if job reservation operates against their interests, it is going to have a unifying effect upon their members and they as a trade union will get stronger and stronger. I leave it at that. I have indicated that I am unhappy about this aspect of it. I do not believe that it is in the interest of any section of our workers that they should be led up the garden path, be taught to believe that it is in their interest to be a separate trade union, when at the same time they are not going to achieve what they expect to achieve as a separate trade union. They can be so easily frustrated, their hard-won gains can be dissipated by the Minister introducing job reservation.

I do hope that the hon. the Minister will have second thoughts in respect of these amendments which he has put forward, because I am firmly of the belief that in the long run it is going to operate against the interests of our industrial development and will no doubt create more problems than it is designed to solve. I do hope that the hon. the Minister in his reply will cover some of the points that I have raised.

After having listened to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) one asks oneself two questions, namely why this amending Bill is being introduced and, secondly, whether the United Party has done its homework in replying to this debate.

If we look at the Bill we find that certain sections of the Act of 1956 are being amended. We know that points of friction are found in every Act once it is implemented and then those defects must be remedied. If there is a court case in connection with a certain Act we also find that the judgment reveals certain flaws which must be corrected. It is the function of our courts to apply the laws as they were passed in the House of Assembly and where the legislators intended to stipulate certain matters and certain provisions, and a court decision goes against it then it must be corrected in concurrence with the intentions of the legislators. That is what is happening here.

But what is so peculiar is that the United Party through two speakers, the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) and the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) who have taken part in the debate so far, has apparently not prepared itself for this debate. The hon. member for Yeoville is regarded as the potential leader of the Opposition in the future and perhaps one day as the Prime Minister of South Africa, while the hon. member for Umhlatuzana may possibly be his Minister of Labour, but now it appears that they have taken part in the debate without making a proper study of the matter. They started by attacking the first amendment in this Bill, the new para, (c) in Section 4 of the principal Act, and they also spoke about Clause 8, but they left the rest of the Bill alone. I cannot see that the amendment which they moved can have any effect on the object of the amendments. In connection with the amendment of Section 4 of Act 28 of 1956, the hon. the Minister has explained what objections were being raised by members of trade unions. The purpose of this legislation is not to satisfy the White workers only but also the Coloureds. We know that the legislation is also intended to enable them to protect their own interests. Now hon. members of the Opposition talk about the splitting up of the trade unions. We know that separate trade unions have been established. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana says that where a White trade union is for instance established in the municipal area of Cape Town and another say in Bloemfontein, one will have the position where Coloured unions of the same trade union would be established. Then, so hon. members argue, these trade unions will fight against each other because they will be catering for different interests. The experience gained in the past is that this does not happen and we cannot see that it will happen in the future. Where a trade union is established in one of the main centres and corresponding trade unions are established in other centres they will co-operate because it is to their own welfare and benefit. We will also find that where Coloured unions exist, where we have one trade union for Whites and a separate trade union for Coloureds, the Coloureds will want to co-operate with the White trade unions for their own well-being because it is in their interest to work together to promote their own interests. But the hon. member for Yeoville went further. He spoke of the labour legislation which contains ideological sections and which have no common grounds of interest and he said that this was purely emotional ideological legislation. It is clear, however, that he did not do his homework because if one studies this Bill one will find nothing contentious in it and I cannot see how hon. members can again use the arguments which were used in 1956. One can only say: “Elementary, my dear Watson, elementary.” The hon. member for Yeoville also spoke about the difficulty which could arise from two completely separate bodies, if there were a trade union in one centre and another were established in another centre. That cannot happen. If there is one trade union in one area and another in another area, in the same industry, then they will necessarily work together. But the great difficulty is that in certain trade unions the minority were not in a position to secede under the old Act of 1956. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana said that the dissatisfied group could then break away and do as they liked. But now I want to point out that the dissatisfied group can only break away if they are the majority in an area. He also said that if there was a trade union from which a group wanted to secede then there would be two trade unions in the same area. But if the majority is dissatisfied they can vote the others out of office and then they can rule because they must be 50 per cent or more in order to establish such a trade union. Therefore it cannot happen. He also spoke about “break-away units”. I cannot see how anything like that can happen because in their own interests they cannot and will not break away. And then he speaks about the rest of Africa. We must remember that we are dealing here with trade unions which concern the Coloureds and the Whites, and if the Coloureds felt that they had been done an injustice they would have complained long ago to the hon. the Minister, but we have not had that in the past four years. We have also not had any complaints from the White trade unions. But there have been complaints from mixed trade unions. Why? Because in certain of the mixed trade unions there were Whites who held the power. Where the Coloureds felt that they could manage their own affairs they also wished to be separate. That does not mean that they do not want to co-operate with the White unions, because it is in their interest, but there have not yet been any complaints from any such unions established by them. But the tendency is to be separated and to handle their own affairs. And if the hon. member is speaking for the rest of Africa it must be remembered that this legislation does not concern the Natives. It is quite a different matter when he speaks about the rest of Africa. One does not know what his intention is and why he says it. It does not affect this matter. Therefore I repeat that it does not appear as if he has done his homework. If we go further we find that, as far as Clause 1 (a) is concerned, where para, (c) of sub-section (3) of the principal Act is amended, it deals with separate trade unions which can now be formed where they have the majority in a certain area.

The next two sub-sections are inserted to nullify certain judgments given in the courts which have upset the object of the legislation, and to bring the measure into line with the actual intention of the Legislature. As far as the first clause which amends para, (c) in the principal Act is concerned, the court order did not concern sub-section (3) but the last two sub-sections. But what is peculiar to us is that hon. members opposite do not criticize any other clauses in the Bill. There is, for example, the clause in connection with the liquidator who is being appointed. In 1956 the original section was criticized very much and all kinds of arguments were advanced, but now we find that they leave this section entirely alone. No objection is raised to it, and as far as the other part which they are in fact criticizing is concerned, the object is only to state more clearly what was there originally. We can go further and we find that in the Other Place the Opposition had for instance objected to Clause 3, but here the hon. members raised no objection because they saw that they did not have a leg to stand on. Neither do they object to Clauses 4, 5, 6 and 7. That shows that the Bill is non-contentious and that it only contains amendments to remedy the principal Act so that it can be applied properly.

If we think of the White workers who have been struggling for years to have a say in their own trade unions we feel that the Opposition were to-day pleading only for the interests of the Coloureds and that they ignored the interests of the Whites. It also appears that they think that this Government is here to protect only the interests of the Whites, and not to protect the Coloureds also. If we study the legislation and the results which have flowed from it during the past four years we find that there is satisfaction in the trade unions among the great masses and that those who have seceded were not forced to do so but that they seceded voluntarily and that they were satisfied with secession. We also find that the Government has their co-operation and that they co-operate with each other where Coloured and White groups exist. If any of the trade unions were forced to break up into White groups and Coloured groups at all costs then one would have heard much more about it. One would have heard about it in the newspapers, there would have been meetings of protest and one would also have found that the effect of the dissatisfaction would have made itself felt in the past elections. But we never got that. Our party again got the support of the White workers because it is a fact that the Nationalist Party is the part of the White workers. I have a pamphlet here of the South African Trade Union Council. They support mixed trade unions. They are strongly opposed to the Whites and the Coloureds being separated in trade unions. They do not want it for a certain purpose and we know what that purpose is. But also their complaint against this amending Bill is of such a nature that it does not conform with the aims they ascribe to it. Towards the end of his speech the hon. member for Umhlatuzana spoke about job reservation which has nothing to do with the matter, and this Trade Union Council also strayed from the point. It proves once more that they are not serious when they object to these amendments. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana agreed with the hon. the Minister to a certain extent when he said that certain parts were good and could be passed, and I make bold to say that if they had made a thorough study of the Bill they would not have opposed it at all. The hon. the Minister has stated and argued the case well and I do not think that the arguments from the opposite side produced any criticism to uspet his case. I am convinced that the workers will be satisfied with these amendments because the minority groups who could not secede in the past can do so now. If, for example, a number of Whites are sitting in a big trade union together with an overwhelming number of Coloureds and they want to secede and form their own trade union they cannot do so until these amendments are passed; and the same applies to Coloureds if they are overwhelmed by Whites in certain trade unions and they want to secede and form their own union. Why should they remain in the old union where they are controlled by the Whites? I am convinced that in time the hon. the Minister’s prediction will come true, namely that all the mixed trade unions in the Union will be separated and split up into Coloured and White unions.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana tried to attack the hon. the Minister but his attack was unfounded, because he knows just as well as we do that the mixed trade unions could not separate under the old Act. If the Act correctly stated what was intended in 1956 then I am convinced that we would not have had any mixed trade unions to-day and all of them would have been either White or Coloured. The speeches of the hon. members opposite were of such a nature that I want to say that they were not serious in raising their objections and I do not believe that they will oppose the matter further. We will support the hon. the Minister wholeheartedly.

The hon. member for Edenvale (Mr. G. H. van Wyk) started by saying that the purpose of an amending Bill is to amend the law. He spent some time on that, and I quite agree with that proposition. He then went on to say that the Bill would make it possible for mixed trade unions to split, and that is the point of argument between this side of the House and the other side. He then went on to explain the Bill, and I think the House will agree that the hon. the Minister did that rather better, and so in that regard I will turn to the hon. the Minister. Then he made the plea that the Government should not be only concerned with the protection of the White worker, but should look after the interests of all workers. That I will also deal with in the course of my remarks. Otherwise in general he dealt with certain arguments of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, which I am sure the hon. member for Umhlatuzana and his colleagues are well able to defend.

I want to come to the hon. Minister's remarks on this Bill, and I must say that the hon. the Minister always has a very nice bedside manner. On this occasion he pictured himself as sitting between two beds of expiring patients, those who were opposed to this type of legislation on the one hand and the mixed trade unions on the other. However that may be, he has a very pleasant way of dealing with such a Bill, a very pleasant way of gilding a pill, a way that might well be commended for example to his colleague, the hon. the Minister of External Affairs. But as that is not under discussion at the moment, I am not going to pursue this subject.

I want to come to certain of the particular pleas the Minister made, not only here, but also in the Other Place, to which I may perhaps be permitted to refer. In the first place the plea that what was being done here was done on the basis of democratic principles. Now the purpose of this Bill as other members have been at pains to point out, and as the Minister himself has pointed out, is to remove the power of veto from a national body where a local body with a certain percentage of a point of view is at variance with it. I would concede that that is a federal principle and that if it is pushed to the extreme it is an anarchic principle, the principle of anarchy, but I would hardly concede that it is a principle of democracy. If it were so, perhaps the hon. the Minister could whisper in the ear of the Prime Minister and the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) and that would solve their difficulties. This is the first time I have heard the proponents of the Nationalist Government advocating a federal principle, and that is the principle that is embodied here rather than democracy. I think it will be of interest to this hon. House to understand the sphere in which this minority operates. It is rather a tedious and lengthy definition, but I think it is worth reading out the definition of “local authority” as it appears in the Conciliation Act. It says—

Mr. Speaker, you will see that that covers, so far as the minority group is concerned, quite a small unit in terms of area. In this connection I should like to say this: the hon. the Minister has taken some pride in that this is only the second occasion on which amendments have been proposed to the Act of 1956. I presume that some critic might be critical in that regard; the only other amendment was to vary the notorious Clause 77 somewhat in the direction that the Opposition had indicated was the only possible method of making it work, in 1956. But what is interesting about this amending Bill is that the Minister does not seem to have given too deep thought to the amendment, because he is himself proud that he has already introduced an amendment to his own Bill. In other words, notwithstanding that this was a first amendment to the Bill, considerable time should have been taken in considering the matter. As soon as the Bill came up for debate, the Minister himself felt compelled to introduce a further amendment, and I am now speaking to the modification of Clause 1. As the clause originally stood the area of which I am talking, which goes down to anything bigger than a Malaria Committee, would have been confined even into some 50 square feet. In the Other Place the hon. the Minister referred to a particular undertaking …

There is something smaller than a Malaria Committee and that is a branch of the Progressive Party.

If the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) wishes to make a constructive contribution to this debate he can get up later. In the meantime I do not propose to treat his remark as a serious contribution. In other respects where this matter was discussed in the Other Place the hon. the Minister was quite prepared to consider other suggestions. I want to suggest to him that when a Bill which has received the consideration that this Bill did receive in 1956, both before it came to this House and during the time it was in this House, when it was debated for 82 hours; then I suggest the same care be applied to the production of those amendments as was applied to the original Bill. So much for this matter of pride in the fact that this is the first amending Bill, and so much for the Minister’s appeal to our democratic instincts, our love for individual freedom and our hate of despotism, all of which were embodied in his speech.

It is a nice change, anyhow.

Yes, I think it is a nice change in sentiment. But whether it is a change of intention I am not very clear.

The next matter of pride was this, that the hon. the Minister gave the individual figures in the other Place and he gave the percentages here showing that before the passage of the Conciliation Bill there were 55 European unions, 16 Coloured and 113 mixed. In percentages, rounding out the hon. the Minister’s figures there are roughly 30 per cent European unions, 9 per cent Coloured and 61 per cent mixed. By the time this amending Bill came before the House we had the position of 92 European, three Coloured and 56 mixed unions of which, I think, six are contemplating becoming pure, giving the percentages of 50 per cent European, Coloureds 20 per cent and mixed 30 per cent.

So far as we on these benches are concerned it is a matter of regret that that figure of 113 mixed unions has been so reduced. I wish to give my reasons. I am not against people electing that so far as is consistent with the public weal and their own interests, doing what they wish to do. But the Minister and the Nationalist Party have a different approach to this, as they did in the original Bill. I do not want to go deeply into those arguments because we have had them time and again, but there was one aspect I would like to touch on here as the Minister mentioned it in the Other Place. That is the aspect that whenever races meet together it causes friction therefore, at all costs, you must avoid contact. This is like studying a divorce court news and saying that marriages are a source of friction and therefore marriage should be abolished. Or, taking a leaf out of the Minister’s past career, that, in every academic field, wherever children and teachers meet with a common interest of educating those children, it causes friction between the children and the teacher—friction which expresses itself at times in quite dire punishment—so we should abolish schools and do away with teaching except by correspondence course. That is exactly the same type of logic that is used by the Government side of the House. But I do not want to emphasize that so much as to point out that in those 113 unions, whatever the friction, people of different races were learning to work together where they had a common interest. That was something gained in South Africa. To the hon. members on the Government benches it was something lost because certain people were sullying themselves by contact with other races, therefore you must get rid of it.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great “triumph” both for the hon. the Minister and for the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) (Mr. van Rensburg) who were at great pains to emphasize the voluntary nature of this change. I am going to concede that neither in the original Act nor in this amending Bill which is simply a slight intensification of the original law, is there any direct compulsion on anyone to do this or to do that. But if you have people who are divided as the trade unions were divided, and as the Botha Commission was divided, and as everyone who considers this problem has become divided into two groups: when you have two points of view like that and the Government says to one point of view “We are on your side, here is a smooth road that you can travel, we are laying down the tarmac for you, or you can travel that other road where we, in effect, put obstacles in your way”—when that happens it is perhaps not unnatural that people should choose the first road.

Great play has been made of the fact that in the Cape, for example, one union that was Coloured asked for the pure union approach rather than the mixed union approach. In terms of Section 8 of the original Act, the conditions which are laid upon mixed trade unions are, in our view, particularly stringent, and particularly on the race group which does not happen to be White. It cannot be represented on the executive of the union; it cannot have any real contact with that portion of the union because you must have separate branches except, possibly, by the members of the White union going across to talk to them. In those circumstances perhaps it is not surprising that, weighing that set of circumstances against the circumstances applying not to the free mixed union but applying to the separate union with representation at industrial council level—it is not surprising that that particular group of people might voluntarily choose the side that the Minister would wish them to choose. The very fact that that type of condition was imposed on the mixed union was, to my mind, and I think to the minds of many people on this side of the House, a thing of which we as South Africans should not be proud in having it on the Statute Book. Time and again it has been said that the original Act and the Act as modified before the 1956 amendment, had become something of a model of industrial legislation. I think sometimes we take too much credit for that although it was a good Act. The reason it was a good Act was that we profited by the experience of others in other countries and took the best out of their legislation when we were framing our own Act. Therefore it could be said to be something of a model. But now, in any—I will not say multi-racial society—society of multi-racial composition —which, I think, will pass muster even on the other side of the House—in any such society if we were to say “Now we have the model of legislation for a society of multi-racial composition”, how many such societies would now regard the present legislation as a model? There was a division of opinion on this matter and the Government decided to throw its weight on the one side. It was not compulsion, it was just that the Government said “We make it clear that we favour this course; we make it clear that we will encourage anyone who follows this course And to those of us who have thought a little deeper on this matter and who took the long-term view rather than the short-term view, this was simply a pandering to the views of those who took a very narrow view of the functions of a trade union movement.

It is all very well for the hon. the Minister to come and say that not only is there not much left, in total, of the mixed unions, but that these unions that still remain do not represent a significant quantity of the total workers, and within their ranks the proportions are so-and-so and such-and-such. The Minister says—Do not, therefore, accuse us of further splintering, we have nothing to gain by that But in all this matter he has dealt in numbers. But the strength of a movement such as a trade union movement, ultimately is not to be reckoned in numbers, it is to be reckoned by the unity and the spirit which actuates the people who are part of that movement. A small unified group may be much more powerful than one which has considerable numbers but which does not have a unified objective. Now the hon. the Minister will say that his legislation is based ultimately on majority finding of the Botha Commission. It is true that the way they recommended is not out of consonancy with the legislation which this Government has brought forward, but there was a minority report at that time and it was a minority report of highly responsible and knowledgeable men. Their view was that in the long period such a step— although they took a fairly neutral view— such a step would weaken the strength of the trade unions. It was in that sense, when the Bill was debated before that I, at any rate, did not speak of the complete destruction of the trade unions. You do not destroy a thing that has grown up over the years in a matter of a few short years. What we did speak of was the ultimate weakening of those bodies by division of objective.

This Government is making race co-incident with class so far as it can. In the South African situation, with the great disparity between wage levels we think that, apart from anything else, that is a bad economic principle. In other words, the Government argument is leaving the bottom level out of it because, unfortunately, the bottom level does not come into this Bill although it is the most significant part of the labour force of South Africa. But coming to the Indian and Coloured groups vis-à-vis the White man, there is, by custom and past circumstances a great disparity between the wage levels of those groups. If, as the hon. the Minister said, these people would be prepared to bargain amongst their own race group for their own race group, the tendency is to make permanent the division in wages and standards of living that have come to be accepted as the norm by us, but which should not be accepted as the norm. If we wish to safeguard the White worker, one of our problems is to lift the level of that bottom wage. There is a much better chance of doing that, I submit, where negotiations are joint rather than where negotiations are separate, on the very ground that the Minister puts, that you say “Yes, we have a wage for this group appropriate to its standard of living, and a wage for that group appropriate to its standard of living”. But everyone who thinks knows that your standard of living is dependent upon your wage. However, I do not wish to go too deeply into that because that is the general case against the mixed unions and, as the hon. the Minister warned us we are dealing here with a specific and narrow modification.

So far as Clause 1 (a), (b) and (c) is concerned, we are opposed to these provisions not because they make revolutionary changes in the situation but because they intensify a principle to which we were originally opposed and to which we will continue to be opposed. So far as the detail of the Registrar’s discretion with regard to a closed shop is concerned, that employees should come under a closed shop agreement, I would say only that the closed shop—which is a very arguable democratic principle and has always been a bone of contention whether amongst workers or employers—it has been accepted broadly that such a thing is permissible on a democratic basis. In other words, the compulsion which unites men to further their own interests, is defensible. In so far as you modify that principle at all, and this does modify it, you are eventually rejecting the principle in toto. The hon. the Minister says he is not doing that because all he is doing is, instead of the Registrar having the discretion to say “These gentlemen would have voted another way had it not been for the closed shop”, it now says the Registrar shall work in that way. I submit that however little it is to some extent a weakening although, at the moment, aparently not in a significant sphere of the closed shop principle.

There are other provisions of this Bill where I agree with the hon. member for Edenvale (Mr. G. H. van Wyk) we are dealing merely with amendments that come out of the experience of the department administering the law. I think both sides will concede that they stop loopholes in non-contentious matters, such as including the words “or constitution” in one of the clauses; or the provision governing the position with regard to the shortage of payment in respect of industrial council dues or sick benefit dues. I do not think anyone will object to those clauses. Even on the question of demarcation, although to some extent I agree with the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, the Government has decided in its wisdom that the Industrial Tribunal shall replace the courts in certain matters and shall be the expert in certain fields. In view of the very controversial nature of certain problems of demarcation—to give a not very intelligent example, to decide whether a man who makes Venetian blinds is a building worker, an engineer or a metal worker. It is like a customs classification; there can be many opinions and somebody must decide. Provided the Tribunal takes a full consultation with all concerned, then there may be some merit in having the Tribunal decide matters of this nature. All these are matters which we can go into in the Committee Stage.

There are one or two other matters that are controversial in a minor way, but having studied the debate in the Other Place I understand that certain of those will be removed such as, for example, the point of publishing in the Gazette. This is not a matter of great importance and I think the Minister is willing to reconsider that point. On those matters I do not think there is any difficulty.

The final difference between all in South Africa who have a particular view of the trade union movement and its function, as distinct from the Government, is on this basic question of whether, ultimately, workers should be united by their interests irrespective of race, and regardless of friction that might arise and should be overcome. Or whether the only contact should be not below the Industrial Council level. It is our submission that not only from the point of view of the strength of the trade union movement, but ultimately from the point of view of understanding—because here was a field in which it was possible to win understanding between different colours—from that angle a Bill of this type is bad. It is throwing away an opportunity where community of interest could have given the change for understanding to come in. It was developing, in fact, to the extent that some people hold the view that one of the Government’s objectives in introducing this legislation was because it did not like the understanding that was developing at the contact of the races in contradistinction to the friction that it always emphasizes. So long as we emphasize those points of difference, so long as we pander to race prejudice, better understanding will not be brought about. Because it is on race prejudice, ultimately, that this separatism of the unions is based, and I accept that it does exist, but it is the duty of the Government not to intensify that prejudice, not to commend that prejudice, but to pave the way for the extension of it, as is done both in those clauses which vitiated the 1956 Bill, and this Bill which extends the vitiation of certain of the provisions that spoilt the legislation of 1956.

Mr. Speaker, my contention has always been that the Opposition parties in South Africa know as little about the interests of the workers as an ape knows about religion. But to-night I must admit that I owe an apology—to the ape. The whole tendency in South Africa to-day is in the direction of separate trade unions. The Minister proved that to us by means of the figures he quoted. Those of us who come into contact with the workers will know that that is the truth. I wish the hon. members opposite who made such a fuss this afternoon and to-night would go to the garment workers of Germiston to hear what goes on in their hearts in connection with this matter. They know what it means to belong for years to a mixed trade union and still to belong to it— because due to the numbers of the non-White majority they still sit there. They cannot get the necessary 50 per cent over the whole area which is necessary for them to break away, however much they might like to do so.

The Minister was formerly their adviser.

I am not talking now about the cheap propaganda which the hon. member wants to make. I do not know where he gets hold of it. In any case, I say that the whole tendency to-day is in the direction of separate White trade unions, and in terms of the measure now before us we want to give effect to that tendency. This Bill is merely a minor part—let us admit it frankly —of our policy of apartheid, of our policy of separation. It is simply being applied to a different sphere, viz. to the trade unions. The ability to split off is simply being extended a little further. What we have before us is simply the application of a centuries-old philosophy of life which is applied universally every day by practically all civilized people, and also by everybody in this House, viz. the principle that good neighbourliness is promoted by separation. For what other reason is there a boundary wall between my house and that of my neighbour, and between my farm and that of my neighbour? We find sound, friendly relationships everywhere where there is separation. Where there is separation we never find the confusion that we now see in the Congo.

Mr. Speaker, the accusations being made against us is that through the separation we want to introduce here we want to splinter up, paralyse and destroy the trade union movement in South Africa. There is no substance in that accusation. We reject that allegation with the contempt it deserves. I can understand the Opposition groups being obsessed with the idea of things being split up, particularly on the part of the United Party, when I think of the splintering which is going on in their own party. They may laugh, but they cannot laugh the truth away. Why should we on this side of the House want to split up the trade union movement? The trade unions were formed to look after the interests of the workers and to protect them against exploitation by their employers. I think everybody will concede that the great majority of White workers who are members of trade unions support this side of the House. I think hon. members opposite will also concede that the great majority of big capitalists, on the other hand, who have always earned their bread by the sweat of the brow of our workers, are supporters of that side of the House. That being so, if the great majority of White employees in South Africa who are members of trade unions are supporters of this party, it can reasonably be expected of us that we on this side will do nothing to weaken or undermine the strongest weapon in the hands of the workers, their trade unions, but that on the contrary we will do everything in our power to increase and preserve the effectiveness of that weapon and to increase the efficiency of the employees’ machinery for negotiation. If there is one thing which we have learnt from our experience over the years, it is that the mixed trade union, as a means of negotiation, does not have nearly the same effectiveness and impact as the purely White separate trade union. In this connection we should just compare the effectiveness of the Mineworkers’ Union, which is purely White, with the ineffectiveness of the Garment Workers’ Union, which is a mixed union. Just remember the quarrels and dissension which we continually had in the past in this mixed trade union, quarrels which paralysed and almost destroyed it. It is said here that common interests should be promoted, but in those mixed trade unions there is continual strife. They are weakened by the inner divisions which exist. That proves one thing only, namely that the trade union which becomes smaller as the result of splitting up does not necessarily become a weaker trade union, but on the contrary it becomes stronger. One brings together people who belong together by inner conviction. The result is that this type of trade union exclusively confines itself to the functions for which a trade union is established, viz. to work in the interest of the employees. Experience has taught us that a mixed trade union has certain definite inherent dangers. It opens the door to the agitator, to the apostles of Moscow. We have already seen them in the mixed trade unions. Hon. members opposite may laugh, but we know them. I say it opens the door to the apostles of Moscow who want to use the trade union for quite a different object from the one for which it was established. It is in this type of trade union that one finds irresponsible officials who are not imbued with patriotism towards South Africa, but who simply want to misuse the trade unions in order to promote foreign ideologies. We have come across them in these mixed trade unions—many of them. In terms of this Bill before us we want to give the workers themselves the right to purge their trade unions of such blots, and to settle accounts with and get rid of those leftists who still stand at the head of the trade union.

Reference has been made to the closed door principle. This principle was really applied with the object of compelling everybody working in a certain industry to become a member of the trade union concerned. But I just want to say that this principle has often in the past been abused. In many respects it is an immoral weapon which is used to force people to become members of a trade union which is diametrically opposed to the things for which they stand, and to use their funds to promote matters to which they are opposed. I say the closed door principle has also become a dangerous one. It aims at obtaining cooperation, but in the past it was abused in order to establish a dictatorship of people with strange ideologies. When people want to get rid of their existing mixed trade union and want to get out, this Bill now gives them the right to do so without being dismissed from their employment, because as you know, according to the closed door principle, one has to be a member of a particular trade union if one wants to work in that industry. If one now wants to join another trade union, as is envisaged here, one must continue to remain a member of that existing trade union or else one is dismissed. They control one’s bread and butter and compel one to remain a member of that trade union. Now this position is being remedied by this proposed clause which says that a worker can resign from that existing trade union and become a member of a new trade union which is about to be established without losing his employment. That is why we on this side of the House support this measure and believe that it will be to the benefit of the workers of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I regret to say that the hon. member who just sat down, did not add any lustre to the debate in that he could not rise above the level of for ever bringing in the communistic aspect in trade unions. I have noticed, Sir, that in debates of this type, you have this type of argument when, as here, they say we have “an opportunity of getting rid of the communists” or “it is a glorification of the policy of apartheid I do believe that the hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. William) raised a very important aspect of trade unionism when he indicated that in the past years, there was a feeling of mutual goodwill and fellowship arising and maintained in mixed unions. Now, I do not believe in the splitting of unions at all. I do believe that you must apply the slogan “Unity is Strength” “Eendrag maak Mag” to trade unions. It is necessary for bargaining power that there should be unity in approach. I would like to make it clear that, until I am convinced to the contrary, I believe that the stronger a union is, whether it is mixed or separate originally, they should continue to display that strength which is necessary for the bargaining power which they wish to use. Domination and domination particularly from some White unions from the Transvaal, from where we are used to receiving domination, is not accepted by the Coloured people in the Cape. I believe that the hon. Minister is now carrying out a promise which he made in this House, last session, when I drew attention to the fact that where a Coloured organization became a trade union, they believed that they could apply for registration under the Act of 1956, but much to their regret and disappointment it was found that it was not possible. I raised the matter in the House last session. Now, what prompted these Coloured people to break away and to form their own trade union when there was, or does, in fact, exist, a trade union for the whole of the Union? I repeat and emphasize that they felt that they were being dominated from the Transvasal, by a group of Whites; because they have no right to serve on the executive of that organization in the Transvaal and because its constitution says that you must live within 40 miles from the headquarters which, I think, is in Pretoria. So that these Coloured people in the Cape can never have representation in the Transvaal and they can, therefore, never have representation on the main body of their union. So they say, they are not prepared to be dominated any longer by the Transvaal as they want to be on the executive and they want to have a say in the affairs of the union.

Are you supporting this Bill?

These Coloured people in the Cape represent about from 60 to 75 per cent of the workers in that particular industry in the Cape and they, therefore, say that they want to have their own union. I merely want to indicate to the House that despite my policy that there must not be split unions, it is my duty in this House as representative of the Coloured people, when an organization comes to me and says “We want to have our own unions”—they were not forced out; it was a voluntary act—to see that they should have the right to form themselves into a union. I merely want to indicate that, despite the fact that many White unions have kicked out Coloured members of their union, the boot is now on the other foot and the Coloured now wants to kick out the White man out of their unions. And that is purely for self-preservation. That is no acknowledgment of the policy of the Government. Make no mistake about that. They are not following the policy of apartheid. It is being done because they want to preserve their own autonomy and they do not want to be dominated by certain White people from the Transvaal. So when this organization formed themselves into a trade union, they went to the Government and said that, according to the Act of 1956, once we have formed ourselves into a trade union, we can become registered, and they, therefore, asked for registration. But I regret to say, Sir, that, running true to form, every Act of the Government needs amendment. They tried to get registered under the Act of 1956 but the Act was so badly framed that they could not register. The hon. Minister then promised the Coloured people that he would amend it and that is the reason for the Bill we are discussing now.

So you’d better support it.

I think it is necessary for me to make it perfectly clear that these people form the majority of the workers in the Cape Province. Once they formed a trade union, they were told that they cannot be members of that new trade union but should remain with the old union. They said: “No, we want to join the new trade union.” So they were told that they could join but “we will tell you what we will do with you; we will deduct from your wages the contributions for the sick fund: you are not members of our organization but you work in our industry, so that you must pay the sick fund contributions but you will not get any benefits from us although we are taking your money”. I want to indicate hereby how complicated these matters are for the Coloured people. When they want to do something for themselves some type of Whites, like the hon. member for Boksburg, and not the communistic type, refuse to give the Coloured man the right which he himself enjoys. Accordingly, Sir, however much it goes against my grain, however much it goes against my own policy of splitting up trade unions, I do believe that, representing as I do the Coloured group who want this and seeing that it is the only way in which they can get registered, I am afraid, as much as I do not want to do it, I will have to support the Minister in this. I trust, in all seriousness, that the Minister will also see that some of his White unions do not kick out so many Coloureds. He knows how many Coloured organizations were kicked out by the White unions against their will; they did no harm but were working under the best relations with the Whites. The hon. member for Brakpan has said “the troublemakers come from Moscow!” That is not so; they come from within the Nationalist Party. I want to make an appeal for the Coloured people. They are being forced to go out of unions for no other reason than that those particular people want to carry out the policy of apartheid of the Government. I sincerely trust that the hon. Minister will make it his business to see that there shall be no splitting of trade unions, if he is satisfied that there has been goodwill and understanding between the two races and that he shall not just automatically break them up. I sincerely hope that I have made it clear to the Minister that, although I have to vote with him on this Bill, I shall walk limpingly across the floor of the House to do that.

Sir, we on this side of the House can appreciate the difficulty in which the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) is placed, due mainly to the fact that the present Nationalist Government in its past actions, has got the non-European worker, the Coloured worker, into such a difficult situation that he finds, out of frustration, that he has to find his own destiny and cannot co-operate and work together with the White worker in mixed unions. I feel, Sir, that it cannot be judged as a victory for the Nationalist Party that they have brought about this state of affairs whereby these people realize that the only course which they can adopt in order to achieve their objects, is to form a separate trade union and not to stay on in the mixed trade unions. We heard from the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. G. L. H. van Niekerk) that mixed unions can be the ground for the agitator and for Communism. We, on this side of the House, believe the obverse to be correct and true because if you are going to have a separate trade union purely on racial lines then they are going to provide a camping ground for communistic inclined persons and agitators. It means that we will not be creating a co-operative spirit amongst our workers but a competitive spirit on racial lines which could provide communists with a great deal of support and with a field where they can agitate.

However, Sir, I wish at the outset to say to the hon. Minister that I feel that this Bill has been introduced rather hurriedly and was hastily handled. I realize that the hon. Minister has stated that the Bill was published in the Government Gazette during the beginning of December but that was in a period just prior to the holiday period falling in December and January. The Bill was then introduced in the Other Place on 6 February and many trade unions did not have sufficient time to submit their views by that time and to consult with the Minister. Because if they had … I am sure there are some improvements which trade unions would like to see brought about to the Industrial Conciliation Act of 1956. I have in mind one particularly in terms of which the arbitration awards could also have been incorporated in this amending Bill which would have constituted a distinct benefit to those persons who suffer through long protracted negotiations under the existing Act. One of of the most important organizations, the South African Trade Union Council, has submitted a very important memorandum dealing with an amendment to the principal Act. It does not deal entirely with the question contained in Clause 1 of the Bill now before the House. Now, hon. members opposite stated that we on this side of the House, have only discussed Clauses 1 and 8. Well, in the words of the hon. Minister, Clause 1 contains the main principle embodied in this Bill and, therefore, we have, and quite rightly, concentrated our efforts on the effects of this clause. The opinion of this side of the House in regard to the separation of our trade unions, the splitting of our trade unions, is well known as is also our opinion on work reservation. These matters have been discussed at length on previous occasions and I do not intend to deal with them at length at this stage. I would, however, like to make this point, namely that the provisions of Clause 1 facilitating the splitting up of trade unions, and job reservation are complementary to each other because it is obviously the tactics of the Government to bring about trade unions on racial lines, to encourage them to split on racial lines and on the other hand to try and protect the various racial groups by means of job reservation.

Various figures were given in the Other Place and also to this House this afternoon dealing with mixed unions. Other speakers on this side of the House have dealt with that already at considerable length. The hon. Minister seems to derive a good deal of satisfaction from the fact that these mixed unions are being reduced in number. It makes one wonder why this Bill has then been introduced and why the provisions of Clause 1 of the Bill are deemed necessary to achieve further fragmentation of trade unions on racial lines. There has been only one case of a mixed trade union not being able to register but I would like the hon. Minister when he replies to the debate, to elucidate the necessity of bringing about—voluntary compulsion was the word used by other members on this side of the House—the splitting of our trade unions, whereas the effects of the Act of 1956 were to reduce the number of mixed unions from 113 to 56.

The great difficulty for us in this Clause 1 is that the registrar of trade unions will be divested of all discretion when registering these new trade unions. It should at least be the right of existing trade unions to state their case and to be heard if a group of persons wants to break away from that union to apply for registration subject to certain provisions as provided for in the Act. That does only seem just. We have heard the word “democracy” being used on a good number of occasions by members on the other side and in this case I think it should be the democratic right of the existing trade unions to be able, at least, to be allowed to state their case. But instead we find that the registrar will merely be obliged to register such new trade union provided such union abide by the conditions as laid down in this Bill. It is quite obvious that if the provisions contained in Clause 1 pass this House, that it will mean that the splitting of trade unions will be further encouraged and facilitated so that it can be brought about more expeditiously. It is obvious that any fragmentation of the trade union movement is going to weaken the bargaining power which that movement now enjoys and any weakening of that collective bargaining power will undoubtedly have a disruptive affect on the contentment of our workers. The questions relating to our labour force, need delicate handling and it will therefore be most unfortunate if our workers should, in any way, become discontented. It is true that there has been labour peace in this country and as a result of that a certain amount of industrial development has taken place where our labour force has played a dominant role. As the position is to-day, we find that where you have an expanding economy, all will prosper and there will be full employment in every sense of the word and a trade union movement in conditions of full employment is a contented movement. But what will the position be in a static economy or in a decreasing economy? That is a great difficulty which is going to arise and, therefore, I contend that one of the main principles involved is to see that we have an expanding economy and in order to have an expanding economy, there must be a contented labour force, a force which will attract much needed overseas capital. If we have a discontented labour force, on the other hand, then we will have the much-needed overseas capital diverted from South Africa instead of coming into the country to play its part in the development to the fullest extent, of South Africa. We see this Bill as a fragmentation of the trade union movement and a further State interference in our labour force. We feel that there should be a minimum interference in the labour force. We want to see our trade unions being above party politics and not great play being made of the fact—like the hon. member for Boksburg did—that the Nationalist Party will be supported by the workers. That should not be the main concern of the Government when introducing legislation. Rather, its main concern should be to improve our labour force. One fact which we must bear in mind is the factor of the interdependence of the various racial groups. We want to see that the labour force is developed as a whole; that all the racial groups shall develop together in playing their part in that labour force. One group should not be sacrificed at the expense of another. We want to see our non-White workers being a co-operative force rather than a competitive force which could lead to a great deal of difficulty. A continual experimentation in the ideology of apartheid can only lead us into a great deal of trouble and be disastrous to our economy. In this respect, the question of our Coloured people forming their own trade unions, was forewarned in a public statement which was issued on 12 May 1960 by the Cape Town Chamber of Commerce and the Cape Town Chamber of Industries. That statement contains the following—

The statement goes further and makes certain recommendations for the economic advancement of the Cape Coloured people and says—

So you see, these warnings have been given as far back as May 1960. Here to-day we have the position where these people are anxious to form their own groups because they believe that they will be able by that to wield more power and become a fighting force as a separate union because there are certain people in the mixed trade unions which they believe have caused those mixed unions to fail. The whole question of dividing our trade unions on this basis is, in our opinion, further State interference which would prove detrimental to the workers of South Africa and, therefore, we on this side of the House, have made it perfectly clear that in regard to splitting of trade unions together with work reservation which accompanies it, we are opposed to it because we believe that it is not in the interests of the workers. I would like to remind hon. members on the other side, those who have spoken bravely in support of the workers, that we on this side of the House also represent a number of constituencies where workers predominate and we have just as much, even more, interest in the welfare of the workers than is the case with members opposite. I hope that the hon. Minister in considering amendments to the Act will endeavour to make improvements. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) has already indicated that this Bill contains certain improvements. The over-all principle here, however, is contained in Clause 1 and therefore, we on this side of the House will oppose this Bill.

If there is one thing which emerged from this debate this afternoon, then it is just the contrary of what has just been stated by the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield). He stated that they also represent constituencies in which there are large numbers of workers. But it has been proved to-day that hon. members opposite do not know what is going on in the minds of the workers. The whole process, as the hon. the Minister has indicated, is that the workers of South Africa, White and non-White, to-day want separate trade unions. When we discussed this matter in the House four years ago we pointed out that having mixed trade unions keeps White workers out of the trade unions and it has now been proved that, as the result of the separation which was brought about in the trade union movement and which is going on throughout the country, the number of White members of the trade unions has increased. Consequently also the interest in the trade unions has increased, and the workers can in fact better protect their interests in those trade unions. Later on I would like to deal with the industrial peace we have in the country in order to point out that this Act has already brought about more industrial peace in the country than we have ever had before. The hon. member for Umbilo said that we are now creating the opportunity for the non-Whites in separate trade unions to become the prey of agitators and communistic influences. But the act, now and formerly, has never prohibited non-White trade unions. There have always been non-White trade unions, although their numbers were not large. The principle of having non-White trade unions has never been excluded in terms of our legislation. This argument can therefore only be half the truth, but the fact is that there have always been non-White trade unions.

The hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) stated here that unless the workers are all united in a mixed trade union their power to bargain collectively is reduced. I want to ask him why it is that when one gets a trade union like the Garment Workers’ Union, for example, the wages differ in the various areas? Why is it that in the Transvaal the wages are higher than in the Cape Province? Why is it that wages in the Cape Province are higher than those in Durban? There is only one simple reply to that, viz. that in the first place the largest percentage of White workers is in the Transvaal, and they push up wages in the Transvaal in the interests of the White as well as the non-White workers. And because there is a smaller percentage of White workers in the Western Province, the non-Whites have succeeded in decreasing the wages in the Western Province, and because there is an even smaller percentage of White workers in the Garment Workers’ Union in Durban, where the majority of workers are Indians, wages there are even lower. In other words, the argument used by these hon. members is not borne out in practice. The fact is that in practice it has been shown that the White worker’s negotiation value is very high, and that he is much more successful in protecting his wages where he acts separately. I furthermore want to point out that in this debate we have had the old slogans repeated over and over again. We know that in the past they also said that the standard of wages would be depressed. As against that, I consider that it has been proved that the standard of wages has increased tremendously in recent years, and is still increasing. We heard arguments here, such as we again heard this afternoon from the hon. member for Yeoville, that industrial negotiations become more difficult. On the contrary. The industrial peace we have had in recent years in particular has shown that that is not so, but that the trade unions have succeeded in doing their work even more effectively. Hon. members say that the trade unions and the industrial councils will be played off against each other. Those hon. members make these statements without furnishing the slightest proof to support their statements. They say that White leadership will be undermined. On the contrary. I think it has been proved that the tendency to-day is that White leadership in the trade unions has been strengthened. On the other hand, I think that by giving the non-Whites separate trade unions we are affording them an opportunity which they have never had before. We afford them the opportunity to manage their own affairs in their trade unions and in that manner to school themselves in the preservation and the promotion of their own interests. In fact, we are giving them an opportunity which they never had in the past because then they were dominated by the Whites.

I now want to deal with the arrangement which is being proposed here. The fact is that the workers want to make progress on the road towards separate trade unions, and we want to encourage this tendency which we have seen in this regard over the past four years. The measure of freedom remains unaffected as it was before; there is no compulsion. All we want to do is to give those workers the opportunity to be able to do so, to make it easier for them. The fact is that the non-White workers have shown that they would like to split off if they can, and the White workers have also shown that they would like to split off if they can do so. As the legislation stands at present, it makes it impossible for those non-Whites and Whites to split off, and that is why the hon. the Minister has Introduced this Bill which makes it possible for them to do so.

At 10.25 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate was adjourned until 20 February.