I move—

I move as an amendment—

Sir, I take this unusual but not unprecedented step for several good reasons. This first report of the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours will deal with unauthorized expenditure to the amount of some R300,000. The conventional motion when printed on the Order Paper will read as follows—

Now the House usually accepts the scrutiny of the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours. It is normally, though not always, prepared to pass almost without comment, any unauthorized expenditure of which this Select Committee has made examination and has approved and to accept its report. …

I hope the hon. member will state his case very briefly.

I shall do so as briefly as possible. It is because the House imposes such trust and faith in this important, all-party Select Committee that I feel impelled to bring certain facts to the notice of Parliament. On this occasion there are certain circumstances which are unusual. The report will not contain certain factual evidence which in my opinion would greatly assist this House in coming to an objective conclusion as to whether it should approve the items of unauthorized expenditure placed before it, or not. As matters stand now the House will have to decide whether to approve or disapprove of certain items of expenditure without hearing the evidence given before the Select Committee and which caused that committee to differ. The committee did not necessarily divide its opinion on the merits of any particular item, but merely on the method by which certain amounts were brought to account. My amendment would merely delay consideration of this unauthorized expenditure until that evidence is printed. When the evidence of the Auditor-General and the Railway Administration is printed and it is available, the House can decide on the facts before it whether it will approve of the unauthorized expenditure or not. Certain evidence was given to the Select Committee which even the Chairman himself will admit would be a valuable guide to this House in coming to a proper decision. I am not at liberty, propriety precludes me from revealing what the evidence was. But I am able to say that the committee was evenly, nay exactly, divided as to whether that evidence should be made available to you to-morrow, concurrently with the unauthorized appropriations we will be asked to pass, or left over to be seen only long after we have made our decision. Only the Chairman’s casting vote denied us this evidence. It is possible that if this House knew the evidence as we know it, it would delete certain items of expenditure. It is also possible that it would approve them all unanimously. That I cannot say. The point is that we should have this evidence before us. We should be given an opportunity to evaluate it before we vote on these amounts. I raise the matter as a point of principle. I have not dealt with the merits of the cases upon which you will be asked to judge. All I do ask is that we should not come to decisions blind-fold. I am sure the hon. the Minister will agree with me.

I do not know what happened in the committee.

Then you should hear the evidence. I am sure the Chairman will be reasonable. There is really no cause to refuse my amendment. It will not clog the wheels of administration. It will not hold up any major works. It will not harm any individual or company because payments have already been made; the work has been carried out; the expenditures have already been incurred; the constructions have been completed; the “rolling stock” is already rolling. All we want is the delay of a few days in order that Parliament’s belated approval of what was done without authorization should be held up until all of us know all of the facts and are able to judge objectively, legislate intelligently and control Railway finances properly. I move.

I second the amendment. By the very nature of the amendment I am, as the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) has said, restricted in my comment in that I cannot discuss the merits of the proposed report or go into the nature of the evidence given before the committee, but may I point out that the hon. the Minister said by way of interjection that he knew nothing at all about what happened on the Select Committee. In other words, the Minister does not know the nature of that evidence and I would submit with respect that just as the Minister finds himself in the position of having to take decisions on the matter with no evidence available, the same applies to every other member who was not present at the deliberations of the Select Committee.

Question put: That the word “to-morrow”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion.

Upon which the House divided:

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

Tellers: H. C. de Kock and A. Hopewell.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment dropped.

Original motion accordingly agreed to.

I wish to move the following amendment—

In its amended form the sub-section in my view serves no purposes whatsoever. It merely states what is the common law and because of that it would be better to omit it. The original purpose of this sub-section was to exempt the Government and certain persons in the employ of the Government from liability for negligent acts. The clause is one dealing with the restriction of access to premises under military control and measures which may be taken for the protection of those premises. The object of sub-section (5), as it was when it came before the House in the amending Bill, was to exempt the Government or any person in the service of the Government from liability for negligent acts. The actual sub-section was put in this form, that the Government should not be liable for loss which was caused by measures taken in connection with the protection of these areas except where the acts were wilful. At the second reading stage Opposition members indicated that they were opposed to the Government being exempted from liability and in the Committee Stage the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) moved an amendment to insert the words “negligent or”, before “wilful That was accepted by the Minister and we were very glad that he did so. But as the clause now stands it merely states what is the common law. The effect of the amended clause is that the Government is not liable except for negligent or wilful acts, and the words in brackets now cancel out the rest of the subsection. It is only for negligent or wilful acts that he could be liable in any case, so the whole purpose of this clause falls away. Not only does the clause in its present form not serve any purpose but it should not be there because in its present form it will create difficulties. The courts will try to interpret the sub-section in such a way as to give it some meaning. After all, they will not know that this clause was inserted in the law in the way in which it has been during the different stages of the amending Bill. They will merely read that the Government shall not be liable except for negligence of for wilful acts, and they will not imagine that the legislature could have gone to the extent of putting in a provision to say what is in any event the common law. The courts will therefore try to give it some meaning and they may even stretch the meaning of the words in order to find some purpose for which it was introduced. So not only will it serve no useful purpose but it will in fact be misleading. Sir, any attempt to tamper unnecessarily with our common law must be deprecated. If the Minister had some real purpose in trying to change the common law, then by all means let us consider it, but here he is not attempting to do so. We think it is most undesirable and I ask the Minister therefore to delete this sub-section.

I second the amendment.

I would like to say that the point which has been raised by the hon. member has some substance. Originally the clause read that the Government or any person in the service of the State shall not be liable except for a wilful act or omission. The plea was made to the hon. the Minister to insert the words “negligent or” to which the Minister agreed.

The United Party misled me!

The position appears to me to be that clearly the clause as it was originally was objectionable, and the hon. the Minister then sought to bring about the position that persons could recover damages arising from a wilful or a negligent act. We are very grateful to him for having done that There appears to me to be very considerable substance in the view put forward by the hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. van Ryneveld) that in effect the clause as it stands is merely a statement of the common law, and there is something in the point too that as a matter of construction, where a clause repeats the common law, the courts sometimes search for a reason and on occasions strange conclusions are reached. I do feel in the circumstances that the Minister has met the point of substance that has been raised but I hope that the hon. the Minister will try to meet the position by getting the law advisers to go into this matter, and if he is advised that the omission of sub-section (5) will make no difference to the meaning of the clause as he intends it, then I hope he will agree to the deletion of the proposed sub-section at a later stage, that is to say, if the Minister is not prepared to agree to it at this stage. I would say on behalf of this side of the House that having asked the Minister to insert this amendment which he has done, and since he has conceded the point of principle which was put to him, I hope that we in this House are not going to force this matter. But if the Minister will give the assurance that he will go into the matter, then perhaps we can leave it at that. I shall be glad if the Minister will tell us what his views are.

The hon. member for Springs (Mr. Tucker), who has just resumed his seat, asked me to give an undertaking that I would go into this matter once again, which would simply mean delaying essential legislation.

No, you can do that in the Other Place.

In so far as the clause itself is concerned, the hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. van Ryneveld) stated that the clause, as it stands now, has no force. Let us accept that it is a restatement of the common law. But then I still want to say that this sub-section can do no harm.

It can, in fact, do harm.

The hon. member says that Judges will now try to give a different interpretation to this sub-section. He takes it that the Judges, in searching for an interpretation of the sub-section, will attach a meaning to it which may be detrimental to the Government.

No.

My contention is that if they search for an interpretation it will be very clear that the Government has the right, in terms of this clause, to erect buildings, depots, etc., and if they look for an interpretation it must become quite clear to them why sub-section (5) is there, viz. that the Government wants to protect itself, but in a case where there was actual negligence or deliberate action the courts will interpret it as meaning that the Government stated its willingness in the Bill to pay compensation.

But that is already so under the common law.

If that is so, then this provision is superfluous.

Quite superfluous.

I allege that the danger which the hon. member for East London (North) sees in this clause does not exist at all. The hon. member did not only make the point that the sub-section was superfluous; he stated that the courts would search for some explanation as to why this sub-section was there, and that it might be dangerous.

It is undesirable.

My contention is that that is not, and I am not prepared to amend the clause at this stage.

I should like the hon. the Minister to reconsider this matter because there is a great deal of substance in what the hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. van Ryneveld) has said. The grounds which are set out in this clause are the usual common law grounds for responsibility in the ordinary course of events, but as the hon. member has pointed out if you change the common law position, the court will always look for reasons why it was done and one reason is already clear to me. In the normal course of events the Government is only responsible when a person has caused damage in the execution of his duties, and when you read the clause as it stands at the moment, Sir, it can be interpreted to mean that an exception is now being made and that the Department may be held liable if any person, whether in the execution of his duties or not, causes damage, as long as he is an official of the Department. I think, therefore, that it is not merely a question of, as the hon. the Minister thinks, ex abundantia cautelia, stating the common law as it is— it may go further than the common law and actually widen the field of responsibility of the Department, widen it more than it is under our common law of to-day.

Amendment put and negatived.

Amendment in Clause 10, made in Committee of the whole House, put and agreed to.

In Clause 18,

I move the amendment standing in my name—

Through a technical hitch I was not able to move this amendment during the Committee Stage, but in order to test the matter I propose the amendment now. I do not intend however to delay the House this afternoon in respect of this matter, because the purpose of this amendment has, I submit, been made abundantly clear during the course of the discussions on the second reading of the Bill and during the Committee Stage. It is our view that these additional powers which the Minister is seeking in this Bill, particularly the powers in Clause 18 which enable him to deal with the personal liberties of individuals, should be exercised only in extraordinary circumstances, such as in the case of war or if the country is in a proclaimed state of emergency. Once again I want to emphasize that in my view it does not answer our contention to say that the Minister will be hampered in maintaining the security of the state and public order if he were to be compelled first to proclaim an emergency. The hon. Minister has the power under various sections of the Act to call out the Active Citizen Force, to call out the Reserves, to call out the Commandos. That can be done at once, and if a situation were to arise in which it would be necessary to take the action contemplated under this clause, namely to order persons to assemble in certain places or to evacuate certain areas, such orders, in my view, could be given. But if you have reached such a stage, an emergency has arisen and it could be proclaimed ex post facto. In terms of the Public Safety Act an emergency can be proclaimed in respect of any portion of the Union. It is not necessary to proclaim an emergency over the whole of the Union of South Africa. An emergency can be proclaimed in respect of a small portion of the Union, a very small portion if necessary. It may be necessary to seal off a small portion, and in my view there would be no difficulty whatsoever if that procedure were adopted, to exercise these particular powers. The hon. Minister is obviously not thinking of some sudden fracas which may arise, after say a public meeting where feelings may run high and after which there may be some street fighting. For that sort of thing you call out the police and the police would be equipped to deal with such a matter. When a situation arises which calls for the intervention of the military forces, the naval, military, air forces, under the control of the Minister of Defence, then we have gone beyond the stage of rowdiness, and disorder in that limited sense of the word, and we have reached a serious situation which indeed is an emergency.

In those circumstances I hope that the hon. the Minister, having heard the arguments that we have put up very consistently, will feel that we have made out a case and that at this particular stage of the Bill he will concede what we are asking.

I second the amendment.

With regard to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence), the official Opposition made its position very clear at both the second reading and at the Committee Stage. We objected to Clause 18 in the form in which it appeared and put forward an amendment for some alleviations, asking for Parliament itself to be informed of any action taken by the Minister. We dealt with the proposal then put forward by the hon. member for Salt River of the declaration of a state of emergency and we then pointed out and have not since changed our ground, that to have to introduce a state of emergency under these conditions …

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the amendment before the House.

Yes, Sir, that is the amendment moved by the hon. member for Salt River which wants to introduce the words “during a proclaimed state of emergency”. We objected to that proposal in previous discussions, and pointed out that the declaration of a state of emergency in the circumstances envisaged here, was tantamount to the declaration of civil martial law, the complete paralysis of the whole of the normal life of that particular area. Therefore we were not prepared to support the hon. member for Salt River in what he asked for. We have not changed that view and stand by the attitude we adopted during the previous stages.

I am as convinced as ever that I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Salt River. The difference between us is actually one of principle. I feel very strongly that we should not unnecessarily declare a state of emergency in this country. I do not think it does the country any good in any respect but I can well imagine that in certain circumstances, as a result of the activities of certain organizations, it may well be necessary to have the power which we are asking here to prevent disturbances and that we should not only have that power in the case of a state of emergency. I, therefore, cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Salt River.

Amendment put and a division was called.

As fewer than 15 members (viz. Messrs. Butcher, Cope, Eglin, Prof. Fourie, Mr. Lawrence, Dr. Steytler, Mrs. Suzman, Messrs. R. A. F. Swart, van Ryneveld and Williams) voted in favour of the amendment, Mr. Speaker declared it negatived.

Amendment in Clause 18, made in Committee of the whole House, put and agreed to and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

I move—

I do not propose to delay the House as Clause 1 was the subject of debate at the second reading stage, but I am going to move as an amendment—

The reasons were given by the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) for the change from 1970 to 1965, and I want to point out that the Bill before us amends the original Act in Section 2, not only in respect of the population, but in respect of any other particulars whatsoever that may be prescribed. Let me read sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the Act—

It may well be that the Government finds itself in difficulties in respect of matters other than the census of the population. Now, for the reasons given in the second reading debate, by the hon. member for Jeppes, we feel that the population itself should be the subject of the census, and not later than 1965, that is five years from the previous census. The fact that it is permissive for the Government to hold a census in any other year, is quite beside the point. We want it to be mandatory, not that the Government can go on for ten years to suit their own purposes, but that every five years a census of the population should be taken. May I put it to the hon. the Minister that every civilized country today surely is looking upon the census of population from time to time as one of the major aspects of its civilization, and to wait for ten years, we believe to be wrong. I move.

I regret that I am unable to accept the hon. member’s amendment as it involves increased expenditure requiring the Governor-General’s recommendation.

Clause put and agreed to.

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

When the House adjourned yesterday evening I was pointing out that the Opposition was merely repeating all the cries which they raised during the discussion on the original Act. One of those cries with which I want to deal and which they also raised in respect of the principle Act, was that this Bill would promote industrial unrest in the country. They raised that cry in spite of the fact that, from what we have seen in the country during the past few years it is clear that there has been industrial peace. That cry of theirs has been proved false in the past and I am convinced that it will be proved equally false in future. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) shakes his head. What proof have they adduced in this House, Sir, in support of their argument? They have brought no proof. The principal Act came into operation on I January 1957. We had more industrial unrest in the three years preceding that date than we had in the past three years from 1957 to 1960. As a matter of fact during the three years before the Industrial Conciliation Act came into operation there was a tendency to have more strikes. In 1954, for instance, there were 60 strikes in the country in which 4,660 non-Whites were involved. I am only giving the figures in respect of the non-Whites because the argument really revolves round them. In 1955 there were 102 strikes in which 9,479 non-Whites were involved.

Was it not because there were mixed trade unions?

I am coming to that. In 1956 there were 105 strikes in which 9,641 non-Whites were involved. The hon. member asks whether that was not as a result of mixed trade unions. I say definitely not, but what I do want to point out is that there have been fewer strikes since the Act came into operation on I January 1957 than previously, and that the cry raised by the United Party that it would cause industrial unrest has been proved false. I want to prove that by giving the House the figures for the years 1958, 1959 and 1960, the years during which the Act has been in operation. I have given the figures in respect of the three years preceding the coming into operation of the Act. During those three years there was a total of 267 strikes in which 23,780 non-Whites were involved. Let us take the past three years: In 1958 there were only 74 strikes in which 7,529 non-Whites were involved; in 1959 there were only 56 strikes (a decrease) in which 3,604 non-Whites were involved, and in 1960 there were only 44 strikes in which 3,548 non-Whites were involved.

Does that include Natives?

I am coming to that. There was, therefore, a total number of 164 strikes in the past three years in comparison with 267 strikes in the three years before the Act came into operation, and the number of people involved in the strikes over the past three years was 14,681 non-Whites in comparison with the 23,780 involved in the three years before the Act came into operation. We must remember, Sir, that this figure in respect of non-Whites includes the Bantu. In other words, this figure of 14,000, being the number of persons who went on strike during the past three years, proves the hollowness of the cry raised by the United Party. I notice that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Miller) also wants to speak, and I hope he will not repeat that cry, and I also hope that the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) will not repeat that cry, because the facts are against them. I want to advance a further argument. During the past three years, when we had fewer strikes, we did not enjoy the economic prosperity which we did in the previous years. There was actually a certain amount of unemployment. In spite of that, however, there has been less industrial unrest during the three years that this Act has been in operation than before the Act came into operation.

I now want to deal with another argument advanced by hon. members opposite, namely that there were always purely Coloured trade unions under the old Act; in other words, the principle which is contained in this Bill and in the 1957 Act has always existed. There were actually fewer Coloured trade unions than there are to-day. The formation of a number of uni-racial trade unions has increased their numbers—it has increased the number of Coloured trade unions as well as the number of White trade unions, while the number of mixed trade unions has decreased. For example, there was a very big trade union, namely the Textile Industries Workers’ Union, a purely Coloured trade union, which organized on a national basis, and Coloured workers all over the country belonged to it. In the Transvaal we had the Broom and Brushworkers’ Union, and in Natal the Natal Aluminium Workers’ Union. In Cape Town we have the S.A. Canvas and Rope Workers’ Union (Cape). We also have the Chemical and Allied Workers’ Union in Cape Town. All those Coloured trade unions existed under the old set-up, and they have been in existence for years. We had the Furniture Workers’ Industrial Union, and in Port Elizabeth there was the non-European Municipal Workers’ Union. I have mentioned these few, and now I want to ask hon. members opposite this: Is there any proof that there has been greater unrest in these Coloured trade unions than in the other mixed or White trade unions? Can hon. members say that, because those Coloured trade unions exist—and they are old trade unions—there has been greater unrest in those trade unions where Coloureds give the lead than in the other trade unions in this country?

Let me say something else to hon. members. They maintain that, because Coloured trade unions are formed under this legislation, you will now find industrial agitation and communist influence in those trade unions. Let me put another question to them. Last year the hon. member for Umhlatuzana nearly went so far as to plead for the recognition of Native trade unions. He did, however, say that they were not pleading for it, but that some plan should be devised. He said that in the meantime the White trade unions would perhaps have to act on behalf of the Native trade unions which were not recognized. That would have been an interim step. In other words, what the hon. member had in mind was the possible recognition of Native trade unions. But the policy of the Progressive Party is unequivocally that the Native trade unions should be recognized. They have declared themselves in favour of that, and that is what they are pleading for. Now my question to them is this: In that case why do they argue that the Coloured trade unions which exist under this legislation will be subject to industrial unrest and communist agitation? What about those Native trade unions whose leaders are less trained than the leaders of the Coloured trade unions; will they not be more subject to industrial unrest and communist and other agitators? Why do they advance this argument if it is their policy that those trade unions should be recognized?

Hon. members raised that cry, but they had no ground for doing so, because they have failed to prove that there is greater industrial unrest under the existing trade unions than in the mixed trade unions and in the White trade unions. That is why I say that their argument is without any foundation. They raise another cry, and that is that it will have a deleterious effect on collective bargaining. They say we are introducing the non-Whites to the industrial councils. Under the old set-up, even before this Act was placed on the Statute Book, there were industrial councils on which both Coloured and White persons engaged in collective bargaining. In other words, this is not a new principle. I want to mention two important industrial councils here in the Cape. They are the industrial councils for the building industry and for the furniture industry. These are strong industrial councils in the Western Cape Province. For many years already Coloured trade unions have been engaged in collective bargaining with White trade unions on these two councils. In other words, this is not a new principle. Now I return to the question which I asked a few minutes ago. Is there any proof that these Coloured trade unions who worked together on these important industrial councils have played off the Whites against the Coloureds or the Coloureds against the Whites? Is there any proof that, because they were on those councils, they have pushed down the wages of the White man? I say, Mr. Speaker, that sort of argument does not hold water.

They come with another argument, and say that we are causing the trade unions to splinter and to become powerless. I do not wish to repeat the figures. The hon. the Minister gave the figures to prove that the number of trade unions in the country in 1957 had remained more or less constant. That is why I do not wish to repeat those figures, but what I do want to say is this, that during the past few years this Government has proved that all the cries which hon. members opposite raised in 1956 and before, namely that we wanted to make the trade unions powerless, that we wanted to destroy and splinter them, have been unfounded, because it is clear that this Government is well disposed towards trade unions. It has been proved during the past few years that the Government is well disposed towards trade unions. As a matter of fact, the basis of the industrial policy of this country and this Government is to recognize trade unions just as we recognize employers’ organizations, and to get them to work together under our Industrial Conciliation Act. In other words, it is not true to say that we are rendering them powerless and splintering them. That is against the policy of this Government. There can, therefore, not be a vestige of truth in the allegation that this Government harbours any evil intentions towards the trade unions.

We are also told that we are bringing compulsion to bear on the trade unions to split up. Although the 1957 legislation made it easy and possible for trade unions to divide into White and Coloured trade unions, it has always been on a voluntary basis. No compulsion was ever brought to bear on those trade unions. The Government’s policy is to have separate trade unions and we shall certainly encourage that, but in the past no compulsion has been brought to bear on them. For that reason the trade unions broke away on a completely voluntary basis. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) and other hon. members laughed yesterday when we said that it was being done on a voluntary basis. I want to put another question to those hon. members. I want to put the question differently: Why do hon. members wish to place the employees under the dictatorship of bigger trade unions? Why do they wish the bigger trade unions in the country to retain their control over the workers of the country? I want to explain that. We are in favour of it that trade unions should be based on democratic principles. I want to give one instance. There is the case of the Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers of South Africa which has 6,352 members over the whole country. The Coloured people in the Western Province formed a trade union called the Western Province Building Workers’ Union. They applied for registration and under the present Act the Registrar could not register their trade union, because according to the law the Coloured trade union in the Western Province had to have at least 3,177 members before it could break away. It had to have one more than half the number of members. I take it that most of the members here are Coloured. Assume they are not all Coloured, then they would have had to have nearly that number. Even if the Western Province Building Workers’ Union had enrolled every available member in the Western Province, they would not have obtained a membership of 3,277. In other words, even if every Coloured worker in the Western Province had decided that he wanted to break away from the Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers, the law as it stands at the moment would have prevented them from doing so. Hon. members opposite plead for it that if those members no longer want to remain members of the Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers, the principal society should have the right to tell them that they cannot break away. Then hon. members opposite call us dictators, but they are the people who are placing the workers under a dictatorship. We maintain that if the members of the trade union in the Western Province lose faith in the national trade union organization and the majority decide to break away, they should have the right to do so. That was the position under the old Act before 1956 and that is why I think they ought to have the right to break away. On the other hand we accept the closed shop principle. We want to maintain that but neither can we allow the closed shop principle to be maintained by instituting a dictatorship. That is why we are relaxing the closed shop principle to a certain extent in this Bill so as to make it easier for members to break away. I repeat that we favour the democratic principle that the majority of the workers in an area should have the right to decide whether or not they want to remain members of the principal body.

Mr. Speaker, I said it last night and I want to repeat it: The signs are there that, because the White workers were given the opportunity to belong to their own trade unions and to have their own branches in the case of mixed trade unions and because the Coloureds were given the opportunity to belong to their own trade unions and to have their own branches, the 1957 legislation has had the effect that a greater number of workers belong to trade unions to-day than previously. In other words, it has given the workers more confidence to join the trade unions and to throw in their weight in order to further their own interests.

I want to conclude by saying that I personally do not recognize the right of hon. members opposite to speak on behalf of the workers. As they are sitting there, Sir, they represent a number of urban constituencies, constituencies which consist of the capitalist groups of our nation. They cannot talk on behalf of South Africa and I can only say that they no longer have the confidence and the faith of the workers.

Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to follow the detailed arguments of the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt). I want to answer one point that he made during the course of his speech and the rest of his arguments I shall be dealing with in the course of my remarks. First of all, the hon. member made a comment to the effect that the Progressive Party stands for the recognition of African trade unions. That is true, but what he apparently does not appreciate is that we do not stand for the recognition of separate trade unions for Africans as such, we want mixed trade unions. In other words, we want a change in the definition of the word “employee” in the Industrial Conciliation Act so as to make it possible for African workers to join recognized trade unions in the occupations in which they are employed. So that although it might happen simply by virtue of the fact that Africans are engaged in one occupation and no other racial groups happen to be in that occupation, so that that will be an African trade union, we mainly want trade union rights for African workers. I wanted to get that clear on the record, that we are not for separation of African trade unions per se, any more than we are for the separation of Coloured trade unions or White trade unions, or Afrikaans-speaking trade unionists or English-speaking trade unionists. We are, in fact, for the solidarity of the working class movement in cutting across the racial structure or across the colour line.

The hon. the Minister said yesterday in his introductory speech that, since this was such a democratic measure, he hoped that he would have my support and the support of my colleagues. I want, immediately, to disappoint the hon. the Minister. I am afraid that my colleagues and I are unable to support this Bill and we will vote against the second reading, at the Committee Stage on the contentious clauses, and at the third reading of this Bill, unlike the United Party in the Other Place.

I should be grateful if some hon. member of the United Party—and I saw that the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) was on his feet last night, so may be he will be the one who explains to us with his usual acrobatic oratory—will explain to us why it was that in the Other Place the United Party, having voted against the second reading, voted for the Bill later. I think they moved as an amendment that the Bill be read this day six months which, as the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) pointed out, is the strongest form of parliamentary disapproval. How, after voting against the contentious clauses in the Committee Stage—and I will come to the point of amendments having been accepted because no amendment in principle was accepted—how, at the third reading, was it that the United Party in the Other Place voted for this Bill? But, having done that, what astonishes me is that the United Party here, in the Lower House, once again moves the strongest form of parliamentary disapproval asking that the Bill be read this day six months, the same Bill the United Party voted for in the Other Place, and tells us that they are going to vote against this Bill. I would be very grateful to know from hon. members on my right whether the lines of communication between the United Party in the Senate and the United Party in the Lower House have broken down. Or is there a different policy for the United Party in the Upper House as opposed to the policy adopted by the United Party in the Lower House? Perhaps somebody would explain to us whether it is Senator Jordan or Senator A. Z. Berman in the Upper House who decides policy for the United Party, or whether it is the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I am sure that all of us would be very grateful to have this point clarified.

I now want to come to some of the amendments which were accepted in the Other Place. The only important one, of course, was not a change of principle—and I am sure the hon. the Minister will agree with that—was the one in Clause 1 (a) whereby the Minister changed the actual definition of an area. It was too narrow, the Minister admitted that and has now changed that definition so that, in fact, the area where trade unions may be registered as trade unions has now been broadened to be an area covered by the jurisdiction of a local authority. Other than that the only amendments accepted in the Other Place included one moved by the hon. the Minister himself and an amendment moved by the hon. Senator Jordan. If I remember correctly the Minister’s amendment dealt with publication in the Gazette, and Senator Jordan’s amendment had to do with the raising of objections to a decision of the Registrar on grounds of new fact. That the hon. the Minister accepted. But no changes in principle in the form of an amendment was accepted in the Upper House. That is why we who disagree with the basic principle of this Act and of the amending Bill now before us, are going to vote against this Bill at all stages.

The hon. the Minister himself admitted, when he was discussing this Bill in the Other Place, that the main reason—and this seems to be supported by an article in the Transvaler which appeared on 1 February this year—for the introduction of this amending Bill was the difficulty which was experienced by a White union who wanted to hive off from the parent union which had previously transformed itself from a mixed union into a White union. Now the White union itself wished to split up and since the members were unable to obtain the necessary majority in the entire area of the Union, the reason for the amending clause becomes obvious. The Minister now makes it possible for White unions—for the moment this has nothing to do with mixed unions—e.g. a White union which has transformed itself from a mixed into a White union, to achieve its ends by getting a majority only in the area bound by the jurisdiction of a local authority. The hon. the Minister is apparently worried about a court decision and he has now, in fact, made it possible for these people to hive off.

Clauses I (b) and I (c) apparently bring in the same facility for unions to hive off and, indeed, for employers’ associations as well. I gather that sub-clauses (b) and (c) are more concerned with employers’ associations that wished to split. Because of the decision in the Supreme Court in which the presiding Judge overthrew a ruling given by the Registrar, who had apparently not used his discretionary rights in the way the Judge thought it necessary, the hon. the Minister is now amending the Act so that, in fact, the discretionary right now disappears and it will not longer be possible if I may paraphrase the hon. the Minister’s words—for any Judge to come along and say that in this or that case the discretion should not have been exercised and that the Registrar was not justified in ignoring them.

The trade unions have pointed out that new unions, and presumably, new employers’ associations, recruit members from the ranks of existing unions and associations without requiring them to pay any membership fees. They may easily, therefore, build up a paper membership …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I am sorry to interrupt the debate, but the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) has referred to a debate in the Other Place and has asked for a reply to actions in the Other Place. I should like to draw your attention to rule No. 72, which the hon. member should know. I should also like to ask if it is in order for the hon. member to ask for an answer in this House on matters which took place in a debate in the Other Place?

Order, order! That point of order should have been taken at the time when the hon. member made those remarks.

Can we reply to that, Mr. Speaker?

Do you want it struck from the record?

Order, order! There is no reply, the hon. member may proceed.

Thank you, Sir. Of course, if the hon. member …

Order, order! The hon. member cannot reply she must proceed with her speech.

I will do so, Sir. I was simply pointing out that hon. members could have ignored what I have said if they wished to.

Order! The hon. member must proceed with her speech.

Yes, Sir, I am coming to the Bill right now.

She should know the rules too.

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, Clauses I (b) and (c) now make it easier for associations to split, if this amending Bill is passed. I now want to come back to the hon. the Minister’s speech. He sounded almost aggrieved—and so did the hon. member for Pretoria (West) this afternoon — when he pointed out that all the dire predictions which had been made in this House in 1956 to the effect that the unions were being split asunder, that they were being weakened and that the trade union movement itself was being wrecked, that none of these dire predictions have, in fact, come true. And he was at pains to point out that no such terrible fate had, in fact, overtaken the unions. He said that the trade union movement was as strong as ever. He then put in a heart-rending plea for us to accept this Bill in order to assist the unions to carry on with the process of dichotomy which, he said, they had been carrying out voluntarily over the last three years. He said that we should help him by removing this last straw that stood in the way of the process of breaking up the unions. He also became almost lyrical in his defence of democracy, and again, so did the hon. member for Pretoria (West), whose defence of the whole democratic structure of the trade unions was considerable. He said that despotic powers were trying to undermine the democratic structure of the unions.

Let me deal now with each of the hon. the Minister’s contentions and, at the same time, with those of the hon. member for Pretoria (West). On the question of voluntary splitting, I think that the hon. the Minister is being unduly modest. He does not perhaps realize the potency of his own tacit threat of ministerial displeasure. Perhaps he does not realize how powerful an incentive that is to unions voluntarily to splinter. Those who oppose the Government know only too well that if the Government cannot persuade them to accept voluntarily the Government policy, ways will be found to coerce them so to do, by changing the law, by penalties for non-compliance and so on. So I think that the hon. the Minister underrates the tremendous weight of ministerial displeasure when he considers that the unions have simply changed their complexion voluntarily. He then said, as did the hon. member for Pretoria (West), that the unions had not been weakened, that there was no sign of weakening of the unions as a result of the change of structure from one racial group to the other or, indeed, by the splitting within the same group of White trade unions. I must tell the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Pretoria (West) that the weakness which undoubtedly must invade the trade union movement as a result of the splitting will only be felt in times of real stress such as when we have a proper economic recession and when there is widespread unemployment. That is the time when the weakness in the fabric of the trade union movement, as a result of the 1956 Act and its amending legislation, will be felt in its full weight. The results of Nationalist Party policy are not yet fully felt in this country. They have been greatly cushioned over the last few years by the Free State gold mines, by the tremendous export of additional quantities of gold. Because the fly-wheel of our economy is still the gold-mining industry. It is the gold-mining industry and its prosperity that, to a large extent, dictates the economic welfare of South Africa. And the enhanced production from the Free State has largely cushioned the economic effects which would have been felt as a result of Nationalist Party policy. But this golden goose cannot go on protecting us for ever. We have seen over the past year or so the signs that this policy is now having the predicted economic effects. We see it in the dropping off in the rate of investment. We see it in our balance of payments. We see it in the foreign exchange position and we see it, too, in the slackening down of the expansion of our national income.

We saw that in 1948 too.

No, in 1948 this Government was saved, or very shortly thereafter, by the change in the sterling price of gold. The Government was saved by that, otherwise it would indeed have been in a very bad way.

Order, order! I hope that the hon. member will not cover too wide a field or allow herself to be led astray by the hon. member.

I will not, Mr. Speaker, I was just replying to an interjection. That hon. member is the last person I would allow myself to be led astray by.

The point that I was making is that the inherent weakness in the splitting of the trade union movement, which should have been felt and which will be felt, will only become apparent when there is real unemployment in this country. At the moment the hon. the Minister himself had said that there is no real unemployment in South Africa. The figures for Coloured, European and Indian unemployment are less than 2 per cent of the employable working population. I think that I.83 is the exact figure. That is not unemployment on a vast scale. Therefore, the inherent weakness which must have set in in the trade union movement as a result of splitting the unions racially has not yet been properly felt in this country. But let recession really set in; let unemployment really become widespread and all the dire predictions that were made in 1956 will come only too truly to pass. When we find that full employment is replaced by a shortage of jobs, that one worker starts competing against another worker for the jobs that are in short supply, when the employers are put in the position of being able to play one trade union which has been split asunder against another trade union; a Coloured union against a White union; an Afrikaans-speaking union against an English-speaking union; that is when the inherent weakness which is being induced in the trade union movement by this 1956 legislation will be felt. That is the warning that I want to issue to the hon. the Minister and his colleagues. Just as job reservations have not yet had their full effect—and that is another piece of amending legislation in the same 1956 Act—so will this legislation show its effects later on. Job reservation has not had its full effect because the provisions of that Act have not been fully implemented, and that is why we have not yet felt the full effect of job reservation in our economic life. So, too, the full effect of the 1956 legislation has not yet been felt in this country.

On the question of the democracy for which the hon. the Minister makes such a plea I should like to say this: He seems to have overlooked the fact that this Bill which makes it still easier for the unions to split, runs counter to the wishes of the trade unions and the employers’ associations. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) said that this side of the House represented capitalist employers. I want to tell him that if he will only look at the Botha Commission Report, at paragraph 1040, he would see that the commission admitted that the overwhelming body of evidence, both of the employers’ associations and of the trade unions, was against the splitting of the unions. So that if it is democracy the hon. the Minister wants I suggest he should follow the recommendations by the vast majority of people in actual employment who gave evidence before the Botha Commission. I must say, in passing, that I was very interested to hear the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Pretoria (West) both championing the democratic rights of the workers and the democratic structure of the trade unions, because both of those hon. gentlemen belong to a party whose declared policy it was, and surely still is, to take all the real powers from the trade unions and to perform those functions through the strong arm of the State. All of us remember the speeches made by the previous Minister of Labour …

Order, order! The hon. member is now covering a very wide field.

Well, Sir, I am only replying, if I may say so, to the passionate plea of the hon. the Minister that we should support this democratic structure of the trade unions …

The hon. member should not yield to all the passionate pleas of the hon. the Minister.

Sir, this one I cannot resist. I would like to remind you, Sir, that it is the declared policy of his party that the trade union movement should serve a different function from the function. served by trade unions in other countries. The hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. G. L. H. van Niekerk) yesterday described to me accurately what he thought a trade union should do. He said they should be associations to serve the economic interests of the worker, and I concur with that wholeheartedly. But this is not the policy of the Government in respect of trade unions, and that is why we are so suspicious of this amending Bill, and that is why we cannot believe the hon. the Minister, or the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) when he says that the object of the Bill is to preserve the democratic functions of the trade union and to see to it that the rights and the desires of the workers are not frustrated by despotic powers. The present Government has as its policy the removal of the normal functions of the trade union, which is to see that real wages and conditions are improved for the workers, and instead to introduce overall State control of the unions. That was made very clear in a speech made by the Minister’s predecessor. He said in 1943 that he contended that wage control and wage fixation should be entirely in the hands of the State and that power should be exercised through the medium of a permanent board, and secondly he said—and this was the most important principle—that self-government in industry must be eliminated; self-governing and collective bargaining were things of the past, and the time had arrived in the interest of the State, in the interest of the employers and the employees that self-government in industry and collective bargaining should be eliminated from our economic life. That was stated by the then Minister of Labour, who is now Minister of Transport, when he was in opposition in 1943. Has he changed his mind and his policy since then, or has the Government changed its policy?

Have you never changed your policy?

No, I never have. I am enunciating the principles I have always enunciated, but there was a time when there was flexibility in the United Party to allow the enunciation of such policies.

To continue with what the hon. the Minister said—and I would like the Minister of Labour now to tell us whether it is still the policy of the Government—he said: “We propose State interference and State control on a large scale.” I can only say that we certainly have had State interference and State control on a large scale in practically every facet of our lives since this Government came into power. This Government certainly has carried out its threats, even if it does not carry out its promises. Now the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Pretoria (West) were deeply hurt at our suggestion that they were out to destroy the democratic structure of the trade unions, but I must repeat that our suspicions are justified, because of the enunciated policy of the Government, and the terms of this Bill before us to-day shows that the Government is continuing along those lines. Apparently the Government seems to think that it is the duty of the trade unions not so much to look after the economic interest of the workers, but simply to care for their welfare and to regulate domestic matters between the employees and the employers, and, for the rest, it is a matter of looking after the spiritual welfare of the workers. Now the fact that in 1956 the Government actually omitted from the definition of “trade union” the words which previously had been there in the 1937 Act, that a trade union is an association for protecting or furthering the interests of the employees or some of the employees, changed the whole nature of trade unions in South Africa. This Bill, together with the 1956 Act, is going still further to remove from the trade unions their proper function, which is to look after the economic interests of the workers, and, instead, to take real power into the hands of the Government for controlling workers and their organizations. Now what worries me, and I want the Minister please to reply to that, is that it appears that the Government is now going still further. Not content with splitting the trade unions on colour lines, which was the objective of the 1956 Act, he now wants to assist in the splitting of White unions on racial lines. That is what worries me, and I want the Minister to tell me whether there is anything in these suspicions, because, just as I looked at the words of the Minister of Transport when he was in opposition, and when he was Minister of Labour, and found that he had predicted what was going to happen as far as the democratic control of trade unions is concerned, so, in looking through speeches made by other persons of import, I find that in 1954 the Minister said—

Of course at that time he said that that was the objective, to ensure the continued existence of the European race in this country. At that time he was concerning himself with the colour bar and job reservation. Is the present Minister now concerning himself with maintaining racial superiority in the White unions? That is what worries me, because I suspect that that is the case. I remember very well that, in 1952, a concept was expressed by the chairman of the Reddingsdaadbond, in which he said at the Bloemfontein Congress—

I wonder whether the hon. the Minister sees himself as a St. George in shining armour who rescues the Afrikaner worker from the claws of the trade unions. It seems to me that, having slowly weakened the trade union movement by splitting it into groups on colour lines, further deterioration is going to set in if an even greater dichotomy of the unions is not only permitted, but is actively encouraged, by the Government on racial lines, so that employers can play off one group of White workers against the other, when the real weakness of the Act and the amending legislation shows up in times of economic recession. That is our difficulty, and that is one of the major reasons, together with the fact that we disagree in principle entirely with the question of having mixed unions, and believe that there should be mixed unions on colour lines as well as on racial lines, why we intend to vote against this Bill in the second reading, at the Committee Stage, and, unlike the United Party, also at the third reading.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) has told us that her party is not only in favour of the ordinary mixed trade unions, as we have always known them, but also in favour of admitting Bantu to these trade unions; that is to say, mixed trade unions which would consist of Whites, Bantu, Coloureds and Indians. I want to ask the hon. member whether, in an industry where the Bantu are in the majority, she is also in favour of the proposition that Whites should serve under a Bantu executive committee?

It does not shock me at all.

Is she also in favour of the proposition that Bantu should conduct negotiations in connection with the wages and the standard of living of Whites?

All the workers have common interests.

One can imagine what the conditions would be like if this were to happen. The standard of living of the Whites would be lowered in many cases. We can imagine what chaotic conditions would arise. The hon. member is fond of talking about harmonious race relations, but it is this type of action that would lead to racial friction of the worst kind.

What do the workers say?

As has been proved on numerous occasions in this debate, the workers in favour of these measures. Hon. members laugh, but if that is not the position, they have had years in which to prove that. If that were not the position we would have had industrial unrest. It has been pointed out here to what extent we have industrial peace and quiet in this country today. If there had been any dissatisfaction, we would not have had fewer disputes and strikes in 1959 than ever before. There we have proof that these measures meet with the approval of the vast majority of the workers. I do not suggest that there are no workers who are against these measures, because we will always have such people with us, but I am talking about the majority of the workers.

The hon. member for Houghton then advances this peculiar argument: She admits that up to the present moment things have been going smoothly, but she says that the effect of this legislation has not yet been felt because there is still so much prosperity in South Africa. There we have a testimonial that this Government is responsible for the fact that South Africa is faring well and that our policy is a contributary cause. This Government will see to it that we do not have the large-scale unemployment to which she referred. One of her main contentions was that it was our policy to deprive the trade unions of their powers and that the Government wishes to take over control. That is the same old story that we have heard before and I do not propose to say much about it. The Government has had 12 years, which is surely long enough, to achieve that aim if in fact that was the Government’s object. If we wanted to destroy the trade unions and if the State wished to take over control, we could have done so long ago. The hon. member now suggests, because of this amendment, that we are moving in that direction. I shall come back to that later on when I deal with some of the provisions of the Bill. Before I proceed I want to refer to just one allegation that was made by the hon. member for Houghton when she said that it was obviously our policy now not only to bring about a division of the trade unions on colour lines but also on racial lines, by which she apparently means that we propose to separate the English-speaking trade unionists from the Afrikaans-speaking members. What right has she to make such a statement? It is entirely without foundation, but I want to go further and say that this type of propaganda will certainly not promote race relations. At this juncture particularly it is a crime against South Africa to make that type of propaganda. As soon as one uses the term “Industrial Conciliation Act” all the members of the Opposition, including the United Party under the leadership of the hon. member for Yeoville, get on their hind legs like a baboon that has spotted a snake. They are frightened of ghosts which they themselves conjure up. The hon. member for Yeoville has admitted here that this Bill does contain good provisions but he says that the Bill is unacceptable and something evil because it further implements the apartheid policy. We can well understand why the Opposition oppose this measure because they have always been against the principle contained in it. That is not so important, but what is of great importance is the way in which they are acting here and the arguments that they are advancing here. Let me deal with those arguments.

The hon. member for Yeoville has made far-reaching allegations which will certainly not promote race relations. He refers to the steps taken by the Government in connection with the political rights of the non-Whites and he says that the non-Whites will now strive to obtain economic power, that they will use this machinery to achieve their aim and then use their power against the Whites. In other words, he suggests that this measure will be used by the non-Whites against the Whites and that here we are creating a dangerous situation for the Whites. Sir, that is not only a false statement but a dangerous and irresponsible one. In the first place, who are the non-Whites to whom he refers? The non-Whites who fall under these provisions are, of course, the Coloureds and the Indians, because the Bantu are excluded. The Government is accused of stirring up racialism in this country and of suffering from a fear complex, and that this is an attempt to create fear and suspicion in the minds of the Whites against the non-Whites. That is nothing but petty political propaganda. The accusation is continually being made against the Government that we are oppressing the non-Whites in the economic sphere and that we are not giving them what is their due. And now that the Coloureds are being given the opportunity here to promote their own interests by means of their own trade union, this step is represented to the White workers as a danger and a threat. Apparently the argument is that if the Coloureds remain in the mixed trade unions, they will be kept in their place there by the Whites. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) says that the best way to hold the non-Whites back is to have mixed trade unions. What does he mean by that? What sort of morality is that? The arguments advanced by hon. members opposite are wrong and they are based on false premises. What are the facts? We know from experience that in the past it was the mixed trade union in fact that was responsible for the fact that the one race was not accorded its full rights. The mixed trade unions in Cape Town before the 1956 Act were responsible for the fact that the Whites were pushed out of certain spheres of employment. In many mixed trade unions the Coloureds were in a controlling position and they were the people who fixed the conditions of employment and conducted negotiations with the employers, on their own behalf as well as on behalf of the Whites. I want to quote what the Botha Commission stated in this connection in paragraph 1049—

That is to say, where the non-Whites are in the majority the wages will be based on their standard of living, I could mention other examples as well. In mixed trade unions where the Coloureds were in the majority, we also found that White workers did not join the trade unions. That is also borne out by the report of the Botha Commission. Since we have had separate trade unions, the White workers have joined and that is one of the reasons why there is an increase in the membership and that is why we have better trade union organization to-day. Conversely, however, where in certain mixed trade unions the Whites were in the majority, we also found that the Coloured was not accorded his full rights, as the hon. member for Boland mentioned here yesterday, and that is why they also welcome this amendment. I say therefore that it is in the interests of both racial groups that each group should have its own trade union. The fear has been expressed here that in the negotiations with the employers the position of the Whites may be undermined, but that is the very thing that happened in the mixed trade unions. Moreover, in negotiations for industrial agreements every trade union is consulted and the Minister has the power to put a stop to unhealthy developments. These agreements have to be approved of by the Minister, and there are also other means that can be used, such as wage board determinations and investigations by the Industrial Tribunal. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana looks at me as though he does not believe me, but wage board determinations are used to fix minimum wages. However, that was their argument; they are afraid that these non-White trade unions will be responsible for the fact that wages are fixed unduly low.

But the hon. member has also come forward with other unfounded allegations, allegations which in the past few years have been proved to be unfounded. Since 1956 22 new Coloured trade unions have been established. There were 16 and to-day there are 38. Sir, if these things have not happened while there have been 38 Coloured trade unions, why should they happen when a few more are added? The argument has been advanced by the hon. member for Yeoville that people with political motives want to destroy the trade unions. In this respect we were even told in 1956 that National Party organizers would break up the trade unions and take away their power. On the contrary, however, the trade unions have become stronger and stronger. Another argument that was used was that the bargaining power of the trade unions would be weakened. That allegation is also without substance. Where they have common interests, trade unions form a group, whether it be by way of a federation or in some other way. We have such an example to-day in the furniture-making industry where five trade unions are working in the closest collaboration. The argument that a trade union must necessarily be a national or a Union-wide one, is without substance. The circumstances and the interests in the various areas of the country differ, and that is why it is a good thing that those interests should be served by different trade unions. Some industries had different trade unions in different parts of the country long before this legislation was placed on the Statute Book. In the garment-manufacturing industry, for example, there were five different trade unions, which the workers established not as a result of this legislation but of their own free will. The interests frequently differ in different parts of the country, and the interests of the workers can best be looked after if there are trade unions in the various areas. This new provision in the Bill in fact gives the workers in some of these areas a better opportunity to promote their interests. In the past there were large numbers of workers who, although they were in the majority in their own area, were not in the majority in the industry in the Union, with the result that their interests were not looked after, and that position is now being changed.

An important point, however, is that under the 1937 Act it was possible for workers in the different areas to break away to form their own union. That provision is being objected to now, but under the 1937 Act that was also possible. It is true that there were obstacles such as the closed-shop provision but they could break away if the workers in that area were representative. This amendment will benefit the workers. A great song has been made here about the fact that we said that the workers were voluntarily breaking away. It is stated that there is a certain measure of compulsion, but surely the workers would not break away unless it was in their interests to do so. We are now told that threats were used and that the Minister went so far as to threaten to take other steps. But the Minister is also bound by the law, and the only thing that can happen is that the mixed trade unions will also have to split up into separate branches. Reference has also been made to the provision which deprives the Registrar of his discretion in connection with members who belong to the old trade union and to the new one. It has been said that this is a drastic step which is being taken as a result of a Court judgment in a certain case. But in the past the Registrar has always exercised his discretion. If he has exercised it and if the effect of this Court judgment is going to be that in the future all objectors are going to rely on that judgment, what is going to be the use of it? It would create an impossible position.

In conclusion, the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) says that this legislation has been introduced with undue haste. Sir, we have been informed that it was published in the Government Gazette last year already, early in December. People have had a full opportunity to make representations, so this argument that the Bill has been introduced with undue haste is simply not valid. This is a short little Bill and it is not complicated, and the fact that a bulky memorandum was drawn up by one of the federations, proves that the parties had ample time. The fact that more people did not react, only goes to show that there is not the dissatisfaction amongst the workers which hon. members opposite would like to see.

The hon. member who has just sat down and who was so concerned about jumping baboons and snakes has given us a rehash of the arguments that have been dealt with throughout this debate, but as they have been covered by the various previous speakers I do not intend devoting much time to them. Before continuing to deal with the issues raised by the Minister and by speakers on that side in reply to our objections, I want to deal firstly with the attack made on this side of the House by the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman), because it is typical of the spanner which that party continuously tries to throw into the works when we are trying to deal with legislation in this House. The hon. member for Queenstown (Dr. Steytler) spoke about hiding behind the rules. I do not need to hide behind any rules, but I want to ask the hon. member for Houghton, so that there will be no doubt about it, whether I am correct in saying that their policy stands for the establishment of freedom of movement, freedom of political and trade union organization and freedom to own and occupy land, etc., in accordance with the declaration of human rights. Am I correct in interpreting the attack made by the hon. member for Houghton in these terms?

That has nothing to do with it.

It has everything to do with it. Now watch the running away. The point I am coming to is that the hon. member for Houghton said that she had never changed her political convictions, and that what she said in this debate is what she has always said in regard to trade unionism. I am trying to establish clearly what the hon. member stands for, because it is important that we should know exactly what the three divergent points of view are in regard to this measure. The hon. member for Houghton spoke of oratorial acrobatics. At least we on this side of the House have no acrobatic consciences, because this statement which I have just read, the abolition of restrictions on trade union organizations, was a statement issued in direct opposition to the policy on which that hon. member was elected to Parliament. It was issued by the Liberal Party in the election in which that hon. member was elected, standing for this party. [Interjection.] Of course the hon. member was elected; she did not just walk into this House. The hon. member says she was never elected. That is the measure of her political knowledge. The fact that the seat was not contested is a different matter, and she was elected to Parliament on this party’s policy, in regard to industrial and labour legislation, which opens with the words—

That hon. member subscribed personally to a statement that any statement made by her in conflict with what I have just read out, would be an act hostile to the party to which she belonged, the policy on which she was elected to Parliament, and now she comes here and talks about acrobatics in politics. Sir, let us be quite clear. That hon. member was elected to Parliament on this policy which I have just quoted, which recognizes the practical existence of a colour bar in industry and which recognizes that the best way to deal with the problem is through free negotiation of trade unions—

There it is stated perfectly clearly in black and white and that policy is diametrically opposed to the policy of establishing freedom of trade union organizations, without any restrictions, the policy for which the party to which the hon. member now belongs stands.

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon. member must not continue her running commentary.

It is a running-away commentary at this stage, Sir; it is not worrying me at all because I want to make it quite clear to this House and to the country that while we are being attacked here for inconsistency in our attitude to a measure, those attacks come from people who are not only inconsistent but whose policy is diametrically opposed to the very policy on which they were elected to Parliament. Not only have they no right to criticize us, but they have no representation in the Other Place; they have no say there and in fact they are not entitled to any say in this House. [Interjections.] The hon. member knows the position in regard to answering her question. Mr. Speaker was not in the Chair at the time but I am precluded from answering the direct question in regard to activities in the Other Place. I can answer it in this way that the attitude of the United Party was and is still consistent with the attitude it took up when it stood for election in 1958. We have no acrobatic conscience which enables us to come to this House with a policy which is diametrically opposed to the policy on which we were elected and then to claim to represent the will of the people who elected us.

In 1948 did you declare that you recognized Native trade unions under the tutelage of White unions, as advocated by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton)?

The hon. member asks me whether the United Party recognized a form of Native organization under the tutelage of White trade unions. Sir, he was a member of the congress which passed the following resolution; he was at the congress and voted for this resolution in November 1954—

That is clearly set out in the printed policy of the party, on which he was also elected to Parliament. He was elected by an electorate of 10,000 people to work for the creation of a type of workers’ organization, as explained by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana and now he comes here and throws away the very policy for which he himself stood, and then he has the temerity to ask a question on this issue. No, Sir, these hon. members on my left had better first establish their right to talk at all in this House by resigning their seats and asking the workers in Houghton, if there are any, and the workers in Durban (Musgrave) what they think of it. Let them ask the workers of Houghton whether they agree with that hon. member’s point of view.

You would get a rude shock then.

I wish the hon. member would do so, but I can assure you that she will not. That acrobatic conscience will enable her to sit here in this House preaching policies to which she was opposed two years ago and which she now puts forward allegedly in the name of an electorate. If those hon. members wish to speak on issues of this kind, they should go back to their electorate and ask the electorate what they think of them. We have been consistent in our attitude since 1956 when the original Act which is now being amended, was introduced until to-day. We have consistently taken the line that there should be autonomy of trade unionism and that any attempt to interfere with that autonomy should be opposed.

The Minister opened his remarks in this debate with a smooth, sugary statement that this Bill was designed to help basically a poor group of Coloureds who could not get registered as a trade union, but his arguments were blown to pieces by his backbencher behind him, the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. G. L. H. van Niekerk) who told us that the purpose of this legislation was to deal t with agitators and communists within the trade unions. Sir, it cannot be both. Either the hon. member for Boksburg was talking nonsense, or the Minister was trying to mislead the House with a picture which does not fit the facts.

You are talking nonsense yourself now.

The hon. member said that this Bill would assist the Government in dealing with agitators and communists within mixed trade unions. He said it quite clearly. Does the hon. member deny that he said that?

I deny that I said it in those words.

We are having some more acrobatics here! I would like to know what the purpose of this measure is.

He spoke in Afrikaans, so the words must have been different.

Oh, I see. I want to ask the hon. member whether he did not say “Hierdie wet sal die agitator en die kommunis in die gemengde vakunies uitroei”?

May I reply to that?

No, let the hon. member answer by way of interjection.

Order! The hon. member cannot ask questions across the floor of the House and expect answers.

The point is that we now have a clash between the Minister and the hon. member as to the intention behind this Bill. The Minister says it is merely an administrative measure, a simple measure without any harm in it and he hopes that everyone will support it. The member for Boksburg says that in fact this is aimed at existing trade unions—a clear admission that our doubts about this measure are justified; that in point of fact, this is not a mere technical measure but that it is aimed at someone. If there are communists in the trade unions, there is an anti-communist law under which they can be dealt with. Why is the Minister of Labour not using that legislation to deal with communists? If there are agitators there are other powers to deal with them. Why are those powers not being used? If any other argument were necessary, there is the proof that our doubts about this measure are justified. The Minister went on in his smooth way to say that since 1956, in four years, there has been no real change in fact in the number of trade unions and that therefore the fears that trade unions would split into racial unions and would multiply and that this would lead to friction were quite unfounded. He quoted the figure of 186 trade unions in 1956 against 184 now, a difference of two, but he stated that there were 113 mixed trade unions in 1956 and that they have now been reduced to 56. That means that 57 trade unions have ceased to be mixed trade unions. They have apparently been separated into White and Coloured trade unions. The point is that if 113 have been reduced to 56 and there has only been an increase of two in the total number of trade unions, what has happened to the other 55 trade unions who must have been left behind by the breaking away of some racial group or other?

Those racial minorities must be unrepresented then.

They must have been forced out of collective bargaining and out of the trade union movement. What has happened is not that there has been a multiplication of trade unions, but that this legislation has in fact forced the members of 55 trade unions out of the trade union movement. That must be so, because if 57 trade unions split and there are to-day only two more unions than four years ago, then 55 unions must have been absorbed, or swallowed up or must have disappeared off the face of the earth. What has happened to those unions and the people who were in them? The Minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot claim that there has been no multiplication of trade unions and at the same time claim that he has reduced the number of mixed trade unions from 113 to 56. Which is it? Is this legislation to reduce mixed unions or is it to destroy trade unions as such? Is this designed to give greater power for collective bargaining or is this measure designed to abolish the rights of people to participate in trade union activities? I hope the Minister will make that point clear because this sounds to me very much like the town whose population never grew. It stayed the same year after year, until somebody discovered the reason, namely that every time somebody had a baby a man had to leave town. Is that what is happening to the trade unions, that every time a trade union is split, a section of the members have to be pushed out of the whole system of trade union organization? Sir, unless that aspect is cleared up, then the Minister cannot have his cake and eat it. He must either accept that this measure is in fact a danger to trade unions, or if it is not, then he must explain away the arguments advanced by those who supported him from the backbenches.

The third aspect of the opposition to this measure is the aspect of the right of a minority to determine the future of the majority, a principle which this Government has denied throughout its terms of office. It has denied that principle in everything it has done. It has said: “We will not allow the minority to determine against the wishes of the majority.” But the whole objective of this measure is to enable a minority group within a trade union in fact to determine their own future, to secede from the parent body, a principle which the Government denies in every other aspect of its administration and its government. I would like to ask the Minister to make himself very clear as far as that principle is concerned—the principle of the right of a minority group to go against the decision of a majority and to establish itself as a separate organization irrespective of the wishes of the majority group.

Against those three basic objections, what are the arguments that we have had from the Government side in support of this measure? I have dealt with the hon. member for Boksburg and his agitators and communists. The Minister said that this Bill was going to increase democracy within the trade unions, that it was an expression of democracy. If it is an expression of greater democracy, if it is going to give greater rights, why is it necessary, if in any case the trend in trade union development is towards separate unions, to introduce this provision which implies a compulsory volunteering on the part of trade unions? It is the old army principle. My hon. friends over there would not know about it. It is the old principle of, “I want five volunteers, you, you and you, etc.” That is the principle that is being applied here, that it is a voluntary movement but he is going to determine who shall volunteer and what they shall volunteer for. If, as the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) claims, the natural trend within the trade unions is in any case achieving the objectives which the Minister aims at, why is it necessary for him to come forward with a new Bill? Either the trend is taking place anyway and this Bill which introduces compulsion is unnecessary or the legislation is necessary because there is not in fact a trend in that direction. Again, you cannot have it both ways. If a thing is happening in any case, then you do not need a law. If you need a law to encourage and accelerate something which is happening anyway, then you cannot be satisfied with the speed at which the trend is moving.

You can facilitate it.

To facilitate it, to accelerate it, to hasten it. In other words, it is not going fast enough. The hon. member for Boksburg cannot have it both ways. He wants to accelerate it; then he admits that it is not going fast enough; that is why he wants to accelerate the trend, and this is a Bill which is being introduced to accelerate it. But the Minister says that this is all voluntary. Now, is it voluntary or must it be accelerated? Again the Minister cannot have it both ways. Instead of dealing with these issues every member on that side of the House comes with vague generalities about how happy and contented everyone is. The member for Pretoria (West) claims to represent the workers of South Africa. It is interesting, Sir, that this afternoon he and the hon. member for Boksburg and other members on that side who represent workers’ constituencies are sitting here because there is a Black/White issue, an apartheid issue involved in this measure, but when we were dealing with unemployment insurance and workmen’s compensation and matters of that nature, the hon. member was not here, nor any of his colleagues representing the White workers of South Africa. It was this side of the House that had to fight for the interests of the worker, and yet that member now claims that they speak for the working man of this country. When the interests of the working man are at stake they are conspicuous by their absence. They bow to the will of the Minister and they say “ja baas”. This side of the House is doing its duty in the interests of the workers of South Africa. The hon. member for Boksburg did not put forward a plea for his workers when they were in trouble over unemployment insurance and workmen’s compensation.

They were never in trouble.

They were. He must go back and ask them. Hon. members on that side must not accuse us of not speaking for the workers of this country.

What did you do in 1922?

You must try to convince the workers that you do represent their interests!

Sir, I am quite happy about convincing the workers of it. The workers of South Africa are seeing step by step what is being done with their freedom and with their future, and this measure is one more step, one more intrusion into the lives of the people whom those members claim to represent. It is an intrusion into their rights and into their freedom which we on this side of the House are determined to oppose. We oppose it firstly because it is wrong in principle and secondly because it is against the interests of the workers themselves. We are not here to play games like the Progressive Party. We are here to represent the people who elected us to put forward a point of view. We are putting that point of view forward here in their interests. We do not engage in academic arguments, in lectures such as we had from the hon. member for Houghton, but we are putting forward views which we have been asked to put forward by those whom we represent. The Minister knows the views of the trade unions; he knows the views of the employers in this regard but he is deliberately thwarting the views of some of the biggest trade unions in South Africa. He is deliberately going contrary to the views of the employers in South Africa in order to carry out an ideological plan, a blue print on paper, irrespective of the effect that it is going to have upon the people on whom it is applied; and while he is carrying out one ideological blue print, this little unrepresentative group representing no one here, also comes here with an ideological blue print. We ask that in the interests of those for whom we speak this measure be amended so as not to interfere further with the rights and the freedoms of trade union organizations.

Mr. Speaker, you surely will not allow me to participate in the argument going on amongst hon. members opposite. The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) quite forgot that he had to discuss the Bill, because he was so busy dealing with the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman). It reminded me of two angry dogs which lie glaring at each other, snarling and baring their teeth, but which do not get so far as to attack one another.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) asked me what had happened to these trade unions which have now disappeared. If the hon. member had read the 1958 and 1959 reports of the Department he would have noted that the Department said on page 6—

That answers the question of the hon. member. Then the Department of Labour says the following in its 1959 report, also on page 6—

That is the reply, and if the hon. member had taken the trouble to read this, he would not have found it necessary to put these questions here.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban (Point) made a big to-do here and attacked the Minister as if this legislation is now being placed on the Statute Book for the first time. The Act has been on the Statute Book for quite a few years already, and it has had a good effect, as I shall show in a moment. The hon. member for Houghton told us that the Progressive Party is in favour of mixed trade unions. That is of course also the policy of the United Party, but I suppose that the difference between the two parties is that the United Party does not want to see Natives also belonging to mixed trade unions. That is the point made by the hon. member for Houghton, if I understood her correctly. Is that correct?

I have not been listening.

The hon. member said that she was in favour of mixed trade unions. With the leave of the Chair, I want to ask the hon. member what will happen if Natives are allowed to belong to mixed trade unions; how long does the hon. member think the White worker will then be able to exist before he disappears from the scene completely? He will simply disappear from the scene. Cannot the hon. member realize that? Surely these are facts. You cannot argue them away.

The hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Williams) said that they were opposed to the measure, because right from the beginning they were opposed to the principal Act. It is no use wasting time on those hon. members because they simply refuse to recognize the good effect of the measure.

There is a difference in principle.

Yes, but what is the principle? That is the question. Sir, it is bow more than four years since this Industrial Conciliation Act has been put on the Statute Book. The Act came into force in 1956 and just a year and a half later an amendment was made to it in the interest of the workers. I do not suppose that this is the last amendment which will ever be made to it. Any Government worth its salt and which keeps its finger on the pulse will know when amendments have to be made to an Act, and I presume that this legislation will be further amended from time to time.

We have now been listening for the past few days to the wild statements which were made in the debate and also in the past about the detrimental effect this Act is supposed to have—the large-scale disruption it is supposed to cause—but I challenge hon. members opposite to show me one single instance where this Act had a deleterious effect or resulted in disruption. No, it had just the opposite effect; it had a good effect, because it separated the races into different trade unions in which they are very happy to-day. It is obvious that every race will feel more at home in its own trade union and that it will come into its own better there than it can in a mixed trade union where it will perhaps always remain the underdog. It will be oppressed there. Sir, cannot hon. members opposite who are so concerned about the Coloureds realize that it is in the interest of the Coloureds to give them their own separate trade unions? It is obvious that they will be happier there. At the moment there are 186 registered trade unions, of which 92 are White trade unions, 38 Coloured trade unions and 56 mixed trade unions. Before this Act was placed on the Statute Book there were 55 White trade unions, 113 mixed trade unions and 16 Coloured trade unions. It is therefore quite clear that this Act has had a beneficial effect; the figures I have just quoted prove that. The Act has harmed nobody. No pressure was brought to bear on any trade union; those trade unions which split off did so of their own volition in order to put their own house in order. As I said in the beginning, I do not believe that this is the last time this Act will be amended. In the course of time loopholes will be found which have to be filled, and any Government worth its salt will see to it that these amendments are made.

Mr. Speaker, if this story that we hear so often should be the truth, viz. that the Government wants to destroy the trade unions, then I want to put this fair question to the Opposition: Can the Opposition tell me how it is possible that at least 80 per cent of the workers support the Government? If the Government is destroying the trade unions, the protection of the workers, how is it possible that the workers support the Government?

Does that also include the workers in Germiston?

Yes, but the Germiston workers are in a very difficult position. Seeing that the United Party is not prepared to reply to the question I just put, I will answer it myself: It is because the worker realizes that this Government looks after its interests and does not interfere with the voting, because it does not put false bottoms into the ballot boxes so that the votes can be tampered with. This Government does not do that sort of thing. Just let us look at the Mineworkers’ Union. Where can one possibly find a happier union than the Mineworkers’ Union? And years ago already they closed their ranks and refused to allow a mixed trade union to be established. It is one of the happiest trade unions in the country.

I do not think we need be so much concerned about the Opposition, because they have never yet done anything but try to thwart any legislation in favour of the workers. In 1956 we had the experience that they opposed the legislation and they scared up all kinds of bogies about the alleged harmful effect of the Act. What are the facts to-day? Just the opposite happened. The legislation had a beneficial effect. The fact that they opposed this measure is of course in line with the policy of the United Party, because in terms of their policy they are in favour of mixed trade unions, and consequently nobody can expect them to support this Bill. But the worker outside is watching them carefully and he knows who his friends are. Finally, in order to convince ourselves, we need only look at the position in the garment industry to-day. There we still have mixed trade unions to a large extent, and we see how the White workers are being ousted. I am surprised that hon. members opposite cannot realize it either. I assure the hon. the Minister that in regard to this legislation he has the support of the workers of the country and that they will give him their full support.

There is not a great deal to answer in what the previous speaker has said. Unfortunately for him he referred to the Mineworkers’ Union. Now if there is one union which resists this Bill and which has refused to split into fragments, it is obviously the Mineworkers’ Union. They represent the workers in the mines throughout the whole of the Union, and they are an example of what a trade union should be. They are well organized and united. Now, Sir, it seems to me strange that in a country whose motto is “Unity is Strength”, with a Government that is constantly talking about unity, we should have before this House a measure which is designed purely and simply to divide the workers of the country, to divide them when it is known that at this time in all directions the motto is “amalgamation”—in businesses, in countries, everybody is trying to unite so as to attain strength, and the hon. Minister comes with this Bill which is designed purely and simply to divide the workers of the country. Throughout the world we find the United Nations trying to unite the various workers …

Order! The hon. member is now travelling too far afield.

Well, Sir, it is the workers who are travelling. We must ask ourselves: Why is the Minister so anxious to divide up the workers? Why is he having this difficulty with the trade unions? Why does he want to splinter them and segment them? Obviously he is having difficulty with his racial policy, and he is trying to square the circle. He is faced with the problem that the Prime Minister has decided that there shall be vertical lines of apartheid, that the various races shall develop in their own areas. But we have groups of people, like the Indians and the Coloureds, who have no areas. How can they develop? Why can these people who acquire skills not be allowed to use them? So he is forced to use job reservation, but job reservation also presents difficulties, because he has to reserve one job in Durban for one race and another job in Cape Town for the same race. His own Department has just issued a pamphlet on his industrial decisions, and it makes most interesting reading to see how he has geographically divided up the races. But it does not fit in with any region that we know of, nor does it meet the statement of the Prime Minister that he is going to keep people in their own areas. No, Sir, this Bill is purely a Bill to divide and rule. It is merely a furtherance of the apartheid principle, trying to apply it in different areas.

In replying to this debate, I must in the first place express my thanks and appreciation to hon. members on this side of the House for really leaving very little for me to reply to, because in fact all the arguments which required a reply were very effectively dealt with by my colleagues on this side, and I want to thank them for doing so. I also think the time is past when only one person, viz. the Minister, can consider that he has knowledge of labour matters, and particularly of industrial conciliation which is the basis of our labour legislation.

The contributions made by your side of the House were very meagre.

I am very sorry that the hon. member for Umhlatuzana received so little assistance from his side of the House. He has my deep sympathy. He struggled, but he received little assistance.

To sum up this debate, one would say the impression was created that I was walking around amongst the trade unions with an axe in my hand to see where I could chop them up and split them and destroy them so that nothing remained. “Divide and rule”. That is the impression hon. members opposite tried to create. Hon. members opposite know this slogan “Divide and rule” very well. But it is only wishful thinking on their part. It was correctly pointed out that all the workers’ constituencies, in which the workers are concentrated, who realize that the Nationalist Party wants to support them in their trade union organizations, stand by the Nationalist Party in the various elections. There is only one of two ways in which to explain that. Hon. members opposite will have to say that the workers are stupid because they are Nationalists. Do they say that? Unless they say so, they must say that these people are satisfied because they are being supported in achieving their objectives in this way. There was only one intelligent member on the opposite side of the House, viz. the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett). He had his ear to the ground. He represents Coloureds, and he stated that although he found it very difficult during the division on this Bill to walk over to this side and to vote with us, he would do so because the Coloureds he represents wanted these uni-racial trade unions. He is an intelligent member. He knows what his people want. And the other intelligent members are sitting on this side of the House. The hon. members here know what their constituents want. They know that they do not want mixed trade unions. They know that they desire to have separate trade unions. Now, to create the impression that we want to brandish a sword wildly and just chop down and destroy is to paint a distorted picture which does not make any impression anywhere, neither in this House nor outside, and least of all in the minds of the workers themselves.

What precisely is being done here? I now want to put a question to the Opposition in connection with all their arguments: If two races have been herded together in one trade union for years, and one of those races says: “We now want to get out of this trade union in order to establish a uni-racial trade union”, why (whether they are Whites or Coloureds) does the Opposition deny them the right to do so? Is it not a primary right to do what one likes in one’s own organization? Why are those hon. members opposed to Clause 1 (a) which only says that when the majority in a group, in an area, decide that they no longer want to belong to a mixed trade union —for many reasons which I do not have to enumerate—why do they want to allow the whole group to object to it if that group in a certain area wants to split off?

What is the smallest area?

It is defined as the area of a local authority. But even though it should be still smaller, it is still a primary right, a social right possessed by these workers. The United Party is in favour of segregation in the social sphere. Why do they now want to keep these people together? The United Party itself has separate branches and separate meetings, but now they oppose the granting of the right to those people to decide for themselves. The hon. members over there do not belong to mixed trade unions.

We never attacked it.

But surely the United Party opposed Section 8 tooth and nail, and they called for a division on every sub-section when the Industrial Conciliation Act was before the House in 1956.

And rightly so.

Yes, the hon. member for Houghton agrees that that was the case. Mr. Speaker, surely it is a primary right. What has been reached, what has been attained and where has all this talk of yesterday got us? That was the first provision which the Opposition opposed.

The second matter they opposed is the simple right, when you are forced in terms of a closed door principle to be a member of a trade union if you want to retain your employment, and you now decide together with your friends that you want to establish another trade union, which will better protect your interests, to be exempted from the closed door principle simply for the period during which you are a member of the proposed trade union, so that you will not lose your employment. Why are the hon. members opposed to that? Surely that is not a splitting up of trade unions. Surely that was always the position, even in the time of the United Party Government, that trade unions had the right to split up provided they complied with certain conditions. All we are saying here is that although the Registrar always had a discretion, we now tell him: If you now compel a man in terms of the closed door principle to belong to a trade union, and the man says that he now has the opportunity to join another trade union, which will be more beneficial to him and from which he will derive more advantages, why cannot you, as the Registrar, relieve the man of his membership until such time as the other trade union which he wants to join has been registered?

What prevents them from making the existing trade union more effective?

That is not the point. The man who belongs to that organization should have the personal freedom and the right to decide for himself. That is what I am pleading for. I am not pleading here for trade union A or B or C. I am not pleading for the greatness and the power of it. I am pleading for the right of individuals who want to organize themselves for certain purposes. If I belong to a certain church, why should I not have the right to resign from that church and to join another church if I wish to do so? Why should the worker be compelled, and why should it be made difficult for him to resign if he is no longer satisfied and happy, or feels that his interests will be better catered for elsewhere?

Why should the converse principle not apply? Why does the Government compel, e.g., the Nursing Association, which in essence is also a trade union? Why should they not be left free to decide whether they want to split off or not?

The hon. member is not following my argument at all. In the first place, I am saying that the Opposition wants to restrict the personal freedom of any trade union member, of any worker. My attitude is that that is not right. What is envisaged in this Bill in the first place is to grant absolute freedom to members, without any unnecessary regulations and provisions which prevent them from voluntarily establishing an organization. It is a voluntary organization, established for a certain purpose, and the object of it is to promote the economic welfare of the members. It is for them to decide whether they want to remain members of the existing trade union, whether they want to establish a new trade union, or whether they want to liquidate completely the existing union. That is my reply to my hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw), who asked what had happened to a number of trade unions. A trade union is not a static association which always has to remain unchanged. Here I have the figures for one year only. In one year the registration of 15 trade unions were cancelled and 17 new ones were registered. Another factor contributing to the reduction in the number of mixed trade unions is the fact that some of these trade unions decided to liquidate the existing mixed trade unions and to form new trade unions, or to establish just one trade union. This is not a static thing which can be calculated arithmetically and we want to say: This year there were so many, and if so many mixed trade unions disappeared there should still be so many trade unions left. The hon. member should really visit the office of my Department. Then he can obtain a complete list showing what happened to every mixed trade union which split up and those which were deregistered, and which others amalgamated. It is a long story.

The third point against which the greatest objection is raised is simply the fact that where a trade union has been registered nationally (for the whole of the Union of South Africa or for the whole of the Transvaal or some other area) and which is representative of the whole area, we now have this new provision here. In certain small areas the trade union is not representative. The hon. member for Boland gave the best example of this. National trade unions were registered, which also included the workers in the Western Province. Now the workers in the Western Province are mainly Coloureds, whereas in general, in so far as this national trade union is concerned, there are more White members than Coloureds. Now the Coloureds in the south are quite rightly beginning to feel that their interests are not being properly protected. Or even where there are White workers they may in a certain small area feel that their interests are not being sufficiently protected. And that is the reason why the hon. member for Boland is going to vote for this Bill, because he will be voting for that right which we are giving to these workers.

The second point I wish to make is that the hon. members for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn), Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) and Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) particularly emphasized the point that we really intend splintering the trade unions by means of this plan of ours. We are now going to split them up on a large scale for political or ideological reasons and for many other reasons which I do not understand, and consequently we will now have all kinds of difficulties. They say that a big united front will be formed, an economic front, which will become a fatal front, even a political front. I just briefly want to reply to these further criticisms. The scare-mongering stories were told five years ago already, and they were repeated yesterday and to-day. Now I just want to tell them that this really made very little impression. Actually, it created the impression that the hon. members who repeated these old arguments had really fallen asleep instead of becoming excited about these old arguments they raked up. I ask myself: What do you really gain thereby? There is no Labour Party supporting these trade unions. In addition, a year and a half ago we adopted legislation prohibiting a trade union from having any affiliation with a political party or even contributing money to such a party. But what are hon. members opposite seeking now? The Nationalist Party are not the big employers, the big capitalists who want to try to kill the workers’ organizations so that they can derive economic benefit from it. That just is not so. We ourselves are the workers. Why should we kill ourselves? This is the most ridiculous argument, at which the whole world and everybody concerned are laughing. When this type of legislation is introduced it is particularly the employers who make a row, and some of the employees who sometimes bark with them. But the interests which are being catered for here are those of the workers as such, and the White worker does not want to remain in the mixed trade union. The White worker wants to have the personal freedom, even though he is bound by the closed door principle, to be able to belong to another trade union if he so chooses. The White workers who live in the distant parts of the country and whose interests are not being protected by an existing trade union, wants the right to have his representation in that specific area determined, apart from what the position is in the rest of the country. The worker demands that of us. We have our ear to the ground and our finger on his pulse. And that is the reason for introducing this legislation. I do not have to make excuses or to take further notice of these ridiculous attacks. But I would like to reply to a few of the questions put to me.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana alleged that a White trade union would be able to be registered in a trade and in an area in which another White trade union had already been registered for that trade. I want to tell the hon. member that Clause 1 only applies to the case where the existing trade union is a mixed trade union. The law has always admitted the establishment of a second White trade union if it is sufficiently representative of the parties. That has been so since 1937.

In a small area?

Yes. We have that to-day. We have the A.E.U. and we have the Iron and Steel Industry Association. It simply depends on how much support they can get, and those unions were not established under this legislation but under the old United Party legislation. It is not something new. The hon. member for Houghton also raised this matter. But the law has always allowed the establishment of more than one trade union for the same trade, even during the United Party régime. Then the hon. member for Umhlatuzana asked whether the new trade union could become a member of an industrial council, when there has been such a splitting off? Yes, in terms of Section 18 (2) any organization of employers or employees can apply for membership of an industrial council, and it is quite within the power of such an industrial council to grant or to refuse such application in terms of the provisions of its constitution. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana made another allegation in regard to which I have to correct him, and that is that the delimitation (Clause 8) is now being amended; that the Minister at the moment has the power and that the amendment now gives it to the Industrial Tribunal. I want to tell the hon. member that of course this has nothing to do with it at all. In the 1956 Act it was given to the Industrial Tribunal, but the decision of the Supreme Court was that the delimitation of the Industrial Tribunal was not correct there. I am not going into the details. The defect was that the provision in the 1937 Act was omitted in the 1956 Act, and all we are now doing in Clause 8 is to follow the old approved course and putting the provision contained in the 1937 Act back in the Bill, so that it will be put beyond all doubt that the Industrial Tribunal now has precisely the same power which the Minister had in terms of the 1937 Act.

I do not think there are any other points of interest in regard to the Bill to which I need devote attention. Many allegations were made here and there was much politicking, but I am dealing now with the content of the Bill and I think I have dealt with all the points raised. In conclusion, I just want to appeal to hon. members not to exaggerate the principles contained here and not to attach the meaning to those principles which they have attached to them.

Question put: That the word “now”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion,

Upon which the House divided:

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

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

Question affirmed and the amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on the Bill on I March.