My attention was drawn this morning to articles which appeared in certain newspapers yesterday and which published the recommendations of the Select Committee on the subject of the Motor Vehicle Insurance Amendment Bill before the report of the committee had been published. This was clearly a contravention of Standing Order No. 185 which provides that the proceedings of, the evidence taken by, or the report of any select committee, or a summary of such proceedings, evidence or report, shall not be published by any member of such committee, or by any other person, until the report of such committee has been printed by order of this House.

The members who supplied the information on which the articles were based have informed me that as the report of the select committee was presented yesterday they were under the impression that the provisions of Standing Order No. 185 no longer applied. They now realized their error and apologized to me and to the House for their action.

The parliamentary reporters of the newspapers concerned were under the same impression and have also apologized for publishing the articles.

Under the circumstances I feel that no further action need be taken but I should like to emphasize, as Mr. Speaker Jansen did in 1935, that the report of a select committee does not become public property when it is presented to the House but only when it has been printed and made available to members.

I move—

In my reply to the debate on the second reading of the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Act in this House in 1962 I gave the assurance that if defects were found in the Act I would be prepared to remedy them. The Act has now been in operation for 17 months and during that time technical oversights of a minor nature have been discovered in the practical application of the Act. The object of this Bill is to remedy those technical oversights.

I expect some hon. members in this House to allege that the 1962 Act was too hastily steamrollered through the House and that they expected me to come back. I just want to say to those hon. members that, except in one case, no change is suggested in this Bill which affects any principle. The amendments that are suggested are mostly purely and simply intended to ensure that certain beneficiaries will retain the rights they had under previous legislation or that they will also benefit by the increased payments.

In this connection I also wish to direct hon. members’ attention to the fact that over the past months there have been discussions between the Chamber of Mines and the mine trade unions with a view to the introduction of a completely new system of pneumoconiosis compensation. I as Minister of Mines was officially informed of a broad agreement arrived at between these two groups, the Chamber of Mines and the mine trade unions. I have not had an opportunity of meeting these people again, although they advised me at the outset of their plans. I hope to meet the mine trade unions and the Chamber of Mines towards the end of this week, when they will give me the details of the agreement they have entered into. Hon. members will realize, therefore, that because of the possibilities that await us, if we should accept those suggestions, it would be inadvisable at this stage to effect any changes to the principles of the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Act of 1962. I may also inform hon. members that I have consulted the mine trade unions and the Mineworkers’ Union jointly in regard to this legislation to ascertain whether they were of the opinion that this legislation should be kept back until more comprehensive legislation could be introduced. Both of them replied that they agreed with the legislation and that we should continue with it.

As hon. members know, we have had a series of laws since 1911 in connection with pneumoconiosis and tuberculosis compensation. In each one of those Acts kinds of benefits and categories of beneficiaries were created and by now it has become a highly involved business, when new legislation is drafted, to ensure that the existing rights of each category of beneficiaries are carried forward. It is often only when the wording of certain provisions in the law are analysed in finer detail in their practical application that it is discovered that the rights of individual exceptional beneficiaries are not sufficiently protected. That has already happened in the past and it has again happened now. That can hardly be avoided. Those are the sort of technical problems and omissions which will probably never be discovered in this House no matter how much time is devoted to the legislation.

I just want to mention a few matters that are being put right. Under previous legislation a few widowed mothers of deceased mineworkers received pensions on the ground that they were dependent on their sons and that on the death of those mineworkers they did not leave any other dependants. The 1962 Act provides for those pensions to continue to be paid to them, but a minor amendment is necessary in order to be able to pay them the increased widow’s pension as well. There are six such cases. Then there are five cases of orphans over the age of 18 years who received pensions because of permanent physical disability. In their cases too a minor amendment is necessary to enable them to enjoy the benefit of the increased pensions.

Under the 1946 Act an increased pension was granted to approximately 46 orphans under 18 years of age because they did not have any other source of income or anybody to look after them. An amendment is necessary, however, in order to be able to continue to pay the increased pension to them (at most double the basic pension), otherwise it will only be possible to pay them the basic pension.

Hon. members will see, therefore, that only exceptional cases demand special attention and that they are exceptions to the general rule. They were only discovered when the pensions were adjusted in each individual case and when I tell hon. members that approximately 15,000 adjustments had to be made they will realize how difficult it is to make provision to cover every individual case.

Then there is an amendment which empowers us to give the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions the right to pay an allowance to those beneficiaries who, as a result of the increased pneumoconiosis pension they received, would have had to sacrifice their old-age and other social pensions, an allowance which will ensure that their total income (i.e. pneumoconiosis pension plus old-age pension) is not less than they received before. As hon. members know, old-age and disability pensions are subject to a means test. The increase in the pneumoconiosis pension, which is taken into account for the purposes of the means test, would in some cases have meant that those other pensions would have fallen away and those persons would actually have been prejudiced by the increase in the pneumoconiosis pension. In those cases the full pneumoconiosis pension is paid to-day and it is supplemented by an allowance from the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. Taken together, this ensures that they still receive the amount they received previously.

Provision is also made for the payment of a special grant to the widow or dependant children of deceased mineworkers who received a pension in respect of tuberculosis before their death. In such a case the widow and the children are not entitled to a pension and the general Pneumoconiosis Compensation Board is now authorized to make special grants in deserving cases. I wish to make it clear that it was not the intention in the original Act that the persons concerned in any of the cases I have mentioned should not benefit by the increased payments under the new Act. They were purely technical oversights when the legislation was drafted and in the meantime adjustments were made administratively in expectation of these amendments.

Except for a few other minor amendments of an administrative nature, inter alia, the calculation of funds for compensation to Bantu and the accounting between the general Pneumoconiosis Compensation Board and the Department of Bantu Administration and Development; to prevent the possibility of more than one pension being paid to the same person under the Act; and to facilitate the collection of outstanding debts from some smaller mines, there is only one other amendment of importance which calls for an explanation.

At the moment the law places a total prohibition on people who have been found to suffer from tuberculosis from working in any dusty atmosphere. If a person has once been found to suffer from tuberculosis he is never again allowed to work in a dusty atmosphere. This provision has been in operation since 1912 and since then it has been inserted in every Act. This is somewhat of a contentious matter and there is a measure of difference of opinion amongst doctors on the question of whether cured tuberculosis sufferers, under proper supervision, should be allowed to work in a dusty atmosphere. What is well known—and all are agreed on this—is that there is a dangerous relationship between silica dust and tuberculosis, and dominant medical opinion throughout the world is that it is indeed most undesirable and even dangerous to expose tuberculosis sufferers, even after they have undergone what can be regarded as a complete cure, without any restriction, to dust and the strenuous demands of underground conditions. That remains a fact and at this stage I am not prepared to relax the policy in this regard. But this is also a question, however, where each case must be considered on its merits. There are cases, particularly where the tuberculosis was discovered at a very early stage, where the treatment was very effective and where the persons will not suffer any harm by being slightly exposed to dust. I particularly have in mind people who work above ground but whose work demands that they occasionally go underground for short periods at a time to do inspection work or to perform a special task. For example, there are mine managers, assistant mine managers and certain technicians who have to go underground twice or three times per month at the most and then only for a few hours at a time.

The existing restriction hits these people very hard and it hits the mining industry equally hard. Very often it is the efficient and experienced officials and workers of the mining industry who are thus prevented from going underground. It is felt that the Bureau should be given limited discretion in such cases in order to allow persons, who have been effectively cured, to go underground for limited periods. Clause 2 of the Bill provides for this but the number of periods they will be allowed to work underground are limited to three, 64 hours at the most, i.e. eight shifts over any 30-day period.

I just want to say that this concession on the part of the medical men is recommended and welcomed. On the one hand it will give great relief to certain workers and also to the industry, and on the other hand it will enable the doctors, by way of an experiment, to try to find an answer to the contentious question of whether tuberculosis sufferers, after effective treatment, should be allowed to continue to work in a dusty atmosphere. I want to give the assurance, however, that this matter will be handled with the utmost care. The Bureau will co-operate with such centres as the Springkell Sanatorium and others where these people are treated, to ensure that such persons will continually be under strict medical supervision, and if there is the slightest indication that it affects them adversely the concession will immediately be withdrawn in individual cases according to circumstances. Nor shall I hesitate to have it deleted from the Act if it appears that the concession is dangerous.

I want to repeat that at this stage, in view of medical advice, I am not prepared to relax the general principle that tuberculosis sufferers should not be allowed to work in a dusty atmosphere unrestricted. By way of an experiment, however, I am prepared to make this limited concession so that the doctors, in their discretion, may meet deserving cases where they are convinced that short periods in a dusty atmosphere will not do any harm.

In conclusion I just want to say that all the amendments suggested in the Bill have been approved by the General Pneumoconiosis Compensation Board, i.e. by the employers and the employees. Most of the amendments were requested or recommended by the board.

We on this side of the House welcome this Bill. All of us in this House appreciate just what an important part mining plays in this country of ours and what a very important part has been played by the original discoverers of the various reefs and outcrops, the entrepreneurs, those who preceded them, the scientists and the technicians. All of us are very conscious of the fact that in this process of the development of our mining industry, particularly our gold-mining industry and certain other forms of mining, many of our citizens and others who have come to this country have had their health damaged, in many cases beyond repair. Those people have always enjoyed the utmost sympathy of both sides of the House, whatever Government has been in power. Sir, we recognize the contribution made by these people, and when we find that things have gone wrong it is only right that the law should be amended. Leaving aside for the moment the last very important matter to which the hon. the Minister has referred affecting the right of persons who have had tuberculosis to work underground, I would like to say that we believe it is right that this Bill should pass the second reading. We welcome most of these provisions which do represent an improvement. But I am very glad that the hon. the Minister did refer to certain criticism which was put forward at the time when the original measure was before this House. I am sorry that the hon. the Minister indicated that the nature of the amendment before the House showed that that criticism was not justified. Sir, that criticism that this was rushed legislation and that legislation of this sort should not be rushed has been abundantly justified by what has happened since the passing of the original measure. We were asked to pass that Bill at short notice; we recognized that it was an important measure, but we reserved to ourselves the right to criticism, as we did at that time, the way in which this measure was brought before this House. Sir, a measure of this sort, if it is at all possible—and the Government should make it possible—should be introduced into this House and referred to a select committee so that all the various provision can be carefully examined.

Sir, in discussing the hon. the Minister’s Vote last year I referred to this matter in quite strong language and said that it had been found that there were errors in this measure. The hon. the Minister knows that it was necessary for him to give certain directives which to a certain extent put matters right. Now we have before us a large number of very important amendments which experience has shown should have been incorporated in the original measure. The criticism of this side of the House of the way in which the original measure was put through has been abundantly justified. In saying that I want to make it perfectly clear that we welcome this Bill because we see in it a further step in the right direction. It is, as the hon. the Minister has quite fairly said, filling gaps which existed in the original legislation, gaps which were not spotted at the time. I think the hon. the Minister will agree that neither members on that side nor on this side who take an interest in this subject really have the opportunity of fully fulfilling their functions as Members of Parliament in respect of this legislation in the difficult circumstances which existed. I know that the hon. the Minister himself had to go overseas on very important business but, Sir, I would like to express the hope that the hon. the Minister will bring to the attention of the hon. the Prime Minister the fact that it is essential that in respect of legislation of this sort, which is of a purely technical character, where there is no desire on the part of the Opposition to spend an unduly long time in debating the matter and where the sole aim of both sides is to get the most effective measure on the Statute Book, members of this House should be given the opportunity of playing their full part. I do hope that the hon. the Minister will lay those remarks before his colleague. They are abundantly justified by what has happened in respect of this very important matter.

Sir, I do not wish to traverse the provisions of the Bill in detail. There are very many clauses here which make provision for benefits which persons are already receiving and which are being validated by this Bill. We accept that, Sir, and we will deal with this more fully in the Committee Stage. Perhaps they will be dealt with by other hon. members also in the course of this debate. There are some matters, however, to which I would like to make particular reference. The first of these is the matter on which the hon. the Minister himself spent some time, and that is the very important subject which is dealt with in Clause 2 of this Bill and which deals with the cases of persons who have suffered from tuberculosis or from pneumoconiosis and tuberculosis. I want to say that we on this side of the House have had the advantage of discussing in our committee with two very distinguished members of the medical profession who sit on this side of the House, one of whom has had immense experience of pneumoconiosis through his practice. The other, while not resident on the Rand, has immense technical knowledge of this subject and is regarded, as the hon. the Minister knows, as an expert on this subject. While we are happy and prepared to agree to pass the provision which makes it possible for a person who has been found to be suffering from tuberculosis or pneumoconiosis but has been cured or the disease rendered non-infectious, to work underground once again under controlled conditions, it is only right that I should say that we have grave reservations. We believe that this is a matter which must be watched very carefully indeed. I throw out the suggestion that to make assurance doubly sure that the permission given can be withdrawn, an amendment should perhaps be moved at the Committee Stage to make it quite clear that any permission granted in terms of this section can be withdrawn by the issuing authority at any time. I believe that that would be a reasonable safeguard. Apart from the difficulties mentioned by the hon. the Minister, I believe there is a great deal to be said for making this experiment—and it must be regarded as such—obviously this is a provision which does not only affect the ordinary miner, with whom we have the greatest sympathy, but it may well apply to persons who are very distinguished in the medical field and in the technical field, who really cannot make a contribution commensurate with their training unless they have the opportunity of going underground. I have in mind, for instance, some of the senior executives on the mines. They themselves can, of course, contract these diseases. I do stress that we believe that this is a matter which will have to be watched very carefully. Until recently, in the light of modern medical knowledge and modern remedies, the medical profession as a whole has been absolutely opposed to a provision of this sort. We will support this provision but we feel it is right that a warning note should be sounded and that there should be the very closest contacts maintained with all cases where such permission is granted. We feel that they should perhaps be examined more often because, as we all know, if these persons again contract tuberculosis it is possible that they may be able to infect other workers with whom they come into contact. However, the hon. the Minister himself has issued a warning note and I am glad he did so. In spite of the warning note which I have sounded on behalf of this side of the House, and I am sure that some of my medical friends here will add to that warning—we feel that we can nevertheless support this provision, but we do hope that the most careful watch will be kept to find out whether in fact the hopes of scientists that this problem has been overcome have been fully realized.

I do not propose to go into the details of the clauses at this stage but I would like to say that I am very glad that the oversights in the legislation of 1962 are now being rectified and that nobody has been prejudiced because the gaps in the law have been discovered and the persons concerned have in effect been paid the amounts to which they would have been entitled if the law had been framed correctly. I hope the Minister will be able to give us the assurance that that has been done in every case. We are very glad to see that two errors are being rectified. Sir, we cannot ever regard legislation of this sort as the final word. One knows that with the advance of medical science there will undoubtedly be further discoveries, and it is possible that as the years go on, if this legislation remains, we will find that it is necessary to make further amendments from time to time.

Finally I wish to refer to another matter raised by the hon. the Minister, namely, the question of the possibility of suggestions being made after consultations between employee and employer of a new approach to this whole question. I have seen references in various technical magazines and publications and I have heard of the discussions which have been going on. We would all welcome it if this very difficult question of pneumoconiosis could be dealt with in the way in which we have learnt under our modern system of industrial democracy with ever so many of the problems which have been so difficult in the past year. If acceptable provisions—obviously they will have to be carefully examined not only by the Government but by this side of the House and by the interests involved—could be devised it would be a very good thing. If such a system could be evolved it would obviously have to come before this House. I shall not give any final judgment on the matter. This is something which is still under discussion. South Africa can be proud of the fact that in this great mining industry of ours, a mining industry in which in the past there were very grave difficulties between the employers and the employees, the feelings between the employers and employees have improved to the extent they have. It is important that that should be the position in this the greatest of our industries, the industry on which the progress of this country has been so largely based. I understand that in an important matter of this sort there has been considerable progress made in the discussions. Most important of all, I believe, there has been the best of understanding between the two sides in the examination of the possibilities to evolve some such system.

Do you know the details?

Most of us know some of the details. Only those right in the heart of the discussions will know of them all. I can only hope that we always approach the problems besetting our industries in this spirit; it is the right spirit. One must, of course, reserve judgment as to the final result. Then one can obviously only debate what is placed before us in the course of time. I do believe this is indicative of a really sound and healthy employer/employee relationship in our gold-mining industry and that is something of which all of us can be proud.

Sir, we shall support this Bill. On certain clauses we shall ask for further information during the Committee Stage. The clause dealing with tuberculotics is one the operation of which will be watched very closely indeed, I am sure, by the Minister’s Department, also by the union and by the Chamber. I can assure the hon. the Minister that it will also be watched very closely by those of us on this side of the House who take an interest in this important matter. Subject to what I have said we give this Bill our blessing and we hope that any doubts which may remain in respect of some of these matters we shall be able to help clear up in the later stages of this Bill.

The hon. member who has just spoken has said that they welcome this Bill. That, of course, makes the task of the hon. the Minister easier. As explained by the hon. the Minister this is not a Bill which affects any principles. It is preeminently a measure which is aimed at ironing out certain difficulties which have arisen in the administration of the existing miner’s phthisis laws. Nobody can object to that and that is also the reason why the hon. the Minister is able to say that all bodies have informed him that he can go ahead with this measure. This is not a measure over which there need be any quibbling or quarrelling.

Like the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) I also wish to express a hope in this connection, but the hope I wish to express is on a completely different plane from his. I think I can say that they are as far apart as the South Pole is from the North Pole. His is the South Pole and mine is the North Pole. I know it is not necessary for me to try to soften the Minister’s heart. I know he feels like most of us feel in this House, i.e. sympathetic towards this matter. No worker in this country gets more sympathy than the mineworker. He always gets that. I trust therefore, Mr. Speaker, that you will allow me to tell you how sensitive I am as far as this matter is concerned. I do not want to say I am allergic to it, because that is not a pretty word; that means contagious and we are to-day dealing with a contagious disease. I am very sensitive as far as this matter is concerned. Sir, and I trust, therefore, that you will allow me to tell the Minister what I am hoping for. I have no doubt but that in the long run the Government and the powers that be will be well disposed towards this matter. Once again we are dealing with a measure of which the Minister could rightly say it was an agreed measure. But I wish to remind the hon. the Minister, both sides of the House and everybody concerned in the matter, that over the past 30 years this is the umpteenth measure dealing with miner’s phthisis, silicosis and pneumoconiosis that has been before this House. Every one of them, except the measure which dealt with chest complaints, was an agreed measure. Those agreed measures were the results of negotiations between the mine owners and the employers. They used to come to the Minister and say: “This is what we have agreed upon. In other words, this is something good; just put the stamp of legislation on it and everything will be right.” But has it ever struck you, Sir, that the one agreed measure after the other has always been a failure? They failed because the people who worked in the mines did not place their trust and hope in those two bodies which had come to an agreement, but in this House. And this House cannot evade its responsibility when we are dealing with the health not only of one section but of the entire nation. Then it is no longer a question of something that must be agreed upon between the employer and the employee but it becomes a national question in connection with which this House cannot and may not evade its responsibility. I know every member will agree with me on that. Where these agreed measures have always disappointed us in the past I would like to add this that I am the last person who will to-day try to wreck the broad agreement which the Minister says may be arrived at. Here I agree with the hon. the Minister and the previous speaker: Let us give them an opportunity of coming forward for the umpteenth time with an agreed measure between themselves. But do not let us ever again in future, when it comes to defining a disease and laying down the scales of compensation, depend on a so-called agreed measure. Experience over the past 30 years justifies me and every hon. member in this House to say that the time has indeed arrived that this House should no longer hide behind agreed measures but that that question should once and for all be investigated by a competent commission, by people who are competent to make recommendations to the Minister, recommendations which he can then submit to this House and refer to a select committee so that we can come forward with something which everybody, outside and inside this House, can accept with joy. I do not think anybody can find fault with that. Before I am interrupted and told that there have already been commissions and commissions and commissions I want to say that the commission I have in mind must investigate matters which have never yet in the whole history of our mining industry been investigated. Mr. Speaker, you will remember that we had the Allan Commission. They did an excellent job of work. After that we had the Beyers Commission which submitted an excellent report. But all that only dealt with the activities of the bureau as such.But the extent to which miner’s phthisis affects the health of the nation has never yet been investigated.

You are now talking about the socio-economic aspect.

I am talking about tuberculosis. That person only becomes a danger when he suffers from tuberculosis in which case it becomes a question of the health of the nation. Then it is no longer a question which only affects the industry. I want to ask the Minister, without trying to soften his heart, to have the matter investigated at the highest possible level, not only as far as the Whites are concerned but also as far as the Bantu are concerned. It is very easy to remove a large number of Bantu when they are potential sufferers. I pin my hope on the Minister that he will, in the first instance, appoint such a commission, a commission that will determine to what extent tuberculosis, which includes pneumoconiosis to-day, affects the health of the nation. I want to ask that the Department of Health should also be concerned in it and I also want to ask that the Department of Health be concerned in it because the Government has already accepted a high degree of responsibility in that it makes a considerable contribution towards the compensation paid to miner’s phthisis sufferers. I am referring to that £8,000,000—not rand.

I said a moment ago that that measure which dealt with chest complaints was not an agreed measure. That was the best measure of them all, except that the benefit scales were completely inadequate. However, those in power did not stop nagging and nagging from both sides until they eventually also persuaded the employees’ organizations to make representations to the Government to change the law. That makes me so extremely sensitive to and extraordinarily wary of this agreed measure. Where I view this matter from a health point of view, and if my words are falling on sympathetic ears, which I hope is the case, I trust the question of compensation will also be taken into account. If those benefits are investigated I hope the much discussed subject of the mineworkers’ pensions will also be discussed. All that should be included in the terms of reference of such a commission. The results of this broad agreement to which the hon. the Minister has referred can then be gone into by such a commission. They can determine to what extent those results comply with the demands we all hope will be complied with, i.e. a miner’s phthisis Act which makes provision for proper compensation, compensation we need not be ashamed of. Mr. Speaker, I speak with the minimum amount of insistence to-day. When you compare the pensions paid by other organizations, such as the Railways, for example, with the pensions paid to mineworkers, the latter compares very unfavourably. We must not forget that we are dealing here with a person whose health has been ruined. In most cases he is still in the prime of life but his health is finished. As against that when the railway worker goes on pension he is still a healthy person. He is a person who does not affect the health of the nation as such; nor does he affect the health of his family. This is not the appropriate time—I hope I shall get an opportunity at a later stage—to point out that authorities have expressed the opinion—this is not my opinion—that the high incidence of miner’s phthisis can be considerably reduced in two ways. The first is to exert sufficient presure on the mine authorities to comply with Regulation 58 (2) (b), i.e. to provide 30 cubic feet of fresh air to every mineworker every minute. The second is that the compensation must be of such a nature that the mine authorities will realize that it will pay them better to comply with that regulation and have fewer cases of miner’s phthisis sufferers than not to supply the required quantity of fresh air, in contravention of the law. The third is very important and is one which a large number of mineworkers are hoping for. What I am about to say I am saying on the authority of Dr. Irvin. It stands in black and white in the report of the 1929 Commission. In those days we still spoke about the ten-year system. He was asked what the effect would be on miner’s phthisis if a mineworker could be removed from underground immediately after ten years’ service. His reply was that if you did that the cases of miner’s phthisis would be reduced to nine out of 1,000 where it is 1,000 out of 1,000 to-day. I know conditions have been greatly improved underground. We all realize that. We are not arguing about that. I say we must look after the health of the nation. That is number one. Secondly, we must look after the interests of the mineworker by removing him from underground at a given moment—I am not saying after 10 or 12 years; that must also be investigated. If we do that we shall prevent a large number of mineworkers ever contracting miner’s phthisis. In view of that I wish to say something to-day. There are people who simply cannot believe it but up to the present nobody has yet spent a lifetime on a mine—i.e. that he has worked on a mine, say, from the age of 21 till he retires—without contracting miner’s phthisis. I know many people do not agree with me but I ask them to give me the name and the number of a single person who has worked his whole life on a mine without contracting miner’s phthisis. I am not saying this to irritate anybody, but I mention it to show how serious the position is. It is serious because it affects the nation as a whole. But it is not so serious that we have to throw up our hands and say there is nothing we can do about it. We can do something about it, Mr. Speaker. We can do something about it by following the two methods I have mentioned. The one is the limited period underground. You cannot remove all of them, because, as the hon. member for Germiston (District) has said, there are people who have concentrated on the mines, people who will not change their career on the mines for anything in the world. He is pre-eminently a professional man in mining. You cannot interfere with that man. But you can see to is that the great majority leave the mining industry at a certain stage. If we do that we shall be saving many people from this dreaded disease.

I do not want to quarrel with the Minister. He and I are good friends. I do not expect him to say “yes” or “no” to-day to the hope I have expressed here. I realize what I have suggested is something big. All I ask is that he will go into the matter and that he will, at a later stage, see his way clear, after all possible negotiations have taken place, and after he has gathered practical suggestions from the mining industry as such and the employees as such, to appoint such a commission. I just want to add that I shall support the Minister but the condition I impose is the fulfilment of the hope I have expressed.

The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) has today spoken in a strain similar to that in which members of the Opposition spoke in 1962 when the original Bill was introduced. You will remember, Sir, that when we queried whether this was really an agreed measure, the hon. member for Krugersdorp asked the Minister for the deletion of a certain clause. This was what he said (Hansard, Col. 6784)—

I now want to pointedly ask the hon. the Minister: Was this Act really an agreed measure? Because within a matter of three months of the passing of that Bill, the then Secretary of the Mineworkers’ Union, Mr. Ellis, said the following in the Mynwerker—

He said that neither the workers’ organizations nor the employers’ organization saw the final draft. In the Annual Report of the Chamber of Mines for 1963 the then president said

If these were the comments of employers and employees, why were we given the assurance that this was an agreed measure? And if it was an agreed measure, it is surely the height of absurdity for the hon. the Minister to come to this House—20 months after the passing of the original Bill—and introduce an amending Bill with over 30 amendments, some of which are of a very important nature. It is all very well for the hon. the Minister to say that those amendments are only of an administrative nature. That may be, but then you must realize that five or six of these amendments affect compensation payable to widows and dependants of miners; provisions that were negligently left out completely from the 1962 Act. Those people were the sufferers. I want to remind the hon. the Minister of what he said in 1962 when he introduced that Bill. He said this—

If that was the position, why was it necessary immediately thereafter for his Department and for the Chamber of Mines, on their own initiative, to send missions overseas to investigate the basis of certification and the basis of compensation. I think the hon. member for Krugersdorp feels unhappy when he says we have still not arrived at the most satisfactory manner of compensating miners who suffer from this dreaded disease. What has been the result of this legislation? We appealed to the hon. the Minister to give us time to study it in order to ascertain its practical implications. We asked that it be referred to a select committee. All these requests were turned down. But within a matter of months there were protest meetings all along the Witwatersrand, in the Western Transvaal and in the Free State, strongly objecting to the basis of certification and the basis of compensation. The hon. the Minister knows that motions of no confidence were passed in him at these meetings.

At which meetings were motions of no confidence taken in the Minister?

At Carletonvillle, and the Western Reef. The hon. the Minister has correspondence in that regard, correspondence criticizing and condemning this unsatisfactory legislation. If the hon. member wants further confirmation of this contention, then what about the Mineworkers’ Union themselves? They passed a motion of no confidence in their then secretary for having accepted that legislation. Sir, you know what subsequently happened.

In 18 years we have found it necessary to pass four Bills to provide an equitable formula to compensate miners who develop pneumoconiosis as a result of working in the mines, and in each Bill, as the hon. member for Krugersdorp has quite correctly said, not only has the form of compensation been changed but also the definition, from the health point of view, which entitles a miner to compensation. The standard for compensation has shifted from making an assessment entirely on a man’s capacity to work; it appears now to acknowledge that if he loses some of his faculties, but can still work, he is entitled to compensation. The 1962 Act, however, is so involved, so complicated and so difficult to understand, that it was quite understandable that no rank and file miner really knows what he is entitled to under the present Act. What is making it still more difficult in the administration of the law is that the doctors are finding it so difficult to carry out the terms and the exact definitions and requirements of the legislation. Individual doctors previously have varied in their prognosis of the effect of pneumoconiosis. Now they are given the added burden of having to define accurately the “percentage liability” by which the cardial respiratory functions have been impaired. In this respect, I say that the present working of the Act has failed lamentably. You cannot eliminate the clinical physicians in this matter, and to suggest, as we do in this Bill, that you can depend on mechanical instruments to assess the car-dial respiratory disability of a person. It is the height of absurdity! The hon. Minister knows that that opinion has been expressed by experts overseas, who said that this machine that is being used in terms of the 1962 Act is not used anywhere else overseas.

Sir, how do you get over defining just what is the difference in the margin between 18 per cent and 20 per cent damage to a person’s cardial respiratory functions? The margin is so slender, but nevertheless it is vital to the miner, and vital to the mining industry. What do we find in practice? If the doctor is sympathetic to the individual, he can throw the whole actuarial assessment out on which the whole pneumoconiosis liability of the mines has been estimated. If he is conservative, he might be accused of favouring the employers. Therefore we have now reached the situation where I feel the hon. the Minister must admit that there has to be some new method, or some new approach to this whole question of pneumoconiosis legislation. I am pleased that a Government member such as the hon. member for Krugersdorp feels the same way. A new pattern of legislation, both as affecting compensation and as affecting certification of miners, must be evolved.

I feel that the approach has to be on a more personal level amongst other matters, e.g. between the panel doctor and the patient visiting the Mine Certification Bureau. When you are prepared to accept the more personal and direct contact of the panel doctor in whom the miner can confide, I think you will get a more satisfactory situation in the mining industry in that respect. I would like to ask the hon. Minister when replying to clear up one misconception which is causing a great deal of dissatisfaction amongst miners.

This discontent is really snow-balling, and has led to dissatisfaction in what is otherwise a very quiet and a very contented pool; the mining industry as such. We must see that that state of affairs is not disturbed. The hon. Minister issued a directive to the Miners’ Certification Bureau to the effect that all first stage sufferers under the 1956 Act-—that is those who received a lump-sum payment—would be entitled to a pension. That is not incorporated in the 1962 Act or validated in this Bill, as far as I know. The hon. the Minister made a statement in this House to say that no such directive had been issued, and this is causing all the confusion among first stage pensioners. However, on page 7 of a brochure issued by the Miners’ Medical Bureau it says as follows—

If that is correct, then the statement that the hon. the Minister made in May 1963 is inconsistent. I would like the hon. Minister, in order to clarify the position once and for all, to let us know just what is the actual fact: Is a first stage pensioner under the 1956 Act who received a lump-sum payment entitled to a pension in terms of the 1962 Act?

During the second-reading debate in 1962 the hon. the Minister said that the effect of the Act would be that certain financial changes introduced by the new Act would bring relief to the marginal mines. We accepted that statement with satisfaction, because we are aware how absolutely necessary it is that assistance should be given to marginal mines. But what has been the practical effect of the Act? The practical result has been an increase in the costs of the marginal mines, and not, as the hon. the Minister said, that it would bring relief to these mines! The Chamber of Mines as such, as the hon. Minister well knows, had to step into the breach and evolve a new method of apportionment of annual levies in order to maintain the status quo. Alternatively, we would have had a tremendous increase in the working costs of marginal mines.

My colleague, the hon. member for Germiston (District), has quite correctly said that all the mistakes that have been made and all the discontent that exists was certainly not the fault of the mining industry, or the miners as such. They have been innocent victims, in so far as the hon. Minister and his Department are concerned. When they advised the Minister and the Department not to go ahead in this hasty fashion with this pattern of legislation, the Minister and his Department nevertheless went ahead. They were not prepared—that is the accusation I level against the hon. Minister and his Department—to listen to more mature judgment and more mature experience, but allowed themselves to be influenced by certain persons, possibly outside the Department, to go ahead with this form of legislation.

I now wish to deal with the representations that have been made by the Mine Workers’ Union to the hon. the Minister and his Department that in terms of this Act, the Certification Bureau should be transferred from the Department of Mines to the Department of Health. It is a plea that the hon. members for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford) and Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) have been making for years in this House. I am very pleased to see that at this stage they are receiving support from such an authoritative body as the Mine Workers’ Union. The Pneumoconiosis Act should not come under the control of the Mines Department; it belongs more properly and more effectively under the Department of Health. Will the hon. Minister explain to us, in his reply, why he is not acceding to their request? Why does he not allow this bureau to be taken out of his control and to be placed under the Department where I think naturally it belongs? I hope it is not for the reason that I suspect, but I would be pleased to know from the hon. the Minister what really is his motive for refusing this transfer. I would like to tell the hon. Minister that if he would only agree to this transfer, it would remove a lot of suspicion that exists in the mind of mineworkers when they go up for examination. Whether that suspicion is justified or not I am not in a position to say, but I want the hon. Minister to know that from personal experience and personal contact with these miners, I can say that they have the suspicion that the dice is loaded against them the minute they go into that room to be examined. I think it would be a healthier state, both from the Government point of view and from that of the miners, if the hon. Minister would change his mind, would reconsider his decision and allow the examination of miners to be done by the Department of Health.

The hon. Minister in his second-reading speech made reference to the concession that is now being made to the children of miners over the age of 21, who in terms of this amending Bill will now be allowed to continue at universities if their studies have not been completed by the time they reach that age. I would like to commend the hon. the Minister on accepting the suggestion that came from this side of the House in 1962, when we drew attention to the possibility that a student may not have finished his course when he reaches the age of 21, and in terms of the Pneumoconiosis Act of 1962 his bursary or scholarship would not continue after reaching that age. I think it is something that will be viewed with much satisfaction by miners and their dependants.

I would like to draw the hon. Minister’s attention to one further defect in the administration of this legislation, which in practice has had a number of unsatisfactory results. I refer to the fact that when a mineworker is no longer allowed to work in a mine as a result of his suffering from phthisis in the second or third stage, his subscriptions to the miners’ benefit societies automatically cease, and with the limited pensions that these miners get, and the fact that more often than not they forget to pay their subscription. We find that when they do get ill and are confined to hospital for medical treatment, they have to pay those costs out of their own pocket. Certain cases have been brought to my notice where pneumoconiosis sufferers and tuberculotic sufferers found it very, very difficult indeed to pay those monthly fees. I would like to recommend to the hon. the Minister that legislation be introduced whereby any miner who is put off on pension is automatically retained as a member of the miners’ benefit society and that he gets all the benefits accruing to a member in the ordinary course of events. It may sound a trivial matter, but in its application and in its effect as far as the dependants of miners are concerned, it is an important aspect in the miner’s financial position.

I have not dealt in any detail with the basis of compensation, and the amount of compensation paid to pensioners in terms of the 1962 Act or the ¡Bill before us. I want to remind the hon. the Minister that when we on this side of the House accepted the Bill in 1962, we said that we saw a number of satisfactory and commendable features as far as the technical, medical and the administrative side of the Act was concerned. We deliberately said that we stopped at that stage; we were not prepared to accept the limited financial benefits that were made available to pneumoconiosis sufferers in terms of the 1962 Act. We were not satisfied that the basis on which the hon. the Minister had gone ahead with the pensions was satisfactory. I repeat that we are still not satisfied, and that it is not possible with better administration, to allow greater compensation to the pneumoconiosis sufferers. I hope that, as legislation unfolds in the next year or two, we will be proved correct in our supposition that without affecting the costs of mining at all it is still possible to give these pensioners a better pension than that suggested by the Minister under this Bill. If the hon. Minister wants further proof of that, I need only refer him to the Rhodesian legislation of 1962, where the basis of payment of compensation to miners in that small country of Southern Rhodesia is far more satisfactory than the hon. Minister has seen fit to give to the miners in South Africa.

We are not going to criticize the omissions that are now being rectified by this Bill. We are not going to criticize the clauses that were inadvertently left out, because all of them are of benefit to either the widows or the dependants of phthisis sufferers. But we do say that the Minister should have been more circumspect and more careful and should have been less hasty in introducing the 1962 legislation. I hope that this will be the last time that we have hasty legislation of this nature forced on to the House, without reference to a select committee as requested by the Opposition.

The hon. member for Springs (Mr. Taurog) has made some remarks here which I do not think should go unanswered and which cannot be permitted to pass unchallenged. The hon. member also asked the hon. the Minister a question, namely whether the 1962 legislation was in fact an agreed measure or not. Now I should like to refer the hon. member to the Minister’s speech in 1962, when towards the end of his speech he said this—

Now it is true that the hon. member for Springs referred to certain qutotations in the Mynwerker, the official organ of the Mineworkers’ Union, quotations from statements by the late Mr. Ellis. I should like to say, in passing, to the Department of Mines, to the Chamber of Mines and to the mineworkers’ trade unions that surely there is a moral code in connection with an agreed measure, and I think it is necessary that we should take cognizance of it and that we should accept and acknowledge and respect that moral code of being morally bound. The hon. member for Germiston (District), who spoke immediately after the hon. the Minister, in those days expressed his regret, and I agreed with him, that there was so little time to study that voluminous and intricate piece of legislation of 1962. I also had my misgivings that so little time was available. But the hon. member for Germiston (District) also said in his speech: “Although it is an agreed measure, we deplore the fact that there is so little time.” I have no doubt, therefore, that it was an agreed measure. I know the Department of Mines accepted it, and that they respected the code of being morally bound. However, subsequently there were incidents unfortunately where responsible persons were not prepared to accept responsibility for the agreed nature of this Bill, and I should like to express my regret about that to-day. That is the reason why I say that there is a moral code for people who enter into an agreement with one another, and that is a sense of honour, of being morally bound.

The hon. member for Springs has made two statements here of which I am not aware, and I think the hon. member owes it to this House and to the Minister and to the memory of the late Mr. Ellis to produce proof and evidence to bear out his statement in this House this afternoon, that on two occasions motions of no confidence in the Minister of Mines were adopted. The one instance mentioned by him was Carletonville, but I shall be glad if the hon. member will mention the other to me.

On the West Rand.

The hon. member made these statements without producing any proof. I do not think these are accusations one should just leave up in the air, and I trust the hon. member will be given an opportunity to produce the proof of where the motion of no confidence in the Minister of Mines was adopted and where a motion of no confidence in the late Mr. Ellis, the former general secretary of the Mineworkers’ Union, was adopted. I am not aware of it. We do know that at every election during recent years the mineworkers adopted a motion of no confidence in the United Party and its policy.

What is your evidence of that?

Here is the evidence in this Chamber, viz. the fact that the Opposition is sitting there and we are sitting here. Here is the proof, namely, that the mineworkers’ constituencies, where the mineworkers reside, are to-day represented by Nationalists. That is the evidence. Or is the hon. member not aware that the National Party is governing and that its majority is coming from the cities to an increasing extent, and that the Nationalist voting power is derived to an increasing extent from the mineworkers?

I really do wish to welcome the attitude revealed here by the hon. member for Germiston (District). I am very pleased with what the hon. member said, but apparently he was not speaking for his whole party, and in any event he did not speak for the hon. member for Springs. I had also hoped and trusted that we would not try to score political points when discussing the welfare of the mineworkers. I had hoped that we would not drag this House into it politically, and to use the words used by the hon. member for Germiston (District), I also hope that we shall seek only the best for these people whose lot is affected when we discuss legislation of this nature in this House.

It is true that the Act of 1962 was the product of very intensive research and study. It was a great piece of legislation. But when we have regard to the fact that since 1911, when for the first time legislation was introduced here dealing with pneumoconiosis and silicosis and tuberculosis among mineworkers, to-day is the nineteenth occasion on which this House is being asked to discuss legislation here affecting the lot of those people, then it becomes clear to us what an involved matter this is. The hon. the Minister, in his introductory speech in 1962, said that although the legislation of 1962 was the product of intensive study and research, the mining industry is a live industry and that changes will probably be called for on numerous occasions, and the Minister said that he would not hesitate to make changes when greater benefits can be given to people who are affected by this legislation. Talking about greater benefits, it is very easy for the hon. member for Springs, sitting over there as a backbencher in the Opposition, to come here and say popular things, statements that are popular outside, when he does not have the responsibility to apply these things. But I should like to say this to the hon. member, that he should go along and settle this matter with the employers, the mine owners. The Minister of Mines is not Father Christmas strutting around here and arbitrarily dishing out greater benefits in an extravagant manner.

Is the Minister so powerless?

The hon. member must forgive me if I do not like to speak to him, for obvious reasons. I am putting this question to the hon. member for Springs: Are the mine owners going to be willing to pay the greater benefits? If he compares Rhodesia with the Republic of South Africa, are the mine owners going to be prepared to pay the greater benefits?

Ask your Minister.

No, I am putting this question to that hon. member. He may put the question to the Minister, but I am putting it to the hon. member, for he blames the Minister because the Minister in our mining industry gives the mineworkers smaller benefits than they are being given in Rhodesia.

And he insinuates that the Minister is withholding it.

Ask you own Minister.

If it is necessary, we shall amend this Act from time to time.

Now I should like to deal with a few matters raised by the hon. member for Germiston (District). Broadly we welcome the contents of this amendment Bill before the House, particularly as more favourable pensions are being granted to widows and orphans and others. I shall say no more about that. But I should also like to ask the hon. the Minister that as regards Clause 2 we should watch this matter very carefully. As a representative of a constituency containing mineworkers and mining interests, I should like to say that I shall certainly not hesitate for one moment to urge the hon. the Minister in this House to delete this provison from the Act if this provision is abused. I know the hon. the Minister too said this in his introductory speech, and I am mentioning it merely to emphasize it once again, and I am mentioning it to notify the employers as well as the employees. We know it is not in the best interests of the person for him to go underground again too often and to work under dusty conditions again. But I am prepared also to give this provision in this Bill an opportunity to prove itself, and because it is a medical recommendation I do not wish to quarrel with it, but if it is going to be abused, and if the restrictions are not observed strictly, we shall definitely ask that an amendment be made.

In conclusion I should like to tell the hon. the Minister that we are very grateful to see that although we know that negotiations between the Mineworkers’ Union and the Chambers of Mines are taking place at the present time, we are not interfering there. We want to give them an opportunity to complete their negotiations, and I trust we shall get a report from them too. But I am not going to bind myself in advance to those negotiations taking place at present. Until such time as I shall have seen the contents of the report, I am not going to express an opinion. I am glad also to learn from the Minister that he, the Minister, has received an assurance from the Mineworkers’ Union that they are satisfied with the provisions of this Bill.

I have been listening to the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Mr. G. P. van den Berg), waiting to hear whether he would say something constructive to which I could reply, but he used most of his time making a political tirade and accusing this side of the House of various things which do not amount to much, but I should just like to draw his attention to something that he said in the debate in 1962—

Well, 65 per cent was the figure we asked for on this side, which should be the limit of disability, and the hon. member for Wolmaransstad, in Col. 6793, supported us, but when it came to the vote he voted against his own contention. Anyway, I am not going to spend more time on the hon. member. I want to come to some of the important aspects of this Bill before us to-day.

Like the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Taurog), I must say that a Bill like this, coming so soon after the original Act, and which contains 30 amendments, is a very important piece of legislation. I cannot accept the way the Minister disposed of it by saying that all it consists of is a few technical alterations to make the Act work a little more smoothly. It is far more important than that. There are some very important amendments in this Bill, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker). It is not a minor technical matter when the question of tuberculosis is being introduced into a Bill of this sort. If we pass the Bill as it stands today, it will mean that any person who has tuberculosis, or who has pneumoconiosis and tuberculosis, and who undergoes an examination and is found to be non-infectious, may then apply to be allowed to go for 64 hours a month underground and in a dusty atmosphere. Firstly, we must make it quite clear that it has never been established that tuberculosis can be cured. The experts are very doubtful about it. The Minister knows that. There are conflicting opinions, but because there are conflicting opinions doubt exists, and the person who should always get the benefit of the doubt is the sufferer. Why should a mineworker, whether he be a humble miner or a mine manager, want to go back underground to work in a dusty atmosphere, knowing full well the risks that he takes? Obviously because the compensation he is getting because of his illness cannot keep him in anything like the comfort he was used to when he was working; and that applies to the humble miner and to the mine captain and to the mine manager. The compensation the miner is getting for his disability is not commensurate with the damage done to his body. If the man was involved in an accident on the road and had one or both lungs seriously damaged, what compensation would he get from the third party insurance? Can you compare that compensation with that which a man receives after 20 years underground? The basis of this piece of legislation to-day does not consist of anything more than to show up the failure to compensate sufficiently the man who is suffering from a disease brought on by his occupation. To-day we were supplied with the report of the Pneumoconiosis Commissioner, and I want to read from Chapter III of this report, and I should like the Minister to take note of what I am saying. It says—

That is a terrible thing to happen. In that short space of time we find 267 miners suffering from a condition which includes tuberculosis. It goes to show that previously we were missing a lot of cases, and it also shows that underground workers lay themselves open to tuberculous infection more easily than other people because their lungs are already somewhat damaged by pneumoconiosis. If we are going to allow those people who suffer from pneumoconiosis to go underground for a long period, their chances of getting tuberculosis are great. But in the case of a man who has already got tuberculosis, whose disease is supposed to have been arrested or “cured”, his chances of getting tuberculosis are infinitely greater. We are going to subject these people to the risk of reinfection, at least of his lungs, with tuberculosis. If the Minister allows that man to go underground and to get tuberculosis actively again, what compensation will he get? Will he get compensation on the same basis as he has at the moment? Will this person still be taken out as soon as it becomes active again, and given the same degree of compensation that he had previously? Because the onus now is on the Minister, and no longer on the worker. The Minister is going to allow him to go down. And there is nothing in this Bill which lays down any degree of special investigation before the applicant who has had tuberculosis may be allowed to go down again. Would it not have been better if this question was left to experts, and if the Minister had inserted a clause whereby no miner would be allowed to go underground unless an independent body of medical men said it was not a risk for him to go underground? But here, because a certain group of people find it necessary to go back to work again, the Minister is going to allow them to take the risk of being re-infected with one of the most infectious diseases that we know. This country is to-day fighting a battle against tuberculosis and it is spending millions of rand in doing so. The solution is not in allowing the man to go underground again to make up for his loss of earnings. The solution lies in finding work for the unfortunate individual in a non-dusty atmosphere. That is what the Minister has to do. He has to find work for these people, and if he cannot, the compensation paid to these people suffering from these two diseases must be such that they can continue to live comfortably; because these are not just retired men who retire on reaching the age limit. These are sick people who are being put out of work and they cannot live on the amount of money they are receiving, because of the extra attention they so often require. I know it will involve a lot of money to compensate them adequately, but these people have earned a lot of money for our country. The whole of our economy depends on them, and as was said earlier this afternoon, compare their pensions with the pensions of other people, and see how little relatively they are getting. When a man, in addition to the work he has done, finds that he is incapacitated through an illness brought on by his work, he surely merits a far better pension than he is getting. That is one aspect of the matter.

Another aspect I want to deal with is in connection with Clause 6, where we find that functions and organs are being discussed. The present method of determining a man’s capacity to do his work properly depends on his cardio-respiratory functions, and the word “function” has taken the place of “organs” throughout the Bill. I am somewhat perturbed about this and I want the Minister to consider whether or not he does not think “organs or functions” should not be the phrase used instead of “functions” only. I say this because during a man’s lifetime it can be determined by “machines”, as the hon. member for Springs has said, what his functions are. He may fail to measure up to a certain standard of functioning, but when a man dies you cannot measure his functions any more, and the only way that you can determine whether or not he has any degree of pneumoconiosis is by examining his organs. I want to make sure that right throughout “functions or organs” should be used. I want to make perfectly sure that when a miner dies and his widow suspects that he might have had pneumoconiosis, although he was never certified as having it, she will have the right to prove through his organs that he had it. I am not certain that this Bill covers that eventuality. I am not certain that the Minister throughout the Act has seen to it that the post-mortem findings should be as important as the live findings.

Now, if it is going to become a trend to allow an underground worker to go back into the mine after he has been cured of tuberculosis, what is going to be the position of a man who is suffering from tuberculosis and pneumoconiosis and who is in the third stage or the 75 per cent stage of pneumoconiosis, and also has tuberculosis in addition which is said to have been cured? Is the Minister going to allow these people to go underground? I see no such provision here and it is a very important provision because the two late stages of pneumoconiosis invariably go hand in hand with tuberculosis. You will very rarely find a man suffering in the 20 per cent category of pneumoconiosis and also suffering at that stage from tuberculosis. It may be possible, but it is invariably the late stage of pneumoconiosis that is found to be associated with tuberculosis. Here again, I should like to know what the feeling of the Minister is. Is he going to debar the late stage pneumoconiotic from going underground if his tuberculosis has been cured? Or will the Act prevent a man from going underground? That is the important thing to decide.

Is it possible to be cured after the third stage?

I do not think so. My own feeling is that once a man has pneumoconiosis plus tuberculosis, his chances of recovery are nil. The best we can hope for is that it will be arrested, but it will always be there, either in an active or in a latent form, and his chances of being cured, from the experience I have had, are very slender. I have discussed this matter with some very eminent authorities and their opinions vary, but I think they are all agreed on one thing, that no man should be allowed to go underground until an independent body of medical men, outside the board, has examined him. The board may still be biased, but if a man wants to go underground and he has had tuberculosis and wants to go underground again, an independent examination should be made by medical men who have nothing to do with the bureau. If they give their sanction he should be allowed to go underground, but he should be examined regularly every month, and sputum tests must be taken from him throughout the period he is working, otherwise he will not only be a danger to himself, but to all those who work with him.

I want to deal for a short moment with the question of the handing over of pneumoconiosis to the Department of Health. It is a big step, but it is one which may become very necessary. If the question is arising of the gold producers or the Transvaal Chamber of Mines and the Mineworkers’ Union taking over this question of pneumoconiosis, then I think at the same time we have to hand the matter over to the Department of Health. It is for them to keep an eye on it. It is a health matter and I think they will be able to do it very efficiently. But the fault I find is that the people who go up for examination are invariably dissatisfied with the examinations they receive and with the findings. I do not know how much the Minister knows about their dissatisfaction, but I know a great deal about it. I have yet to find a single mineworker asking to be allowed to go back underground. I do not know how many people have applied to the Minister to be allowed to go underground when they have tuberculosis, but I am sure no mineworker has applied. It may have come from one or two of the officials or specialized workers on the imines. But the mineworkers dread going down once they have been told that they are suffering from the second or third stage of pneumoconiosis. Would the Minister allow a mineworker to go back into a dusty atmosphere if he has had tuberculosis? Surely the easiest thing would be for him to employ him in a different job. I have asked the Minister in this House over and over again that once the mineworker has been found to be suffering from pneumoconiosis above 50 per cent—that is the old third stage—he should be taken out of the mine for at least three hours a day and given alternative work. I keep on asking that, and it is a simple matter to do because the mines themselves are looking for men. They cannot employ enough apprentices. Why cannot these people start then to learn alternative jobs, so that when they leave the mines because of their disability they will have something else to do on the surface? What can a mineworker do to-day when he leaves the mine? What makes him go back underground? It is the fact that he has not been trained to do any other work. But if you train them as electricians and plumbers and carpenters, they can find jobs on the surface. Again, I ask the Minister to consider that very carefully, and to see whether we cannot get the Mineworkers’ Union and the Chamber of Mines to come together and see whether it is not possible to employ these people on the surface by teaching them an alternative job.

The other matters I wish to raise I can deal with under the various clauses when we come to the Committee Stage, and I will not keep the House any longer. I sincerely hope that this is not going to be the end of legislation in favour of the mineworker. I hope that soon we will be able to come together, both sides of the House, and discuss the future and the health of the mineworkers again, but we cannot do it in this slapdash manner. If a new Act is going to be introduced, then both sides must come together and discuss it in a calm atmosphere to see whether we cannot once and for all pass legislation that will help the mineworker to know that he has permanent security and that he and his family will be looked after by the industry and by the Government.

I do not think it is fair that one Opposition speaker after another should rise to attack the Minister and say: “We told you you would come along with amendments.” If we may take the hon. members back to last year, they will recall that the Minister told them very emphatically that this was an agreed measure, and that the various interests concerned with the legislation were anxious that the legislation should be placed on the Statute Book as soon as possible. The Minister also said that if it appeared necessary for amendments to be introduced, he would not hesitate to come to this House with those amendments. Surely the Minister was not being indifferent! He had very important commitments to meet when he had to go and represent this country overseas. But now hon. members are accusing him of that. And it is not true that some people have suffered financial loss. The pensions of all those people have been adjusted and not one of them has suffered financial loss. Now the Minister is merely validating the position. I think it was very unfair to say that. I shall not quarrel with the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) on how much a man should receive if his lungs have been impaired. I think we are all agreed that such a person should be paid the maximum within our financial means. I sincerely hope that as negotiations are now in progress between the Mineworkers’ Union and the Chamber of Mines, a compromise will be effected to the mutual benefit of the mineworkers as well as the Chamber of Mines, and that this political controversy we have here annually, when we recriminate one another and ask whether we are now paying these people the proper pension, and whether they are receiving the compensation they are entitled to, will come to an end. For we are making a political pawn of the mineworker in this House, and they most certainly do not deserve that. [Interjection.] This happens at every election. That hon. member knows as well as I do that we will award the maximum pensions, but the award should be within the means at our disposal. I should like to ask, as the hon. member for Wolmaransstad put it: Is the Chamber of Mines prepared to pay the mineworkers the pensions the Opposition desire to award? Who made the colossal profits referred to? Was it the taxpayer, or was it the mineowner? That is why I say that this matter is being made a political football, and I hope and trust that these negotiations now in progress will result in benefits for the mineworker, and that he will no longer be used as a political pawn, for he deserves much more.

I should like to draw the attention of the Minister to one or two matters. Under the 1956 legislation there was a provision that a person was entitled, whether he was in the first, second, third or fourth stage, to an attendant’s allowance as long as his doctor certified that he really was ill and was entitled to it. In the 1962 Act we consolidated the attendant’s allowance with the pension in the third stage, and by doing so we deprived the mineworker of a right. I should like to plead with the Minister very strongly that we should restore to the mineworker this right he had. In my constituency I have several instances of mineworkers who are in the first or the second stage and are sickly now, but who are not entitled to an attendant’s allowance, because it has been taken away by Section 88 of Act No. 64 of 1962, which makes no provision for new cases.

Next I should like to inform the Minister that as regards the reviewing authority, there is much dissatisfaction among the mineworkers. The mineworker feels he is not being treated properly in this regard. As the mineworker has to apply in writing within 60 days if he wishes to have his case reviewed. I feel it is the duty of the reviewing authority to bring that mineworker before the board again, but they should not rely only on the written data they have before them; this causes great dissatisfaction among the mineworkers. Then I should like also to refer to a speech made by the hon. the Minister in this House where he said that aid would be given for the training of the dependants of the mineworker. In the brochure which has been issued, it is stated clearly: “The general council therefore can now also give assistance in connection with training at a college or a university.” That is printed in this brochure, and last year the hon. the Minister also said so here in the course of his speech. When a parent applies for assistance for the training of his child, then the Pneumoconiosis Compensation General Council adopts the attitude that it is not prepared to consider an application for financial aid in respect of any student, unless that student takes a course or courses at a university closely associated with mining. There are so many ex-mineworkers who are suffering from pneumoconiosis and who do not have sons, but who have daughters who would like to be trained at training colleges and I do feel that assistance should also be given to those children. I should like to urge the hon. the Minister to give his attention to this matter. It is a matter about which the mineworker feels very unhappy. When all is said and done, we last year increased the amount available for scholarships for the training of these children from R50,000 to R100,000.

Mr. Speaker, we welcome the amendments made in this Bill. I am thankful too that there are negotiations in progress in connection with this pneumoconiosis legislation. There is one thing we cannot argue away, and that is that the mineworker is not feeling very happy about this legislation, and I hope and trust that the negotiations in progress between the Minister, the Mineworkers’ Union and the Chamber of Mines will culminate in an honourable solution which will be to the advantage of the mineworkers as well as the Chamber of Mines. Mining is one of our most important industries, and we are grateful that it has been kept on such a sound basis throughout all these years.

In the days when the Minister of Mines was Dr. van Rhyn, I pointed out as a member of the 1955 Oosthuizen Commission on Tuberculosis and Pneumoconiosis that the medical side of this Department should be handed over to the Department of Health. The fact that the hon. the Minister now comes forward with this measure convinces me that I was correct in adopting that attitude. The Minister comes forward with this measure without the slightest evidence and without any possibility of producing evidence that anybody has been cured of tuberculosis of the lungs. We as doctors know well that “cure” is not a word that we use in relation to tuberculosis of the lungs; we may speak and we do speak of arresting the disease, which means that for the moment it is held under control. It is not and it has not been uncommon in the past for a so-called arrested disease to recur after 50 or 60 years. That brings me to the point that this so-called cure is entirely the result of the new drugs. The so-called arrested rate is now much higher than it used to be. It is much more common to find people being allowed out of the sanatorium. In some parts of Europe they are using tuberculosis sanatoriums for other purposes because the number of tuberculosis sufferers has fallen, chiefly because of the introduction of the new drugs. It was not uncommon formerly, and it may still be common, to find tuberculosis recurring in people after an alleged cure over 60 years ago. Sufficient time has not yet elapsed to enable us to judge the new drugs. These new drugs first made their appearance in about 1950, so at best we can have about ten years of so-called cure, and that is certainly not long enough. It is a well-known fact that if the patient dies of something else, after a so-called cure has been brought about, you can still find the tuberculus germs in his lungs, still alive but merely wrapped up in protective tissue, which may break down at any time. To say that we are going to take tuberculosis sufferers back into the mines, is to my mind something quite incredible. One must regard tuberculosis of the lungs as one would regard a field; the seed is the tubercle bacillus; the lung is the seedbed. The ordinary healthy man will resist infection with tubercle bacillus unless it is overwhelming, or unless there are other conditions present which make him liable to contract the disease. I can think of nothing more likely to produce a lovely fertile seedbed for the tubercle bacillus than a pneumoconiotic lung. It is beautifully fertilized. As a member of the 1955 commission on the relationship between pneumoconiosis and tuberculosis, I cannot help feeling that we are now ignoring the report of that commission; we are completely ignoring it. On page 90 we find this—

Then paragraph 49 says—

One of the things that that commission said, and said without any hesitation, was that the most important thing was to keep the tubercle bacillus out of the mines. Sir, that is what makes me feel very bitter about this. Perhaps the hon. the Minister is prepared to allow men to go into a dusty atmosphere for a limited period, but what is going to be the effect on other miners? The whole trend of this report was that an effort should be made to keep the tubercle bacillus out of the mines as far as it is possible to do so. That is demonstrated by the fact that the commission recommended very strongly—and its recommendation has been carried out—that the coal mines which before that period were not controlled, should be brought under control, and that all underground labour at the coal mines must be investigated thoroughly, just as the bureau investigated the miners in Johannesburg. The reason is this: It was found that there was a high percentage of tuberculosis amongst workers in the coal mines, due to the fact that the coal mines did not get all their labour through the recruiting organization, and therefore they did not pass through the examination by the recruiting organization: they were engaged locally. Many of these Natives received only a simple clinical examination at the mine-head. The result was that in the coal mines in particular there were workers, many of them White workers who had left the gold mines and come down to the coal mines, who were contracting tuberculosis from these people who had been recruited locally. For that reason various other bureaux and sub-bureaux have been established to eliminate local labour should it be tuberculous. Here we find, however, that the hon. the Minister is preparing to take tuberculous people into the mines. The Minister may say that the man feels that he must go back into the mines. I am more interested in what is going to happen to the other miners. It is a well-known fact that nearly all miners spit. A man may be passed as cured but he will go on spitting because he is an ex-miner. At what stage does he become a positive spitter again; at what stage does that spit which he introduces into the mine become infectious? This is one of the most difficult problems to tackle. On page 96 of the report the commission says—

These were 22 cases who were certified as pneumoconiotics of various stages but in whom the bureau suspected tuberculosis but could not find it—

It took seven years from the time that the bureau (presumably expert on this subject), thinking that the man might have tuberculosis, to prove that it was so, and this because the only proof is the presence of the tubercle bacillus in the sputum. The commission goes on to say—

Not suspicion of pneumoconiosis; they had already satisfied themselves that the patient had pneumoconiosis, but these men were kept under observation; their sputum was examined time after time, and the average period was 7.7 years. If the hon. the Minister allows this man to go down into the mine, how long will he be able to spit positively before it is detected? Because it is not always present in the sputum. The hon. the Minister is taking a most formidable responsibility upon himself. He has come here without any evidence—and there is no evidence; it is only in the minds of certain men—that a patient has been cured of tuberculosis. There is not a single bulletin issued by his research bureau which says that they have seen a cured case of tuberculosis. If they have said so in any of their bulletins I will be glad to read it; I am prepared to be convinced, but I say that there is no evidence because not sufficient time has elapsed yet. While it may benefit one or two men to be allowed to work underground again, the whole of the staff of the mine is exposed. Let me quote what the commission says on page 97—

Sir, this country has stood in the forefront of health legislation as far as pneumoconiosis is concerned. It was almost the first country to tackle this matter seriously. It built up the South African Institute of Medical Research which is subsidized heavily by the Government and by the Chamber of Mines. It is true that until about 1957 we had fallen behind but we have recovered our position and today we can hold our heads high in the matter of pneumoconiosis legislation. But this, Sir, is a step in the dark. I do not think the hon. the Minister would find ten or 15 doctors in the country to support him in this connection. There is a feeling that the outlook in tuberculosis has been improved; it has been much improved, this country is spending R11,500,000 on tuberculosis this year, the largest sum it has ever spent, and here the hon. the Minister is taking a risk which I believe is totally unjustified.

The hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford) has given us a fairly lengthy, but I must admit, a very interesting picture of tuberculosis, and he earnestly warned us against the provisions of Clause 2. Personally I do not think it is a warning we should lightly brush aside. I think it is my duty to make my voice also heard in connection with Clause 2. I think we should be most careful, and I think it is the intention, as the hon. the Minister has told us, to be very careful. The hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) has asked whether the Minister will send back into the mines a person who has suffered from both tuberculosis and pneumoconiosis in an advanced stage, and who has recovered, and who no longer has tuberculosis in a contagious form. I do not think the hon. member ought to be worried about that. I do not believe that a person who has suffered from both tuberculosis and pneumoconiosis in an advanced stage will ever be sent back to the mines by the bureau. I do not think, as he himself also has said, that such a person will be cured of tuberculosis in those circumstances. But I should like to say, for my part, that the danger still exists that one might perhaps regard it as an experiment to have these people employed underground again under certain conditions. I do not think it can be anything but an experiment. If we were to accept it on any other basis, I am afraid I would fine it extremely difficult to vote for such a provision in a Bill. We can only do it on the basis of an experiment, but the danger exists that the experiment may last for too short a time, and that we may then arrive at wrong conclusions, for it will take many years before we shall be able to say with certainty that this experiment has met with success. I am convinced it will be very difficult to prove whether this experiment is a success, or whether it entails prejudicial consequences. I am afraid that whereas it is intended to-day to give only certain officials an opportunity to go down into the mine during certain hours, there may be some coercion on the part of the mineworkers. One of the speakers has said here that mineworkers, once they know they have tuberculosis, will never be prepared to go and work underground again. My experience has been otherwise. I find that when a man has suffered from tuberculosis and his doctor has told him that he has been cured in his opinion, these people are keen to return to the mine because they have nothing else to do; they have no other employment. I am afraid that as soon as the door is opened, these very people will begin to exert pressure, to their own disadvantage, to be permitted to work underground again. I should like to emphasize that I have very strong misgivings in connection with this clause, but I believe great caution will be exercised; that the clause will be used only in exceptional circumstances, and that there will be very strict supervision to ensure that people do not work underground for long hours. Some people say that the incidence of tuberculosis among mineworkers is much less than among the general public. In my view this proves nothing. I do not believe it has ever been proved that the incidence is in fact lower, but even if it were so, then it proves nothing save that there may possibly be very good control down below in the mines. But the fact remains that the circumstances under which the mineworker works underground undoubtedly tend to promote tuberculosis. I think it is fertile soil in which tuberculosis may breed, and that is why I say we must be particularly careful. For the rest I welcome this Bill, if I can satisfy myself on the point that special precautions will be taken and that the provisions of Clause 2 will only be made use of under exceptional circumstances. The hon. member for Rosettenville says he is surprised that we have come along with amendments after such a short period of two years. I do not agree with him at all; on the contrary, some of us have perhaps expected amendments sooner, because the hon. the Minister made a promise, did he not, that he would come forward with amendments as soon as it appeared necessary? We are pleased to learn to-day that the snags that existed, have already been eliminated administratively. All we are doing here now is to make the necessary statutory provision in that connection. We welcome the concessions which are now being made by the legislation to widows and dependants; under this measure they will now be getting the rights we have always thought they are entitled to.

With these few words then I should like to emphasize my warning too in connection with Clause 2.

It is quite clear that both sides of the House, despite the fact that on the Government side there has been some praise of the hon. the Minister, are dissatisfied with many of the provisions of the 1962 Act. We support this Bill because some effort, little though it may be, is being made to bring about certain improvements to the 1962 Act.

The hon. members for Brakpan (Mr. Bezuidenhout) and Wolmaransstad (Mr. G. P. van den Berg) both expressed their dissatisfaction with certain provisions of the 1962 Act. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad expressed his complete disapproval of Clause 2 of the present Bill, and he has been well supported by members on his own side. Sir, we on this side of the House are opposed to Clause 2 for reasons which have already been explained. The hon. member for Brakpan went so far as to say: “Die mynwerkers voel nie gelukkig met hierdie wetgewing nie.” In another portion of his speech he said, “die mynwerker word nie reg behandel nie”. He mentioned three distinct aspects of the legislation in which he felt that there were anomalies which should be remedied. Sir, the reason why this side of the House has reiterated some of the warnings we gave the Minister in 1962 is that the act itself has created hardships. Members who represent constituencies in which mineworkers are living or in which mines are situated, constantly have appeals made to them for some improvement of the law in order to remove the shortcomings and the anomalies of the 1962 legislation. While it has been maintained that the legislation of 1962 met with the approval of all sides and that it was in fact an agreed measure, one does not find confirmation of that in any of the utterances of the secretary of the Mineworkers Union or in any of the statements made by the mineworkers through their own organ, the Mineworker. The hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling), speaking at Carletonville, said that this measure had the approval of the Department of Mines, the Chamber of Mines, the Chamber of Commerce and the Mineworkers’ Union. [Interjection.] Well, the report refers to “Die Kamer van Koophandel”, so the reporter must have made a mistake. Mr. Grundlingh, the acting secretary of the Mineworkers’ Union, said—

None of these people indicated that they regarded this measure as an agreed measure. Sir, there is no question that the Act introduced some very serious setbacks for the mineworkers. We want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to give more attention to this whole issue and to review the entire situation instead of coming forward with amendments on a piecemeal basis. Sir, our concern is not political; our concern is the health of these people. We are concerned about the suffering which is being caused to these people. An attempt is being made here to improve the compensation, which is an obvious admission that there are shortcomings in the Act, and one does appreciate the fact that a Bill has been introduced to bring about this change, but the method followed here is not the method which should be used in a very important matter of this kind. Hon. members are all agreed that the mineworker deserves very much better consideration than this new experiment, the immediate effect of which has been to reduce his income at a time when he needs it most in the form of compensation for his suffering. Sir, I would like to make an appeal to the Minister to heed the remarks of the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford) with regard to tuberculosis. Rather than send anyone back to work in the mine again, even for a shorter day, would it not be better to follow the new trend in the treatment of tuberculosis, and that is to find other employment on the surface for the person concerned when the disease has been arrested with the use of modern drugs. Surely it should be possible to find surface employment for him. Once the disease has been arrested the tuberculosis sufferer should not be thrown to the mercy of society; his services should be used in some useful manner and he should be re-integrated into society. Our fear is that if he is sent back it can only lead to the danger of a recurrence or a relapse of this particular disease. I do not think it is right that we should even make provision for this type of reemployment for the tuberculosis sufferer. I believe it is our duty to meet the difficulties the mineworker has experienced as a result of this legislation. It is the duty of the Minister to ensure, not by means of this amending Bill, but in some other way, such as a commission for example, that these anomalies are put right. When the Bill was submitted to the Mineworkers’ Union they actually sent for a Dr. Scheepers, who is a world authority on pneumoconiosis. He came here from overseas. He criticized the medical methods that were being made use of.

Let me just correct something the hon. member for Krugersdorp said a little earlier. Here I have a report dated 28 September 1962 of a meeting which was held in Krugersdorp, which “150 angry miners attended; they stamped their feet and shouted one another down in their eagerness to ask Mr. van den Berg questions after he had told them that”—

That is exactly what this side of the House is doing, Sir. This side of the House is appealing to the hon. the Minister to go very much further than he is going to-day. That is why I say all sides of the House are agreed that there are some serious anomalies in the legislation. It is the duty of the Minister to ensure that they are dealt with as soon as possible. This legislation we are dealing with at the moment is merely patchwork. It is just putting little things right here and there in order to satisfy certain complaints, complaints which cry out for some form of attention. It was necessary to have legislation in order to bring that about. But if the hon. the Minister calls this an amending Bill merely for the purpose of adjusting certain administrative difficulties his Department has experienced, I am afraid we must express very deep disappointment at his approach to the whole subject. My commendation to the hon. the Minister would be that he should not only take careful note of what has been said on this side of the House but he should keep his ear to the ground with regard to the grumblings within his own ranks, people who are not only dissatisfied but know that there is complete dissatisfaction amongst the mineworkers with the provisions and the working of this legislation.

As I have said, it is our duty to ensure that in this particular industry, where people go underground and are subjected to a disease over which they have no control at all, a disease in respect of which no preventive measures can be taken to avoid it being contracting, a disease which is inevitably the end of a mineworker’s life, everything is done that can be done to see that the mineworkers receive the necessary care as soon as possible, the necessary compensation for themselves and for their widows and their children. It has already been stressed that there is a difference in the compensation payable in the case of daughters. We do not want to be accused by members opposite of making a political football of the people who are the subject of this legislation. That is the most utter nonsense any member could utter. The hon. member knows very well that it is a nonsensical statement. It has always been the objective of this House to try to ensure that the best possible is done for the safety and welfare of the mineworkers. My appeal to the hon. the Minister is exactly on those lines, Sir. We have pointed out to him that no purpose is served by constantly, year by year, coming with amending legislation when the fundamentals of the issue have not been tackled and fully dealt with. We say that patch-work legislation is not the means of setting right a wrong—not intentionally, of course—which this legislation has brought about, a wrong which is seriously affecting the health and the goodwill of the workers.

I just want to read a further quotation from this report of that meeting to which I have already referred. Both members for Krugersdorp and Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) appeared at this meeting. They expressed their confidence in the Minister and his advisers. They say—

All we want to show is that there is no point glossing over something which is obviously a source of deep dissatisfaction to the workers in this country.

Do you support the Bill?

I have already made it clear that we do—for the edification of the hon. member who has just dropped in; he has not yet appeared in my line of vision. We support any effort that is made to bring about an improvement in the Act. My appeal is that there should not be improvements on a fragmentary basis. I hope that is clear to the hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé). I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to reply to us on this issue, namely, what he intends to do to set right the anomalies and the hardships which flow from the present legislation.

I cannot understand the Opposition. When the hon. the Minister introduced that legislation his last words were—

The delegates of the mining trade unions were sitting here in the gallery that day. They had had various discussions with the Minister, his Department and with those of us who represent mining constituencies. I have a letter in my possession which was addressed to me by the former secretary of the Mineworkers’ Union, in which he said that after a careful study of this measure they had decided to give their wholehearted support to the Bill. I have that here in Black and White. When the Minister moved the second reading of that Bill in 1962 the Opposition voted for the Bill. We voted for it unanimously. What else does one have to do to get an agreed measure? A careful study was made of the Bill; discussions were held, and the Bill went through without a single opposing vote. What more can one do to get an agreed measure? What is happening to-day? As the result of circumstances which I do not want to analyse here now there are signs to-day that there is a certain amount of dissatisfaction in the ranks of the mineworkers with regard to this Act which, after all, is being implemented by people who are liable to make mistakes. We can all make mistakes. And what do we find to-day? We find that these political vultures swoop down immediately. Here they sit. I am quite correct in saying that they are political vultures, Mr. Speaker. What I mean is that they pick here and they pick there. They have entirely forgotten their obligations and their honour. In 1962 they voted for this measure and to-day in 1964, scarcely two years since the passing of the Bill, they renounce their support of this measure.

Sir, on 15 March 1963 at the meeting to which the hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller) referred, I said that the Minister had given us his guarantee that if the Act proved to be defective he would bring about the necessary amendments. To-day the Minister is carrying out that promise. I also made a second statement; when this dissatisfaction was being encouraged amongst the mineworkers at a time when this measure had not yet been subjected to any real test, because it had not been in operation long enough, I made the statement that I had the fullest confidence in the people who had advised the Minister and in the people who had drafted the measure. I, adhere to every word of that statement. I also made a third statement; I said that I had full confidence in the panel of medical practitioners who constituted the staff of the bureau at the time. I repeat that; I stand by every word I said. I want to pay a tribute here to-day and express my thanks to the director of the bureau and his helpers. I want to mention four cases of which I have personal knowledge and in which the bureau spared no pains; they travelled to Pretoria to go and examine a mineworker who was suffering; they came to Carletonville; they travelled to Coligny, and the week before last they travelled to Zeerust. Sir, if that does not reveal a sympathetic interest in our mineworkers who suffer from pneumoconiosis, then I do not know what a sympathetic interest is. I repeat therefore that I can only speak in laudatory terms of the individuals and the medical practitioners who form the staff of the bureau at the moment. I stand by what I said formerly.

I made a further statement at that particular meeting. I said that the 1962 Act was the product of advanced, scientific research as far as occupational diseases were concerned and as far as pneumoconiosis as a socio-economic problem was concerned. I said that it was a measure which was not being applied on a sectional basis but for the benefit of every section of the population. Pneumoconiosis is a socio-economic problem to which the State has to give its continual attention and in connection with which the State continually has to amend the relevant legislation. I went on to make another statement; I said that as far as the material aspect was concerned, the monetary aspect, the mineworkers would receive increased benefits under the 1962 Act as a result of an increase in the number of cases certified and as a result of the fact that mineworkers who would not have been certified formerly would now be certified under the 1962 Act. Under the old Act the complaint of the mineworker was this, “I am spitting blood; I am completely exhausted; I cannot exert myself, my days are numbered but nevertheless I am not certified.”

Mr. Speaker, I readily admit that this measure is not the Alpha and Omega as far as occupational disease are concerned. I would be the last person to say that this is the last word as far as pneumoconiosis is concerned. Any intelligent person who makes a study of pneumoconiosis and reads what experts throughout the world have to say about it, very soon comes to the conclusion that we are dealing here with one of the most dangerous and one of the most incurable diseases in the world. I think somebody once said that it was like a yellow cobra; one never knows when it is going to strike. It is an insidious disease and, according to the evidence of many medical practitioners, it is an incurable disease. In other words, we are trying by legislative means here to combat what is one of the most intricate socio-economic problems. It is obvious that we are still going to stumble a great deal and struggle a great deal before we hit upon the right answers. When I listened today to the hon. member for Krugersdorp and to his request to the Minister that an entirely new commission of inquiry should be appointed to go into all these aspects of this extremely dangerous, uncontrollable, insidious disease, pneumoconiosis, I found that he was voicing my sentiments. If such a commission is appointed it will bring about the following benefits: (1) We shall be able to integrate into our legislation in respect of occupational diseases the most modern, scientific research results in relation to this dread disease; (2) after having obtained expert advice our whole approach to this terrible problem may change completely; (3) it may result, firstly, in the granting of a pension to the mineworkers, just as in the case of a teacher or a public servant, once he has completed a certain number of years of service in the mining industry and, secondly, it may result in the granting of a pension to a mineworker who becomes disabled during his period of service, irrespective of the cause of his disability.

I want to conclude on this note: I stand by this measure; I will support this measure with all the power at my command; I will support every amendment which is designed to improve this measure. There is one thing that worries me a little—I am not an expert in the medical sphere—and that is the meticulous measuring that takes place to check the health of the mineworker; even his breath is measured and he either makes the grade or just fails to make the grade. I think it is this sort of thing which makes our mineworkers dissatisfied. I hope and trust that the medical advisers (for whom we have the greatest respect) of the hon. the Minister, in whom I have the fullest confidence and in whose sympathetic treatment I have unlimited faith, and the Medical Bureau, which is staffed by honourable men, men who would not allow personal reasons to enter into the picture when it comes to the treatment of the mineworker and the diagnosis and certification of a disease, will carry on and that in the course of time they will produce a measure which is a further improvement on what is already a model Act.

I want to express my sincere appreciation to both sides of the House for the responsible and sensible way in which they dealt with this Bill. I wish to express my thanks to hon. members opposite, particularly to the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker), who was the first speaker, for giving the assurance that the Opposition welcomes this Bill and accepts it, although they have certain doubts in regard to certain clauses. Much of the discussion today did not really concern this Bill, but the 1962 Act. I think you will agree with me, Sir, when I say that it is not my task this afternoon to deal in detail with that particular criticism when we are dealing with a Bill introduced this year. I hope you will allow me during the course of my reply to refer to a few points of criticism voiced against me and my Department here, criticism which appeared rather irresponsible to me but which I cannot just allow to pass.

In this regard I want to refer in the first place to the criticism of the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Taurog), which he did not voice to-day here for the first time but for the umpteenth time. The hon. member for Springs once again made a general accusation. I am sorry to have to say what I am about to say; I do not do it to show any ill-will but, as I have said before, the hon. member for Springs voices severe criticism based on insufficient knowledge of this matter. If he had known more about it, he would not have said what he did. As on former occasions, the hon. member for Springs again said that I had stated that this was now the fruit of lengthy scientific research. Where is that research? Can you show it to me? He says the research was so little that I, after the Bill was passed, had to send a mission overseas to go and find out whether this legislation was correct. Sir, that is a totally wrong attitude. The 1962 Act was based on the research and the reports and the investigations of all the commissions of inquiry, the Stratford Commission, the Allen Commission, the Beyers Commission and the Oosthuizen Commission. That legislation was based on that. Some of the principles contained in that legislation are the same principles for which the hon. members for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) and Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford) have been pleading in this House for years. That mission we sent overseas did not go there to confirm the scientific basis of the 1962 Act. They went to investigate quite a different matter. They went to investigate the problem of the aftercare and the treatment of pneumoconiosis sufferers, particularly with respect to aluminium therapy. It had nothing to do with this legislation. What we do with such a man, his after-care, is quite a different field of activity. We hope to be able to come to this House later with proposals in connection with that after-care.

The hon. member for Springs and other hon. members also said that we were in too much of a hurry with the 1962 Act. I admit that we acted speedily. But I still say that even if we had gone much more slowly no hon. member would have been able to give me the assurance that technical faults would not have slipped in. Technical mistakes slip into any legislation. It is only in the practical application of an Act that one discovers any technical faults. Even though we had discussed that Act for weeks, such technical faults would still have appeared. Neither the hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller) nor the hon. member for Springs have pointed out one fundamental mistake in this Act. We hear about the disabilities; we hear about the weaknesses, we hear of the shortcomings in the 1962 Act, but we are not told how the Act is basically defective. The hon. member for Springs and other hon. members have now said for the umpteenth time that I had said it was an agreed measure, and that I had misled the House. Must I reveal the facts to hon. members now? I shall give them the details. I repeat that it was an agreed measure between my Department, the Chamber of Mines and the mining trade unions, and I have written proof of it. I have before me an extract from the minutes of consultations lasting for months between my Department and the trade unions. I have the reservations which the trade unions had in regard to the legislation, reservations which we met. I have the resolution of the trade unions which says that after the reservations fell away, “the draft Bill was accepted by Mr. Ellis’ proposal”. As the hon. member for Ventersdorp said, the representatives of the trade unions sat in the gallery here. On previous days they visited me and asked that the legislation should in heaven’s name be put through that year still and that we should not wait until the next year. That was the attitude of the trade unions.

What about the Chamber of Mines? Mr. Speaker, I have the correspondence before me and I will show it to hon. members if they want to see it. The Chamber of Mines discussed this matter and expressed their satisfaction with everything except in regard to the medical aspect. I mentioned that during my second-reading speech. They were not quite satisfied with the medical aspect of certification. The Chamber asked me whether I, after the legislation had been in operation for a while, would have the matter investigated in order to see whether this aspect worked satisfactorily in practice, and I agreed. You will remember that I mentioned this in my second-reading speech at the time. Thereafter I received a letter from the Chamber of Mines saying that subject to that condition they accepted the Bill in its present form. I hope the hon. member for Springs will now take my word for it that both the Chamber of Mines, with the proviso I mentioned in the debate, and the trade union accepted the Bill, and that the trade union insisted that it should be passed that year still. I cannot help it if thereafter certain people set afoot new movements in the trade unions. I cannot help it if a Dr. Scheepers came along—I think it was the hon. member for Florida who mentioned his name—who told the mineworkers certain things. I had everything investigated by a panel of experts, and this panel of medical experts rejected in principle everything he had said, and then he disappeared and we never heard from him again.

The hon. member for Springs spoke about the dissatisfaction among the mineworkers. I also represent a mining constituency, and perhaps one of the biggest mining constituencies. I also hold meetings among the mining voters, and I also know what the feeling is among the mineworkers. I know there is a certain amount of dissatisfaction, but one gets dissatisfaction under any Act. I think we should ask the hon. members for Springs and Florida to draft an Act for us, and I am convinced that there will be people who are dissatisfied with that also. One cannot get any Act which applies to tens of thousands of people without finding people who are dissatisfied with it. But I can say that there is much less dissatisfaction with the present Act than with any previous Act. I administered the previous Act for some time, and I have now administered the existing Act for 20 months. I know what letters come in weekly from people who complain. I know what happened under the old Act and what is happening under the new Act. Whereas under the old Act we received approximately 28 complaints a week, in the first six months under the new Act we received only nine per month. Nine per month! And the people who complain are mostly people who complain that they are not classified in a higher category, which is quite understandable psychologically. They are, in most cases, people who are dissatisfied because they were classified in the first and not in the second or third category. But the complaints are much fewer than under the previous Acts. Hon. members can go to the bureau and the bureau will tell them how smoothly this Act is working, and that gratitude is continually being expressed, much more so than under the previous legislation. But there are people who are dissatisfied. That one will always have. There is, however, greater satisfaction under the present Act than under any previous Act.

The hon. member for Springs referred to a certain machine which is used, and the hon. member for Ventersdorp also referred to it. Sir, that lung function testing machine is not the basis for determining whether a man has tuberculosis or not, or whether he has pneumoconiosis or not. These lung function tests are only one of the measures applied, and the mineworker can choose whether he wants to have it or not. There are many other measures, clinical examinations, pathological examinations, radiological examinations, and the whole history of the mineworker is investigated , and this machine is not the decisive factor; it is only an additional factor. The hon. member should not run away with the idea that this is the machine which now determines whether a mineworker is sick or not.

The hon. members for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) and Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford) and Wolmaransstad (Mr. G. P. van den Berg) and Odendaalsrus (Dr. Meyer) spoke very seriously about the tuberculotic cases and the provision in the Bill which provides that tuberculosis cases may again work in a dusty atmosphere. I may tell them that I also realize the seriousness of the matter. We know it is a serious matter. I do not wish to quarrel with the medical men on this matter. My Department has instituted investigations and obtained the advice of prominent medical men in regard to the matter, and we received the reply from them that we should continue with the measure, subject to the provision I have already explained. I can give hon. members the assurance that if this Bill is passed, this section will be applied with the greatest circumspection. The hon. member for Germiston (District) asked whether we could not insert a section providing for the withdrawal of this certificate. This is not necessary. Section 23 of the Act already provides that the Dirctor may at any time again withdraw any certificate. Provision has therefore already been made for it, and we shall act with the greatest circumspection, and if we find anything that looks dangerous I will ask the House to withdraw this provision. It is a matter which we have thoroughly investigated, after both the Chamber and the trade unions and the medical men advised us that under these circumstances we could take this step. The hon. member for Rosettenville asked me whether a pneumoconiosis sufferer of 50 years of age or more will be allowed to enter a mine. He may not. In terms of the Act, nobody aged 50 or over may work in a dusty atmosphere.

May I put a question? If a mineworker suffers from tuberculosis with 15 per cent pneumoconiosis, will he be allowed to work underground if his tuberculosis has been cured and certified?

No. I think I have now disposed of most of the general problems mentioned by hon. members. The hon. member for Springs put another question. He says that there is a certain amount of confusion among the mineworkers in regard to a directive I am alleged to have issued in regard to the old first-grade pneumoconiosis sufferers. I just want to tell the hon. member that I never issued such a directive. But what I did in fact do was to lay down certain standdards. One of those standards is that clear radiological signs of pneumoconiosis should be accepted as being a minimum of 20 per cent pneumoconiosis. But every old pneumoconiosis sufferer under the old system must be re-examined, and if in terms of the standard laid down he is grouped between 20 per cent and 50 per cent, he immediately receives a pension. He does not get it automatically.

The hon. member also aksed me to what extent this legislation would assist the marginal mines. His information is that it will not help them. I do not know how the hon. member can say that. To begin with, the actuaries are still busy calculating the outstanding debt of all the mines. The actuaries have not yet submitted their report. We hope to receive it in the near future, and when we receive it we will be able to determine the outstanding debts, which will be calculated favourably for the older mines. We have also appointed a risks committee and we are convinced that the activities of this committee will benefit the old mines.

In conclusion, I just want to reply to a question put by the hon. member for Germiston (District) and other hon. members, namely whether in terms of the new approach which we will now follow we will grant favourable consideration to proposals submitted by the Chamber of Mines and the trade unions. Let me say that we will handle them with great seriousness and the greatest circumspection. When a trade union or trade unions, the employees and the employers agree with one another on an important matter, it is a serious matter and not something which we can lightly brush aside. Therefore one must take serious notice of it. But although we will take serious notice of it, I want to tell the hon. member that we will be very critical because we do not want this new dispensation which we are creating for the mining industry to be more detrimental either to the mines and to the workers than the existing one. I take it that this is also the same point which hon. members there adopt. We shall not allow ourselves to be forced into a new situation without proper investigation.

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether in such a case new legislation will be necessary before something like that can be done?

New legislation will definitely be necessary, and if it goes so far I shall be prepared to submit new legislation to this House only after very thorough investigation, even if a commission of inquiry has to be appointed. I do not intend submitting over-hasty decisions to this House.

Has the hon. the Minister dealt with the question as to why there is objection to the transfer of the Medical Bureau to the Department of Health?

Order! This is not relevant now.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

1. (a) in terms of Section 77 of the Customs Act, 1955, approves of the notes which were exchanged between the Governments of the Republic of South Africa and the United Kingdom on 5 June 1963 confirming South Africa’s agreement to the waiver of the margin of preference on cherries, apricots and peaches canned in water which is guaranteed by the United Kingdom to South Africa in terms of the Ottawa Trade Agreement of 20 August 1932; and
2. (b) in terms of Section 75 of the Customs Act, 1955, approves of the notes which were exchanged between the Governments of the Republic of South Africa and Southern Rhodesia on 23 December 1963 confirming South Africa’s agreement to the continued application of the terms and provisions of the Trade Agreement of 16 May 1960 between the Republic of South Africa and the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland to the trade between South Africa and Southern Rhodesia after the dissolution of the Federation on 31 December 1963,

On 26 March 1964 already I tabled copies of the exchange of notes relating to this motion. In regard to part (a) of this motion, the British Government informed the South African Government in May 1962 that in principle it had granted a request for the customs-free entry of apricots, peaches and cherries preserved in water. At the same time the South African Government was requested to relieve the British Government of its obligation to maintain a preference margin of 10 per cent ad valorem on these products.

The reason for this request was stated to be that British canners import these products from the Continent of Europe as raw material for the canning of fruit and fruit salad and that the import duties payable on it put the British canners in an unfavourable position, particularly vis-à-vis cheaper fruit salad from the non-Commonwealth countries, on which only a sugar duty of 0.625 per cent ad valorem is payable. The British Government indicated that the withdrawal of this preference margin was of particular interest to it due to the difficulties experienced by the British canners as the result of foreign competition.

In considering this request, the South African Government took into consideration that it was desirable that the Ottawa Trade Agreement with the United Kingdom should be applied in a spirit of mutual goodwill. The British Government has, for example, always been prepared in the past to agree to the temporary suspension of the guaranteed preference margin it has enjoyed on tinplate in South Africa on occasions when British producers were not able to supply South Africa’s requirements. In that way the fruit canning industry in South Africa derived considerable benefit from this in the form of lower prices for cans.

Although from time to time small quantities of peaches and pineapples preserved in water are exported to the United Kingdom and it is clear that the withdrawal of this preference margin will place the British canners in a more advantageous position to compete with South African canned fruit in the British market, it was nevertheless decided that it would still be advisable to accede to the British request, on the understanding that the question of compensation to South Africa for abandoning this preference margin would be discussed during future tariff negotiations between the two countries. Notes were exchanged to confirm the Republic’s agreement, and the House is now being asked to approve this exchange of notes.

In so far as part (b) of my motion is concerned, the position is that the trade agreement of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, in terms of its provisions, will remain in force until 30 June 1965 and thereafter will remain in force until after the expiry of 12 months from the date on which the one party or the other gives notice of its intention to terminate the agreement.

The Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasa-land was, however, dissolved on 31 December 1963 and in terms of the arrangements for its dissolution the functions in regard to customs and excise and related matters in respect of Southern Rhodesia, which previously have been performed by the Federal Government, reverted to the Southern Rhodesian Government.

In order to avoid any disruption of the trade relations between South African and Southern Rhodesia after the dissolution of the Federation, the Southern Rhodesian Government proposed that the trade agreement of 16 May 1960 between South Africa and the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland should remain in force between Southern Rhodesia and the Republic of South Africa until such time as the two Governments have agreed on and have reached a decision in regard to the conditions of their future trade relations.

It will also be to the benefit of South Africa if its trade relations with Southern Rhodesia are disturbed as little as possible until such time as they can be placed on a firm basis. The Southern Rhodesian Government’s proposal was therefore accepted as an interim arrangement, and notes were exchanged between the South African and the Southern Rhodesian Governments in order to confirm the South African Government’s approval of the proposal made by Southern Rhodesia. The House is now being asked to approve this exchange of notes also.

Mr. Speaker, as far as this side of the House is concerned, we have no objection to the approval of this exchange of notes. In so far as part (a) of the motion is concerned, the hon. the Minister has said that in regard to this concession the British Government has made certain promises, namely that it will consider in future whether it should make concessions. Does this promise apply only to the fruit trade, or does it apply in general?

I think the hon. member is referring to the abandonment of the preference margin. In this margin I just want to say that the same phrase appears in quite a few proposals of a similar nature which I have already made. By abandoning the preference margin in respect of these goods, we are losing something in Britain. That has happened a few times already in the past, althouth we have not yet demanded any compensation from Britain for what we lost in that way. It stands over to a later stage, when we will group together several of these things and ask for compensation for what we have abandoned. In other words, it will take place between state and state.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

The amendments which were effected to this Bill in the Committe Stage indicate the extent to which both sides of the House co-operated to reach agreement on the various points. This Bill is, after all, the very basis on which this Parliament exists. The functioning of the electoral machinery decides whether or not democracy in this country works or not, and I am very pleased that we have been able to reach this measure of agreement. I hope the hon. the Minister will allow me the pleasure of saying that we could have reached the stage at which we now are as far back as 1955 when this side of the House introduced a private member’s Bill incorporating the principles of the Bill before us now. The matter was again raised by us in 1960, 1961 and 1962. And from the suggestions we made over the years … [Interruptions.] Gradually the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) who is grumbling away in his seat, as well as others, have come to see the light. And now we have before us a measure on which, bar a few aspects, we are agreed. [Interruptions.] I think there are hon. members who are not quite sure as to their motives in accepting our suggestions but they were nevertheless accepted.

However, the point is that now we have succeeded in placing upon the Statute Book machinery which, with a few exceptions, is agreed, and whereunder our future elections will be conducted. But no machinery can work unless the people in charge of it want to make it work. You can create the finest machine in the world, but if that machine is not maintained and driven properly, or controlled properly, it will fail. The success or failure of the Bill we are now passing will depend upon the joint willingness of both sides of the House when they go to the hustings to conduct elections in the spirit in which we have placed these amendments upon the Statute Book; a spirit of seeking to close the door against abuses and of creating complete and total confidence in the system as well as in the security and the privacy of each individual’s vote. I am sorry that there should be points of differences which remain. There is, for instance, the question of justices of the peace, who are not State officials, and of stationmasters who are entitled to take part in politics acting as presiding officers for absent voters. This is something which we feel is not in keeping with the spirit of the Bill but it is a matter which the Minister said he would watch. We accept his assurance that if it should be found that the inclusion of these categories was not necessary or is being abused, he will reconsider the position. That will soon become clear. We are also unhappy that the Minister did not take this opportunity of removing the restrictions which exist on voting outside South Africa. But apart from that, as the Bill is now before us, there remain only a few minor matters which have not yet been finalized. I want to remind the Minister of the three matters he has promised to investigate, where we are agreed in our objective, but not in regard to the wording necessary to achieve that objective. There was an amendment moved to Clause 7, a technical one which I will not deal with, which the Minister wants to go into and which we hope he will correct in the Other Place. In regard to Clause 15, there was an important issue, the right of parties to accompany a polling officer when he goes out to take a postal vote. There again, we were agreed on the principle and it was a question of wording. I trust that the Minister has now been able to give some thought to the matter and that in the Other Place he will introduce an amendment placing the onus on the political parties to make the approach, but making it quite clear that when the approach is made, the polling officer must accede to any request to be accompanied by a representative of the candidate. The other matter of importance was the question which may need a contingent motion in order to introduce protection against intimidation either in the polling booth or by the presiding officer for absent voters. Those are the matters which are outstanding and on which the Minister said he accepted our point of view but in regard to which we could not find the exact formula for settling our problems. On the assurances the Minister has given us we believe that mechanically this Bill should now provide for clean procedure in regard to absent voters, and being the fruit of consultations in the select committee and on the commission, we believe it represents as far as it is possible to get this, the joint and unanimous wishes of all the political organizations which will have to work within the framework of this measure.

We support this third reading and we are grateful for the spirit in which the Minister has met us in almost all the proposals we have put forward.

I do not know whether Schalk Pienaar is in the Press gallery, but he has called all of us angels. He said I was the archangel.

Order! The hon. the Minister is out of order now.

Those were merely my introductory remarks. But the hon. member for Durban Point (Mr. Raw) has now shown a few small horns at the third reading, and the wings have become shorter, for this reason, that the hon. member really wants to take the credit, from a party political angle, that they are really responsible for the amendments in this Bill. The hon. member will recall that in all the elections that have been fought, this side of the House has always been accused that the results were due to the fact that postal votes have not been dealt with too well by this side of the House. Thereafter I said in my second-reading speech that this Bill did not originate with my Department or myself, but from the instructions of this House, and I think we must put the matter in its proper perspective. It was a joint attempt by this House to close the loopholes. The Act is there now and this is the third reading, but I should like to predict that loopholes will still always be found, because illegal practices can still take place at any time, and possibly the existing malpractices may also still continue. I should like to make an appeal here to-day. There is no doubt that it has been exaggerated very much, and the public possibly gained the impression during the passage of this Act that an election is fought in such a manner that the people who should really win do not win, and that is not true. The commission itself found that those malpractices were exaggerated very much. As we are now making an honest attempt to put a stop to it, I should like to appeal to the whole House and the country that in future there should not be the slightest vestige of a suggestion that elections are not fought on an honest basis. If we find loopholes, we shall close them further, and we want to retain the confidence of our people outside, as well as that of the whole world, in the honest manner in which elections are fought in this country. That was our honest intention. All the suggestions and the co-operation are appreciated. The few things mentioned here by the hon. member have not really been accepted by me; I think the hon. member put it somewhat strongly, but I said I would give my serious attention to it, and I am already doing so. I have already had consultations to see to what extent we can still put right those things, as the hon. members would like us to do, and then I shall do it in the Other Place. I should like to express my thanks and appreciation as well as my hope that this legislation will be to our credit, and will strengthen the confidence of the electorate, and will give them the assurance that in this country we are honest people who win honestly and lose courageously.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Third Order read: Resumption of Committee of Supply.

Yesterday afternoon, shortly before the House adjourned, the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) put some questions to the Minister on the report of the Press Commission and the Minister kindly replied to him immediately. We appreciated that speedy reaction on the part of the Minister. We feel that in some respects the short speech made by the Minister yesterday was more important than the report itself. It took him ten minutes, while it took the Press Commission 13 years; yet I think, on balance, more importance should be attached to the Minister’s speech than to the report of the commission. The Minister made it very clear that the Government was not taking immediate decisions on the report. I think it is wise not to take immediate decisions to carry out the recommendations of the commission. I think it is wise to give the public an opportunity of reacting to the far-reaching findings of the commission. At the same time I think it would be wrong of the Minister to delay announcing that the Government is not accepting the main recommendations of the commission; it would be unfair to expect the public to react while the sword of Damocles is hanging over the head of the Press. Make no mistake, Sir, the main recommendation of the commission is a form of censorship of the Press more severe than the censorship of particular messages; it threatens to deprive people who send reports overseas of their very right to practise their calling. It is more drastic than censoring a particular message, but I do not want to go into that now. I want to ask the Minister whether he will at least tell us whether he will accept a suggestion made by the commission itself that it should be appointed to perform the third part of its task. The commission found 13 years quite inadequate to do three simple jobs. The first job was to investigate the Press in South Africa. It only had time to investigate reports sent out from South Africa. I do not want to derogate from the importance of that work, but it did create this peculiar result, that it became unnecessary for the commission to investigate the Afrikaans or Nationalist Party Press, because they do not send reports overseas. So the public are not in a position to judge of the Press in South Africa at all. Because most of the reports going overseas emanate from the employees of English language newspapers, they had to be investigated but the Afrikaans, and especially the Nationalist Party Press, which in my opinion is more guilty of many of the things attributed to the English Press, was not investigated at all. We have a one-sided and lopsided report, on which it is impossible for public opinion to adjudicate.

Having said that, I want to return to what I consider to be even more important than the commission itself, and that is the Minister’s comments on the commission yesterday. He told us that the Government could not react immediately, because this report was regarded as confidential. He told us that it was regarded as so confidential that not a single member of the Cabinet was allowed to see the report before it was tabled yesterday. His own words, as I recall them at the time, and as I checked them with the resources at our disposal, were these—

4¼ hours.

I stand corrected, but I particularly want the hon. the Minister to correct the next sentence—

[Laughter.] I want to say this at once. We in South Africa live in dangerous times. We are told by the Government that in many respects we are a beleaguered country, misunderstood by all the world and persecuted by a large part of it. We are told several times a day by the S.A.B.C. that we are virtually at war. At a time like that it is essential that South Africa should have implicit trust and confidence in the reliability and trustworthiness of its great public institutions. South Africa has the right to demand trustworthiness from the Press, but it has an equal right to demand trustworthiness from the Cabinet. I want the Minister to explain to us on whose authority he withheld this report from the Cabinet, because he feared leakages if his colleagues should get hold of it. In the meantime, we happen to know that the same report was available to officials, e.g. of the Department of Information, officials who kindly prepared a fine summary, as far as we can judge in the time available to us, of the report. Officials of the Department of Information were trustworthy enough to get this report, but the Minister tells us he dared not give it to his own colleagues, not even to the Prime Minister, in order to prevent leakages. Sir, this is a dreadful situation and one of which South Africa should take note. I think the Minister should tell this House on whose authority he denied access to this document to members of the Cabinet? Who warned him about the leakages which would occur if the Cabinet saw this? Why did the Prime Minister not see it? Can the Prime Minister not be trusted?

I believe that this was a decision obviously taken by the Minister himself. He must have found himself in the same position as the Duke of Wellington when in the Iberian Peninsula he was sent a number of raw recruits from Britain, recruits who had been picked up wherever they could be found, and he looked upon them in the same way as the hon. the Minister looked upon the Cabinet, and he said: “I do not know what you will do to the enemy, but you put the fear of God into me.” [Laughter.] [Time limit.]

If the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) wants us to take him seriously, he should not behave like a clown in this House so often. In the first place he congratulates the Minister for saying that the Government is not going to take any decisions on this matter at the present time, but in this morning’s Cape Times the Leader of the Opposition insists that the Government should take immediate decisions on the report of this commission. The Minister has announced the Government’s standpoint very clearly. Here we have a report of more than 4,000 pages. The Government is going to study that report and it will in due course announce what it is going to do.

But there is another very serious question that arises, namely this: What are the owners of the English papers going to do about this report? What are the directors of those newspapers going to do about it? Are they going to study this report to see whether what is contained therein is true, and if they find it is true, what are they going to do with the members of their staff who wrote these scandalous things? In these newspaper offices there are responsible people in respect of whom the commission found that a responsible person like the editor of the Cape Times sent out false reports to besmirch this country. What is Mr. Clive Corder going to do about that? Is he going to leave it at that, or is he going to investigate the matter to see whether it is true? And if it is true, is he going to continue to employ that traitor to South Africa as editor of the Cape Times? That is the question facing South Africa. It is not the Government which is in the dock as the accused; it is the owners and the directors of the English newspapers, Mr. Clive Corder and Mr. Edmunds and Mr. Brown, because the Press Commission lays the charge against them that in time of crisis large sections of their staff sent out of the country the most scandalous lies about South Africa; not the young journalists but their most senior journalists, people like the editor of the Cape Times and like Stanley Uys—their chief political reporters. This is what the commission says about them—

That was during a period when South Africa was facing one of its great crises. That was during the Sharpeville disturbances. [Interjections.]

Older!

It was at the time when an attack was made on the life of the Prime Minister. That was the time when members of the staffs of these English newspapers sent out of this country the most scandalous lies in order to besmirch South Africa. They then waited to see a successful revolution. Those are not my words, but the words of the commission. Now, what do the owners of those newspapers propose to do about this matter? I am not saying they should accept the commission’s report as true, but are they going to investigate the matter?

But there is another question. What is the Opposition going to do about the report? The Leader of the Opposition has said, quite fairly, that he is going to appoint a commission to study this report. Now I should like to ask him: If that commission finds that the findings of this report are well-founded, that those besmirchers of South Africa are in the employ of the English newspapers, that some of the senior journalists of those newspapers have defiled this country in the most shocking way, are they going to sit still? The Leader of the Opposition this morning referred to the so-called intimidation of the Press. Why is this Press intimidated so easily? The Leader of the Opposition says: “This process of intimidation has not served to enhance the reputation of South Africa.”

Hear, hear!

Those falsehoods told by his friends, those falsehoods of Norton and of Stanley Uys and of Delius, do they “enhance” the reputation of South Africa? Has he had a single word to say about it? [Interjections.] Let the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher), who is so talkative now, tell me this: If his own commission finds that what is said in this report is true, what are they going to do? Are they going to leave it at that?

Surely there is a Press Board of Reference, is there not?

If there is a Press Board of Reference, why then appoint another commission? Then you have the solution, have you not?

What commission are you referring to?

The Leader of the Opposition said he was going to appoint a commission to study the report. The hon. member for Yeoville does not even know that. During the time when I was a United Party supporter, I knew more about what was going on in the United Party than he did, and it seems to me I still know more about it than he does.

We did not mention a commission.

Call it a commission or whatever you like, but the fact remains that you are going to study the report. And now the Opposition have a duty to South Africa. They have to say whether they are then going to sit still. And there is a duty on the owners of the English newspapers whose employees are accused here of having done these terrible things to South Africa. The people of South Africa want to know whether they are going to reject those allegations, or whether they are going to investigate them to find out whether what this commission says is rue, and if it is true, what do they intend doing with this band of traitors they are paying every day? [Interjections.] The Minister has said what the Government intends doing. It is going to study the report, and if it finds it necessary to do something, it will announce what it is going to do. All I am asking is this, and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition cannot laugh it away, and the directors of the English newspapers cannot laugh away these things. Here we have a charge of the most scandalous behaviour by senior English journalists ever before experienced in South Africa or in any country of the world.

It is not true. [Interjection.]

Are they not going to defend themselves? Are they not going to say it is not true? And if it is true, what do they propose doing about it?

They laugh at treachery!

In connection with this report, I can honestly say that I expected very little of it, but this report has exposed such a shocking state of affairs in South Africa that the people of South Africa are not going to be satisfied with it.

May I have the privilege of the half hour? I am not going to reply to the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee). I think this House is used to his violent, obsessional hatred of the English language Press. I think it is noteworthy, however, that when the hon. member first came to this House he did not at that stage belong to the Nationalist Party, and at that time he was one of the defenders of the freedom of speech.

Yes, of freedom of speech, but not freedom to lie.

When the hon. member crossed the floor of the House and joined the Government party, it was then that all his inherent feelings against freedom of speech and of opinion began to manifest themselves. When he found himself the object of criticism by the English Press, the hon. member showed himself in his true colours, so it is not worth debating with him. As far as I am concerned, the less action that is taken on this Press Commission’s report, the better, because I have seldom read anything that is more fatuous and more completely wasteful of time and money as far as this country is concerned.

The hon. the Minister announced last night that it was not his intention to proceed with any legislation in this regard, but nevertheless I think one ought to say something about this second report of the Press Commission, or rather, about this official summary which magically made its appearance and for which I for one am very grateful, because obviously there was no time to read through the mountainous amount of verbiage which has been produced by the Press Commission in its second report. [Interjections.] I am speaking of the official report put out by the Minister of Information, for the benefit of members of this House. I do not think anyone is under any delusion as to the original reasons for the appointment of the Press Commission. It is part and parcel of the whole cold war that has been waged by the Government against the concept of freedom of expression in South Africa.

Nonsense!

But I doubt very much if anybody could have seriously contemplated the chequered course that this Commission has had, or could have imagined that grown men could sit down for nearly 14 years indulging themselves in the absolutely puerile task of sifting thousands of words, of cables with the object of classifying their authors into the headings of “good, faulty, bad or very bad.” I must say that a lot of things have happened in this country in the past 14 years to bring odium on our heads, but I cannot think of anything more calculated to make us the laughing stock of the civilized world that a report such as this which takes the names of reputable journalists and classifies them in this puerile classification. Some of the world’s most famous newspapermen have in fact received dishonourable mention by the Press Commission, men and women whose names I would say carry a good deal more weight than many of the members of the Press Commission itself, including the hon. member for Standerton, who is one of the two surviving members of that Commission. The chief foreign correspondents of some of the most highly respected and responsible newspapers of the world are castigated by this Commission. There is a Pulitzer prize-winner, the Associated Press man, Mr. Henzerling, who is among those singled out for disfavour. There are some of the world’s greatest foreign correspondents, one of the world’s best War Correspondents, Mr. Noel Monks of the Daily Mail, Douglas Brown of the Daily Telegraph, the top men of Reuters, Mr. Sean Maynes and Astley Hawkins, Mr. Wise of the Daily Express, a top foreign correspondent, the top men of U.P.I. and A.P., of the New York Times and Dame Rebecca West, who is one of the world’s greatest writers, whose names I am quite sure will remain in the memories of the world long after the names of the members of the Press Commission have passed on into the limbo of forgotten men. All these people are household names, and yet we have this incredible spectacle of the commissioners sitting down and handing out bad conduct marks to men and women of this calibre. Throughout this report there are anguished moans about South Africa being misunderstood, that the views of minority parties and “of deviators and dissidents”—and these are real authoritarian phrases—are given all the publicity, but no one ever defends the Government’s eminently sane and sober ideas or appreciates that its policies are nothing more than the old traditional way of life of South Africa, which the Commission says, according to the summary, “is generally accepted by the vast majority of people in every race and language group in South Africa.” Well, it seems to me that the commissioners have done nothing but talk to themselves for the last 13 years. It also seems to me that the charge of misrepresentation brought by the Commission can much more truly be brought against itself instead of against these journalists. The hon. member for Vereeniging spoke about false reporting. I want to draw his attention to some of the sections quoted in this summary, and then he can tell us whether this is an impartial summing-up of the situation. Take the extraordinary statement made by the Commission about Reuters on page 16. It says there is practically no need or desire by members of any non-White group to be admitted into White society, or by members of any non-White group to be admitted into the society of another group. This is one of the charges against Reuters, that it failed to make mention of this fact that there is practically no need or desire by members of any non-White group to be admitted into White society. Well, if that is so, perhaps the hon. member for Vereeniging will explain to the House why it has been necessary since the Government came into power, to introduce the Separate Amenities Act and the Group Areas Act, the Mixed Marriages Act and to amend the Immorality Act? I wonder whether the hon. member will explain to this House why, if there is no desire on the part of any member of the non-White groups to mix with anybody in any other group, the Government has found it necessary to introduce one piece of legislation after the other designed with the specific purpose of keeping the racial groups apart. As far as I know, Governments are not supposed to waste the time of the House of Parliament in passing laws for which there is no need, and according to this report the charge against Reuters is that it failed to make any mention of the fact that there was no such need. On page 17 of the summary of the commission’s report, the complaint is made that Reuters “selected news which created the impression that Indians were oppressed, being discriminated against and generally not justly dealt by and that it was the present Government who was primarily responsible for this state of affairs.” But, Sir, is it not a fact that Indians are being oppressed and discriminated against? And is it not this Government that has carried that discrimination even further? What does the hon. member for Vereeniging, for instance, think the Indians feel about the Group Areas Act, about the fact that most of the Indians in the Transvaal are awaiting ejection under the Group Areas Act and that their livelihood is going to be taken away from them? Is it therefore false reporting to say that the Indians are being oppressed and discriminated against? Is it false reporting to say that they have no vote and that they are unable to move from one province to the other? Because is this not in fact oppression? Does the hon. the Minister think the reporting of Reuters is less accurate than some of the glossy pamphlets which I have seen being distributed overseas by our Department of Information? These represent the Indians as living a happy and prosperous life, and show little Indians girls trotting happily off to school or being driven to school in large automobiles belonging to their parents. Is that a true picture of the life of the Indian community in South Africa or is the true position that the vast majority of Indians live on a very low standard of living and are being discriminated against? Are the pamphlets being put out by the Minister of Information about the African population in this country, creating a picture of prosperous business men in the townships of Johannesburg while he knows that all these are living under a threat of ejection to the reserve, that they are not allowed to expand their businesses, that pass laws prohibit free movement, etc.? Which is the faulty reporting: the reporting of Reuters or these pamphlets being put out by the hon. the Minister of Information?

Take, furthermore, the commission’s complaint that cables which were sent overseas created the impression that the Government was intolerant towards the African trade union movement in South Africa. But is it not a fact that the Government is intolerant towards African trade unions in this country? Did not the hon. the Minister of Labour when he introduced the Settlement of Disputes Act say that he hoped that this trade union movement would die on is feet?

When you were a member of the United Party you did not support Black trade unions and you know it.

The hon. member knows full well that while one is in a certain party one publicly supports the policy of that party while you can move resolution after resolution at the party’s congresses to get that policy changed if you want it changed. That is what I did. My main question to the hon. member for Vereeniging and to the hon. the Minister is how it is that this commission, according to page 5 of the summary, had little criticism to offer in regard to general news despatched from South Africa, more particularly news dealing with mining, scientific, financial, economic, industrial, agricultural and educational matters? How is it that the commission could find that the reports about these matters, both as regards the selection and presentation of the news, fair and reasonable? That covers practically the entire orbit of life in South Africa—every facet with the exception of the political and racial field. Now, can hon. members opposite explain to me how it is that this commission could find that these very same journalists, the very same men whom the hon. member for Vereeniging castigates as being unmitigated liars, are able to report fairly and apparently without bias on education, mining, scientific, economic and industrial matters but the minute they turn to racial or political matters they become unmitigated liars?

Because they know there is no mischief to be made out of those matters.

It is extraordinary that these very same people can immediately drop all their claims to veracity and turn into avowed enemies of the Nationalist Government or of Afrikanerdom. According to this report, the minute these 6 journalists with their measured opinion on every other matter turn to racial or political matters they become Jekylls and Hydes—their whole personality changes and they immediately become the tools of communists. I wonder how long the hon. member for Vereeniging will continue to believe that conservative and respectable newspapers like the New York Times, or the London Times and an avowed anti-communist magazine like Time, would continue to allow correspondents to represent them who are tools of communists and immediately drop all pretence to impartial reporting the moment they have to report on racial matters. Of course, what the commission failed to appreciate, what the Government fails to appreciate and, more particularly, what the hon.. member for Vereeniging fails to appreciate—because he has to outdo everybody in his protestations of loyalty to the Nationalist Government and its policies—is that it is the racialism of this country which upsets people and that it is the racialism being practised in this country which is not accepted by civilized people—be they journalists or not.

Do you contend that the commission was not independent?

The commission, quite clearly, examines this whole question of Press reporting from the Nationalist point of view. Of that there is not the slightest shadow of doubt.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself!

Order! The hon. member for Heilbron cannot continue making interruptions.

I have seen enough from the direct quotes contained in this summary of the report of the commission to justify my saying that the commission examined the evidence before it from the point of view of the Nationalist Government. The contradictory quotes which I have read out should, I believe, show this quite convincingly. In other words, what I am trying to say is that anti-communists hate racialism more, far more, than the people the hon. member for Vereeniging believes they are shielding. That is why the utterances of what the commission calls minor political groups receive “unwarranted prominence” in reports going overseas. Those views happen to reflect the views of the civilized world and the criticism of racialism is the criticism that is echoed by the civilized world and therefore receives all this prominence in the overseas Press. It would be surprising if it did not. It would be just as surprising to my mind if the Nationalist Press failed to give publicity to the views of Government spokesmen. We must accept that. Equally one should expect newspapers overseas, that are against racialism, who have adopted non-discrimination as the ethical policy for the civilized world, to give prominence to views which are against racialism, the racialism which emanates from South Africa.

If the report itself is fatuous I believe the recommendations are downright dangerous and that they are a menace to anybody who has any idea of the cherished concept of freedom of opinion. Last year when the Censorship Act was passed in this House I said we were engaged on a dangerous course in South Africa, that we were going ever further along the road of inhibiting thought and the freedom of expression under threats of punishment. I objected to the setting up of a Press Board with a “voluntary” code of conduct. I then criticized the N.P.U. for accepting the principle of a “voluntary” form of censorship of newspapers. Because I believed, and I still believe, that once that basic principle was conceded, and it was conceded by the various sectors that a voluntary code was necessary for the newspapers, the first important breach in the whole concept of freedom of expression had been made in South Africa. The Censorship Act, of course, went even further with its very wide definition of what was considered undesirable literature. Now we have a vast mass of verbiage, the second report of the Press Commission, and what does it propose? It proposes what it calls “self-control of the Press”. This “self-control” of course, is to be imposed from outside. That how much “self” there is to be in this “self-control”. One must point out that already there are many inhibitions on free reporting in this country. We have our criminal procedure laws which prevent the reporting of anything that goes on in prisons. We have the Sabotage Act which gave the hon. the Minister of Justice the power to ban newspapers he thought were advancing aims of which he disapproved. We have the Riotous Assemblies Act. All these Acts in one way or another inhibit free reporting and go far further than any censorship in any of the normal democratic countries in the world. In giving evidence before the commission the N.P.U. asked for relaxation of these inhibiting laws, with the exception, incidentally of Dagbreek and the Voortrekker Pers. The Press Commission’s reply to that request of the N.P.U. for release from inhibitions was to recommend the establishment of a Press Council with punitive powers from which there is no right of appeal! Fines may be levied, licences may be suspended or cancelled with no right of appeal from this Press Council. According to this report the Press Council will have on its personnel what are called representatives of the two major political parties in Parliament. It makes no provision whatsoever for the representation of minority groups, or more important, of the non-White communities on the council since “it is of the opinion that at the moment there is no need for these groups to be represented”. If there is one thing, apart from the major principles against any further censorship, that will condemn this report in the eyes of the world it is that statement of the commission that “it is of the opinion that at the moment there is no need for these groups to be represented”. Can anyone imagine a more self-condemnatory proposal, Sir. After all, the gravamen of the criticism against this country is that it excludes non-Whites from all representation on councils and in Parliament. A register is to be set up and every newspaperman and journalist must register with the council every year. The council is to advance 13 objects, most of which are thinly disguised to hide, what I believe, is to be the real purpose, which is, of course, to make punishable the sin of daring to indulge in criticism of the Government and its racial policy. I hope very much indeed that the hon. the Minister will give us his assurance that not only has he no intention whatsoever of implementing any of the proposals in this report this year but that he will leave it to gather dust in the darkest recesses of this House.

I have said all I want to say about the Press Commission Report. I have a few minutes left and I want to raise an entirely different subject with the hon. the Minister. I want to raise the subject of the alteration of the form which is signed by people when they enter South Africa—the passenger’s declaration form. I have already asked the hon. the Minister two questions about this form. He informed me at the beginning of the year that it was his intention to change the format of this passenger’s declaration form. Later I saw gazetted the old form. I again asked the hon. the Minister whether it was his intention to change the form and on 24 April he told me that the regulations gazetted were merely a consolidation of the regulations in existence at the date and that the passenger’s declaration form was in the process of being re-drafted. A visitor to this country who received notice in this House not so long ago. Mr. Radnall, commented on the embarrassing questions that he had been asked to answer on arrival in this country. At that stage the Secretary for the Interior stated that the Government was investigating changing the forms. But that was already in November 1962. To-day is May 1964, and the Minister has not yet been able to come forward with a simplified form for people to fill in when they come to South Africa. If it is the intention of the Government to encourage tourists to visit South Africa, then the least the Government can do is to iron out some of these difficulties that tourists encounter. I have taken the trouble to obtain the entry forms to be filled in by visitors to Italy. France, the United Kingdom and America. In each case the relevant document which has to be filled in by aliens takes the form of a simple postcard which simply asks for the surname, forename, date of birth, place of birth, sex, nationality, occupation, passport number and address where the visitor will be staying while in the country he is entering. Why then is it necessary for South Africa to have more complicated forms than the ones used in these countries I have enumerated? I have the forms here and will gladly hand them to the hon. the Minister. At the same time I should like to ask him please to expedite this whole question of revising this ludicrous passenger declaration form that people entering South Africa have to fill in. There are 16 questions that have to be filled in by such people, namely, ranging from citizenship, race, whether accompanied by children, the reasons for coming to South Africa, the period of any previous residence in the country, the country of permanent residence, last home address, what means they can produce as their own bona fide property for their use in South Africa, etc. Sir, this is offensive to people coming to South Africa. It is quite unnecessary and consequently I do commend to the hon. the Minister that whilst he is at it, he should have a complete change in the regulations and should go in for something that apparently every country in the world has adopted, at least all the major countries in the Western world.

Mr. Chairman, the United Party to-day really put up an astonishing performance. This morning their Leader made a statement which the hon. member for Yeoville has not read and with which he is not in agreement. The hon. member for Yeoville, who had to lead the reaction of his party to this Press Commission’s Report, gave a comic performance on a small phrase in the statement made by the hon. the Minister, a performance which will do credit to any Shakespearean comic actor. I think that the hon. member should, while he is in such a frame of mind, rather go and visit the stage than this House, in order to show his histrionic artistry.

But what is more, the United Party crowns all this by not itself launching its attack on the tenor of this commission’s report, but by granting the half-hour privilege to the hon. member for Houghton to speak for the United Party. So we have a party here which is too weak to launch its own attack and for that reason appoints the hon. member for Houghton as its agent to do so for it. That is symptomatic of the movement to the left of that party.

The hon. member for Houghton started, as we have seen so often before, with a defence of the freedom of the Press. Therefore, I should like to ask her, as spokesman for the Opposition, and therefore also the whole Opposition, whether they have already considered the responsibility of the Press. Did the conception of the freedom of the Press not originate in those days when the small paper was issued by the pleader of a particular cause who wanted the opportunity to make known to his country his beliefs and views? From that small beginning the Press has grown into a mighty opinion-forming organ, opinion-forming not only on political matters, but on moral issues, the status of people, on musical and literary appraisement, etc. In fact, public thinking is to a large extent guided by this opinion-forming Press. This is a new responsibility which has arisen during this last half century or so, which is not faced up to. I should like to say only this to the hon. member, that if she wants to plead for the freedom of the Press, she should, in assuming her own responsibility, simultaneously plead for measures to be taken to compel the Press to accept its responsibility also.

Her first argument is the fruit of the opinion-forming power of the Press. She came along here with the ridiculous attack on the Press Commission, and said that this commission was assailing great names in the newspaper world—internationally known persons whose work is classified as good or less good. Is it feminine logic or Opposition logic that the eminence of a person may be regarded as proof of his innocence? If the submission of the hon. member in this connection were true, the Cabinet of Mr. Mcmillan would still have been in power and there would still have been a Minister of Defence, for there we had a very prominent gentleman. Then he would still have been there to-day, had her submission been correct that because of the prominent status of a person it is impossible for him to make a mistake. But to what is the prominence of these journalists attributable? It is attributable to this, that the opinion-forming Press of the world holds up these journalists as men of deep insight and authority. But the fact that the opinion-forming Press has elevated these people does not give them special lustre, because here we are concerned with a critical analysis of the Press itself. The hon. member launched her attack on the members of the commission in the same state of mind she always reveals, namely that the views of this side of the House are rejected by all civilized people, as she puts it. And time and again the hon. member posed with great pride as apparently the only spokesman for the civilized world. The hon. member should reflect whether one’s civilization and one’s state of refinement is served by arrogance of claiming for oneself only all refinement, to the exclusion of all other people. I should like to suggest to the hon. member for her consideration also that it is strange that while the whole world outside is a symbol of civilization to her, as regards its so-called condemnation of our racial hatred, so few people in her own fatherland wish to share that civilization. So is there not possibly a mistaken view as to what civilization really is? The hon. member bases her classification of herself as the civilized one and us as the uncivilized ones on the allegation that our policy is based on racialism. But our policy is not concerned with that at all; it is concerned with the evaluation of our own freedom.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.