I have to inform hon. members that the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders at its meeting yesterday unanimously adopted a design for a new mace, which will be completed before the commencement of the 1963 session of Parliament.

On behalf of the House I wish to take this opportunity of placing on record the appreciation of the House for the generous offer of the Gold Producers’ Committee of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State Chamber of Mines to donate the cost of making the new mace and to supply the necessary gold from the goldmining industry.

I move—

1. (1) That on Tuesday, 27 March, the proceedings of the House shall be suspended at Half-past Six o’clock p.m. and resumed at Eight o’clock p.m.;
2. (2) that on Friday, 30 March, Government business shall have precedence after Notices of Questions have been disposed of; and
3. (3) that the House at its rising on Friday, 30 March, adjourn until Monday, 9 April, at a Quarter-past Two o’clock p.m.

This motion is in regard to the recess and hon. members will notice that on Friday, 30 March, which is usually private members’ day, the Minister of Finance will reply to the Budget debate. Thereafter the House will adjourn for the recess. We are thus depriving private members of the Friday morning and it has been agreed that when the House meets again on Monday afternoon, to make that available to private members. It is not necessary for me to state that in my motion. The private members’ day will simply be placed first on the order of that day.

I second.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, we have come to the third reading of this Bill which is another amendment in a long list of amendments to the Group Areas Act and also to the Group Areas Development Act. We have considered whether we should move an amendment at this stage but we have decided against it. We shall simply vote against this Bill. This is legislation which is objectionable to us on this side of the House and unacceptable. Although during the course of the Committee Stage the hon. the Minister accepted one or two minor amendments from this side of the House, that does not alter the fact that in principle we are utterly opposed to the Bill.

There are certain provisions in the Bill which I think call for some comment. As has been said, Sir, this Bill provides for a take-over by the Minister and his Department of the Group Areas Board. The emphasis is now shifted from the Board, which remains in existence, to the Minister and his Department as far as the work of the Board is concerned. In fact, Sir, I go so far as to say that the Minister becomes the Board and the Department. He is—

Because the Minister is empowered to make regulations he has such authority that there is no need for him to go into a great deal of detail in this Bill. He just takes the power to deal with certain matters by regulation and then he can make regulations to suit himself. How far that power to make regulations goes is amply demonstrated in one particular clause, namely Section 25bis of Clause 22. There the State President who naturally acts on the advice of the Minister, can repeal, alter, amend or modify any law, including this law, in so far as certain premises are concerned. An amendment was accepted by the Minister there from this side of the House but that does not take us much further. We have a deep-seated objection to that principle being embodied in our legislation. We think that it is altogether wrong. If laws are to be amended or repealed that should be done by Parliament. It should not be done by proclamation, i.e. by the State President acting on the advice of the Minister, nor by the Minister or by any officials acting on his behalf by means of delegated powers. What we are afraid of is that Parliament is letting go of its power. Once the power virtually to initiate legislation by regulation is taken out of the hands of Parliament, the first fatal step has been taken. If laws are changed, if matters are not discussed and if the public is not given an opportunity of knowing what is happening their rights are thereby disturbed. We also have a rigid objection to the clause which provides that the Minister can instruct the Administrator of a province in regard to the establishment of a local authority. Provision is made in this Bill for the Minister himself to establish an advisory committee which, as its name implies, will be there for the purpose of advising the local authority in respect of whose area it has been constituted, because these advisory committees are only constituted within the area of a local authority. The next stage is to have the advisory committee metamorphised into a management committee. That will be what might be termed the lowest form of municipal life. It is not a municipality or a municipal institution as generally known in any of the provinces, it is something created by the Minister on an ad hoc basis. The Minister gives it powers and it is when we come to the allocation of powers that we really see how far-reaching the powers of the Minister are. Because he can take away powers from the existing local authority and confer them, in respect of the area in which the management committee is constituted, upon that management committee. Thereafter, on the instructions of the Minister, the Administrator will have to constitute that management committee into what I call an orthodox local authority, a local authority of the nature and kind which is recognized by the local government ordinances in the respective provinces. At this stage we want again to emphasize our objection to that particular power, the methods that have been designed by the Minister in this Bill for carrying out his purpose of getting local authorities constituted for groups other than the White group within the area of an existing municipality. Sir, we think that nothing but ill can come of such a concept as the Minister has set out in this Bill. It is going to lead to endless confusion. Because it involves financial relations between a newly created local authority and the existing local authority—a local authority that has already been established for a greater or lesser time— the relationship between the foundling, to put it that way, and the mother local authority, will, we are afraid, lead to interminable dispute, trouble and difficulty. Municipal finance does not go along lines like that. I think of Durban, for instance, and the surrounding areas which formed the subject of incorporation after very long investigation. There Indian areas were brought in under the Durban City Council and necessary finance was available because the White taxpayer had to pay. I realize how difficult it was to get an adjustment on that basis. When I look at the reverse position which is now forecast in this Bill whereby the Minister can determine that portion A or B of an existing municipality can simply be carved out and converted into a local authority of its own under conditions where the franchise rights of the inhabitants will be determined by him, where the members may be partly appointed and partly elected, thereafter as the local authority increases in importance and size, you realize, Sir, that they will eventually be handling the precise land, the water supply, the streets, the public transport, etc., which have been created by the local authority which is already in existence and out of whose body this new institution has been carved. I can understand the Minister in following Government policy is desirous of creating municipalities for Coloured people, Asiatics and, as we saw last year, even the Bantu. But this is not the way to do it, Sir. There has been inadequate consultation with the authorities who are going to be most intimately concerned. Unless the deputation which met the Minister a week ago saw this Bill in its entirety as it is before us, then no authority has seen this Bill in its entirety until that deputation came down here.

I can see a disapproving look on your face, Mr. Speaker, which warns me that I am getting very near the edge of the rule. I appreciate your generosity and the latitude you have allowed me to deal with a matter of this complex nature, Sir. I hope hon. members opposite, when their turn comes, seeing that they are so critical of me, will see to it that they stick strictly within the four corners of the rule.

As I have said, Sir, the Bill as such is unacceptable to us. It is not our way of doing things. These provisions give the Minister the power to set up these local authorities, and the plea is that this will be to the benefit of the Coloured people or the Indians as the case may be. But that is a barren plea, Sir. All that could have been done without placing this Bill on the Statute Book. Not one of the advantages which this Bill claims to confer on those people cannot be conferred upon them under existing legislation. We dislike this method, Sir. We are opposed to it in principle, and we shall, therefore, have to vote against it.

My colleagues and I intend voting against the third reading of this Bill. We will do so in order to record our last protest against what I have already described in this House as a wholly unnecessary and objectionable Bill, a Bill which deprives our Coloured people of their common franchise rights, rights which they have had in this province for over a century. Sir, there is nothing more that we can do in the matter. We have endeavoured to show the Government the folly of their proceeding with this Bill. We have attempted to argue with all the logic at our command that the main provisions of this Bill are wholly unnecessary and will be the means, I suggest, of further alienating the friendship and the goodwill of our Coloured people. We have appealed to the Government and particularly to the hon. Minister in charge of this Bill, to seereason in this matter. I am afraid that all our arguments and all our appeals have met with an even greater determination on the part of the Government to proceed with this measure with a total disregard of the serious consequences which must inevitably flow from this Bill. The main provisions of this Bill with which I am concerned to-day are those which provide for the establishment of so-called consultative and management committees and for the formation of so-called separate Coloured municipalities. It is quite obvious from the speeches we have had from the Government side of the House that the reasons which were originally advanced by the hon. the Minister for the introduction of this Bill, are not the true reasons behind this measure. The Minister had the temerity to suggest that this scheme of a state within a state offered to the Coloured people, I use his own words, “good neighbourliness and would form the basis for amicable human relations between the Coloured people and the White people in South Africa”. How the hon. the Minister can think that by herding the Coloured people into separate Coloured municipalities, as envisaged in this Bill, and making them subject to conditions which he, the Minister, would impose upon them, will produce amicable human relations is really beyond me. As the debate proceeded it became obvious, and no one, I think, can doubt it to-day in this House, that the true and only reason for the introduction of this measure is the fact that, in the opinion of the Nationalist Party, the Coloured people are fast becoming a threat to the political security of the White people in this province.

Order! The hon. member is now going right outside the contents of the Bill.

I want to deal with the contents of this Bill and show the House …

Then the hon. member must come back to the contents.

With respect, Sir, I am just introducing this point. I want to show that the contents to which I am going to refer in a moment is not going to have the effect which the Government thinks it will have in this country.

We are only concerned with the contents of the Bill.

Sir, surely it is the effect of the contents. I am trying to confine myself to the contents. It was made manifestly clear by several speakers on that side of the House, led by the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. P. S. Marais) I think, that the real idea behind this Bill was that the Coloured people were gaining too much power.

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

I say that fear was the reason why the Government introduced this Bill. I want to ask in all seriousness where does the Government really think this is leading us to? One would have imagined that by this time, with all the difficulties with which we in this country are confronted, the Government would have realized that the time had come to call a halt to this type of legislation. One would have thought that the Government would not have attempted to do anything more which was likely to alienate a large section of our people.

Order! The hon. member is making a second reading speech. We are dealing with the third reading.

I appreciate that, Sir. Surely I am entitled to register my protest against the contents of this Bill and the effect those contents are likely to have on the country. I am endeavouring to do that, Sir. I am trying to show that the contents of this Bill are unacceptable.

The hon. member is not being very successful.

I am sorry, Sir. I am doing my very best to try to show that the contents of this Bill are so unacceptable that it will have a most deleterious effect on the future of our country. What possible advantages can there be in creating separate Coloured municipalities? That is what this Bill provides for. In terms of this Bill, taken at the very most, these Coloured municipalities will only be municipalities in name. They will in any case be under the direct control of the Minister and of the neighbouring White municipalities. That is provided for in this Bill. The Government has carefully conceived this Bill so that at all times the control of the affairs of the Coloured people will remain in the hands of the Government. That, Sir, is the effect of the contents of this Bill as I see it. The establishment of these consultative and management committees at first blush would appear to vest in these committees complete autonomy, but that is far from being the case. If you examine the provisions of this Bill, Sir, whereby these consultative and management committees will be established, it will be seen that there is nothing in the Bill which obligates a local authority to act on the advice of those committees. All that this Bill provides for is that the local authorities shall give due consideration to the suggestions which they may from time to time receive from these committees which the Minister will establish. I say that this amounts to absolutely nothing. One can well imagine what amount of consideration these White municipalities will give to any of the suggestions emanating from these Coloured committees.

In regard to the powers which this Bill seeks to give to these committees, these powers, in terms of the Bill, will be determined by the hon. the Minister himself without reference to anyone. And the powers and functions which he will determine will be carried out under the control and supervision of a White local authority and subject to such conditions as he, the Minister, may impose from time to time. I ask the Minister again in all seriousness what sort of autonomy is that which he proposes to give to these Coloured municipalities? Does the hon. the Minister really think that the Coloured people, and indeed a large section of the White people of this country, do not realize that all this is only eye-wash on the part of the Government. As though that was not sufficient, in terms of this Bill the Minister reserves to himself the special right at his sole discretion to disestablish these consultative and management committees as and when he likes. One can well imagine how long these committees are likely to remain in existence if they dare to take one single step which does not meet with the Minister’s approval. Again, Mr. Speaker, as though all this is not sufficient, in terms of Section 43bis the Minister takes unto himself the right at his sole discretion again, without reference to anyone, to make regulations prescribing the qualifications of the Coloured people which will be required for either voting or becoming members of any of these committees and of ultimately voting in these Coloured municipalities. To my mind this is the most dictatorial aspect of the entire Bill. I would imagine that this is unheard of in any civilized country. It amounts to nothing less than this that in respect of the present municipal franchise which the Coloured people have enjoyed in the Cape Province for over a century, the Minister is breaking down the whole structure of that common franchise right and the future destiny of these people as far as the municipal franchise is concerned is now left entirely to the discretion of the Minister. I regard this as the most obnoxious aspect in this Bill, a Bill which has already very aptly been described in this House as inhuman. Mr. Speaker, can you imagine what an outcry there will be if the ratepayers of a White municipality were told that they were going to be deprived of their municipal franchise rights, as the Minister is doing in terms of this Bill in the case of the Coloureds, and that the Minister will in due course, at his sole discretion decide upon the qualifications of the voters and of their councillors? Sir, I shudder to think what the reaction of the White voters will be. But this is exactly what the Minister is doing to the Coloured ratepayers of this Province in terms of this Bill whose third reading we are asked to pass this afternoon. In place of the present municipal franchise the Coloured ratepayers are being told that some day, in terms of Section 43bis of this Bill, the Minister will make regulations, without reference to Parliament and without reference to anyone—it is true that ex post facto he will present his regulations to Parliament—prescribing the qualifications for voting or for becoming members of these so-called committees and local authorities. I ask this House in all seriousness, can anyone imagine anything more objectionable than to leave the fate of these people in the hands of the Minister? To my mind this is even worse than many of the predecessors of this Bill. At least in other Bills where rights have been taken away from the Coloured people they were told in black and white what rights they were going to have instead of the rights that were being taken away from them. In this Bill they are being left entirely to the mercy and to the whim of the hon. the Minister.

I want to conclude by reading an extract from an article which appeared a week or two ago in the Cape Times written by one of the Coloured leaders in relation to this Bill. It was written by Dr. van der Ross.

Order! What has that got to do with the third reading of this Bill?

This article deals with the present Group Areas Amendment Bill, 1962, which we are being asked to pass this afternoon. This is what he says—

Order! That has nothing to do with the third reading of this Bill and the hon. member must obey my ruling.

Very well, Sir. I just want to say that the present Group Areas Amendment Bill carries on the bad work of an unfortunate Act that was passed in this House, and I shall vote against it.

Apart from agreeing with everything that the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) has said I do not want to deal with his speech. It is a pity, Sir, that this Bill has emerged from the Committee of the whole House in substantially the same form in which the hon. the Minister has introduced it. I want to say that it is the worst, the most far-reaching Bill amending the principal Act, that has ever been brought before this Parliament. Furthermore, I believe that it is the most dangerous. And it is especially dangerous because it recognizes that the Group Areas Act is in fact the “Grondwet” of the doctrine of apartheid practised by this Government.

This Bill uses the machinery and the concept of the Group Areas Act in an attempt to foster a brand new brainchild of apartheid.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was leading up to Clause 22 which provides for, what I might call a new brainchild of apartheid, local authorities within local authorities. The Group Areas Development Board as well will in future, as a result of the contents of this Bill, be guided by a completely new consideration. It is a third dimension which is introduced by this Bill into the consideration of development of group areas, and that is the setting up of local authority machinery in each group area. In other words, the contents of this Bill provide now that in future group areas will be determined with a view to making each group area a viable unit governmentwise. [Interjections.] I do not wish to indulge in a little repartee with the hon. members. We have heard about third dimensions, but there are fifth things as well which hon. members opposite should not forget.

This means that completely new considerations will now play their part in the determination and the fixing of group areas. The greatest difficulty, the greatest factor which is presented by this Bill is the economic difficulty. Another one is that the future development of group areas will have to depend on the co-operation of the local authority within whose area of jurisdiction the new local authority as envisaged in Clause 22 is to be situated. It involves and affects the development of every urban community in South Africa. It is to that end, I believe, that Clauses 34 and 35 especially have been introduced into this Bill. Those two clauses do in fact give the Minister the power to exercise all the functions of the Group Areas Board through his chosen civil servants. Those clauses give the hon. the Minister or his chosen single servant the power of developing a group area. That is what those clauses provide for. The powers which are given, very significantly, if one reads these clauses together with Clause 22, to these single servants of the hon. the Minister, are to dispose of the affected properties in a group area, to develop group areas. Imagine, Sir, the enormous power that is granted by these clauses. They are given the power to acquire immovable property, to develop immovable property and the power to provide for that immovable property, to provide amenities and services. They are given the power to provide, to lay out, to plan, to develop any land belonging to the Board. They are given the power to construct roads, streets, drains, sewers, water mains, etc., and they are given the power to reserve or set aside property for open spaces or other public purposes. They are also given the power to build houses or other structures, grant leases over those, to grant loans, to advance money, make available materials for any purpose which, in the opinion of the Board, which now means in the opinion of the hon. the Minister, will contribute to the attainment of the objects for which the Board has been established. Sir, that is why I say that is what this clause means. That is why these clauses are there. Because all the powers which are given by Clause 35 relate to the sort of thing that you have to establish—houses, roads, public places and so on, which it is now necessary to establish and to have regard to, because in future the group areas will be declared in accordance with whether or not they can or cannot be viable units.

Instead of providing for ordinary sort of areas which the Group Areas Act intended should be provided, all these areas are now to be developed regardless of those circumstances, but rather with a view to establishing these local authorities within local authorities. I want to say that the hon. the Minister, whether he uses the Board or whether he uses the single civil servant as envisaged in Clause 35, or if he uses a whole army of civil servants, will fail to put into effect what he hopes to put into effect with this Bill. The hon. the Minister will fail because this Bill envisages that these areas within areas are going to be socio-economic viable units. No amount of thinking that is so is going to make it so. The hon. the Minister knows it. He knows he is going to fail. He knows that if he does not have the support of the local authorities he is going to fail. He provides in this clause for a situation which is going to give him a hand to force the local authority to do this. He knows that he cannot do it without their help and support. He knows that he cannot pay for it and it does not even make any provision in the Bill to pay for it.

Order! The hon. member must not read things into the Bill which are not there.

It does provide in Clause 22 that the Minister may lay down what the duties of local authorities are, i.e. the local authorities now established or any proper existing local authorities like the Durban City Council. He may provide what duties they may have in these new units within units he will create. I want to ask the Minister to tell us what sort of duties he has in mind. Does he have financial duties in mind? I believe he does, because if he does not this Bill can never come to mean what it is intended to. This Bill will bring nothing but unhappiness for the non-Whites in the urban area. The contents of this Bill indicate the establishment of these local authorities which will, when established, place a financial burden on the inhabitants of those areas which they should not be asked to shoulder, and which obviously they cannot afford to shoulder. It is true that the Bill does give a sort of franchise to the inhabitants of these areas, but it deprives them of all the normal amenities to which they have been used under the local authorities system as it exists. I must say it is a very poor recompense to have the right to vote for a shrivelling, bankrupt local authority …

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

This Bill is an admission that the old group areas machinery has failed. I say that because the contents of this Bill indicate that the Minister is taking unto himself all the powers that were formerly exercised by the Group Areas Board.

You have said all that before.

Order!

Yes, but it obviously had no effect on you. The whole of the group area machinery in this Bill will now be directed by the Minister. The powers he is taking are astonishing. It is provided, for example, that if the Minister does not want anyone to know what he is doing in relation to certain matters he in his discretion can say that the matter is not to be published. No notice is to be given to persons affected by it.

You are talking utter nonsense.

No, it is in the Bill. In respect of certain matters the Minister can exercise his discretion not to publish. That is in Clause 3. Perhaps the Minister in his reply will say that is not so.

We have had experience of your facts during the second reading.

The Minister is now getting very cocky.

Order!

I withdraw that. The Minister is now suggesting all sorts of things he would not suggest in the Committee Stage when we could answer him.

Order! The hon. member must now come back to the Bill or else resume his seat.

Clause 35 provides that the Minister can completely ignore the Group Areas Development Act and he can appoint a committee of one to do the work of the Board, his own man. Standing and ad hoc committees can perform any function of the Board, and in his discretion he can determine what powers and functions consultative committees are to have, who will be members of these bodies and what duties they are to perform. This reverses all the legislation in regard to group areas and it reverses the process of democratic government.

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

The Minister has said that he will provide some sort of consultation, but unfortunately it does not appear in the Bill and it is much to be regretted that it is not in the Bill. The Minister is now taking power to make different regulations for different areas. In other words, he admits that different areas must have different regulations. That being so, one would have expected that those areas, with their experience of local matters and local difficulties, would have made the regulations, but no, the Bill provides that the Minister sitting in Pretoria will make all these regulations. No consultation is provided for.

Order!

Try again.

The contents of this Bill … [Laughter] …, especially Clause 22 and Clause 28, completely undermine local government in South Africa. I think this is the first time in the history of the country …

Order! No, I cannot allow the hon. member to continue. We are not concerned with that, but with the contents of the Bill.

I will end on the note on which the hon. the Minister began.

Then the hon. member must move the third reading, because that was the whole of the Minister’s speech.

I will end on the note that the Minister, in terms of this Bill, may now provide not only what powers these local authorities may have but also what machinery must exist and in that regard I must say that my attitude towards this whole Bill is affected by what the Minister said, that in Natal we are going to have this whether we like it or not.

Before I deal with the third reading, Sir, may I have your guidance on the grounds one may cover in the third reading? I know, Sir, that you have told us that we may deal with the contents of the Bill, but the contents of this Bill consist of a large number of clauses. What I am trying to find out is whether one may deal with the effect of the clauses in the Bill, and to offer further arguments at this stage whether the third reading should or should not be passed.

I think the hon. member has the rules in front of her.

But I find it very difficult to ascertain exactly what the contents of the Bill are if it is not the actual clauses, and I want to discuss some of the contents of the clauses of the Bill.

This is neither the opportunity nor is it expedient for me to explain the rules to hon. members, but I will guide the hon. member as she goes along. She may proceed.

I would like to commence by saying that no change has been introduced into this Bill in the Committee Stage or in the Report Stage which in any way changes my objections to the measure as it came to us in the second reading. There have been no changes which now make me feel that this Bill ought to pass its third reading. As far as I am concerned, the same situation obtains now as before, and I have the same objections to the contents of this Bill in the third reading that I had originally.

The contents of the Bill deal with two or three important principles, the most important of which, to my mind, is that the Bill is a pegging measure for the franchise rights of the Coloureds in the Cape in the municipal field. It is a way whereby the Minister can get around the difficulties he will encounter.

Yes, but the hon. member will know that at the second reading the principle was adopted, and it cannot be discussed in the third reading.

Clause 28 contains that particular principle.

That principle has been agreed to.

All I can say at this stage is that I have the same objections, that the Bill is aimed at undermining the franchise rights of the Coloureds and the autonomy of the provinces, and the Minister has not made clear to us any of the functions he intends to hand over to the management committees he will appoint and, therefore, I shall vote against the third reading of the Bill.

Like the last speaker, the Bill now before us for the third reading, in my opinion, differs in no important respect from that placed before the House in its earlier stages, and the official Opposition therefore are moving no amendment to this Bill. The Bill is too bad to be improved, and we simply intend to vote against it. Although the Minister has met certain minor objections, he has failed to meet any of the major objections we put up to him and, therefore, it is quite impossible for us to support the Bill. Reference has already been made to the fact that the Bill provides that powers previously held by the board will now be taken over by the Minister under delegated authority. On the very first page, Clause 1, in the definitions, it provides immediately that the Minister, under certain delegated powers, now takes the place of the board with regard to carrying those powers into effect. It goes further. In Clause 3 it provides that, where the board previously did certain things, the Minister now can delegate his powers to the secretary to do these things, and the term “secretary” will now be used in lieu of “the board”. The secretary now has the power to take decisions and make pronouncements hitherto only done on the advice of the board. When we proceed a little further …

Yes, but it is not the intention at the third reading to take the Bill clause by clause and paragraph by paragraph and examine each item separately.

I agree, and I have no intention of doing it, but I am referring to certain of the more important provisions, as part of the contents of the Bill. There are certain fundamental paragraphs in the Bill which are highly objectionable to us, and it is those points I wish to deal with. In Clause 3 (b) it provides that where previously in the Group Areas Act the power was vested in the board, it is now vested in the secretary. That is one thing we cannot accept. It is handing over to one individual the power previously held by the board, which had a very wide authority, and which had all the means at its disposal to get information and evidence which guided them in making decisions. That is our objection. When we come to Clause 6, there again we see that the secretary not only takes over a very wide range of delegated powers from the board, but he also has the authority to further delegate these powers to an official, a member of the Department of Community Development, and in effect the secretary has power to vest the board’s authority in an official of the State. Again that is one of the fundamental objections we have to the Bill. Clause 8 is one which the Minister in the earlier stages accepted an amendment to. It deals with the penalties to be applied in the event of certain misdeeds by the officials or the members of the board. The Minister has accepted from us the recommendation to increase the penalty to imprisonment not exceeding three years, and also the vital provision that thereafter any convicted persons will be prohibited from holding office under the Group Areas Act. There the Minister has gone some way to meet us, but it is only a minor matter when you contrast it to the other powers delegated by the Bill and in regard to which the Minister has not seen fit to accept an amendment. Clauses 22 and 28 are two of the important clauses we object to. Clause 15, despite all the argument we advanced to try to persuade the Minister to alter it, is a clause which deals with the granting of permits, and it still retains the coercive factor which should not be included in any legislation passed by this House. It is the clause which gives authority, delegated authority, to act and to allow a person a permit to occupy one piece of his property provided he vacates another piece of his property.

That is not relevant.

That is the feature in this clause that we object to. No sword should be kept hanging over any man’s head when he applies for a permit. The clauses in between are merely consequential to the change in status consequent on our becoming a Republic. Coming to Clause 22, it is one of the two main clauses introducing two new aspects which again we cannot accept. It deals with the effect of this legislation on the Provincial Administration and sub section (3) seriously curtails the powers of the local authorities in carrying out their legal duties in their own areas. It provides that a local authority cannot carry out certain functions …

Order! The principle has been accepted in the second reading.

I am dealing with our objection to the clause as it is, which prohibits a local authority from functioning as it did before.

That principle has been agreed to.

In Section 25bis (1) again there is a very sweeping authority to the Minister that he may appoint committees to carry out investigations and submit evidence to him regarding the desirability of setting up the second of these committees, the management committee. I do not want to deal with the principle, viz. that the method of carrying out these powers results in a nominated committee with a nominated chairman to take over powers from the existing local authorities, again undermining the system of local authority. In sub-section (5) (a)—that is the section which led to considerable discussion which I do not want to repeat. I merely point out in passing that clause gives the State President, i.e. the Cabinet, the authority to alter the law in connection with the municipal qualifications, particularly in the Cape, and we cannot accept that under any conditions. That is another of our standing objections.

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

I am trying to keep well within your ruling, Sir, and I appreciate your assistance. One of the consequences of that clause has already taken effect. I want to draw the Minister’s attention …

Order! The hon. member is now moving on to dangerous ground. He must come back to the Bill.

I notice that one of our local authorities has already trodden on dangerous ground …

Order! The hon. member must not follow it on that dangerous road.

Clause 28 provides that the Minister may make regulations as to the manner in which any consultative or management committee is constituted and it provides certain other powers for the Minister to deal with those committees. I again draw the attention of the House to the fact that we are giving a blank cheque to the Minister and nowhere in the Bill is there the slightest indication of what conditions he will impose.

I can see that the hon. member has a good conception of the rules, but he should just keep within the rules.

On page 13 there is another provision to which we object because we feel that it will obstruct the Administrator and it undermines the provincial government system. One of the last clauses …

Hear, hear!

Mr. Speaker, I think you will bear with me for a moment when I draw your attention to the type of interjections we are having. There are 1,500,000 Coloureds …

Order! The hon. member cannot discuss that and he should not waste his valuable time replying to interjections.

You will not allow me to say that the attitude of hon. members opposite reveals their complete contempt …

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

Clause 35 allows the Minister to appoint committees and to delegate his powers to those committees, and again this is a clause to which we have fundamental objections. The hon. the Minister can appoint one-man committees and he can replace that man if he is found unsatisfactory half way through the deliberations of the committee. If one man falls sick he can replace him, and he can nominate the chairman where there is more than one man, and again it is making a complete farce of setting up these committees.

Order!

I think I have said enough to show where the objection of this side of the House lies. We do not believe it is for the good of the country and it is certainly not for the good of the Coloured people.

Order! I cannot allow the hon. member to proceed.

Then I conclude by saying that our objections to the Bill, which have been expressed since the day the Bill was first introduced, have not been lessened by any concessions or explanations on the part of the Minister. We believe it is a bad Bill which cannot be improved and we intend to vote against it.

It seems to me that the battle for the third reading has begun, and in order that I may know exactly what I can cover I want to quote to you, Sir, from Kilpin on “Parliamentary Procedure”, where he says, at page 13—

In other words, this House is now required, according to Kilpin—and I ask your ruling on that—to ask itself whether this Bill ought or ought not to become law. I submit with the greatest respect to you, Sir, that in view of the doubt which exists I should be able to show …

Order! Is the hon. member addressing me on a point of order?

Yes, Sir, I am raising a point of order as to whether we are entitled to use arguments …

Order! I have given the hon. member an opportunity of addressing the House; he did not say that he was rising on a point of order.

All right, Sir, then I will address the House on the Bill. I believe that this Bill should not become law, that it ought not to become law for certain reasons, and one of the reasons is that it takes away once and for all from the Coloured people the right to be on a common franchise municipal roll with the Europeans. That is one reason why it ought not to become law. Another reason is that it gives power to a Minister to override the Administrator of a province.

Order! That principle was accepted at the second reading.

Well, there I have it! Now I want to take the point—and here I want to ask for your guidance—whether Kilpin is right or wrong, according to your ruling—and I say this in all sincerity and with the great respect which I have for the House and for you—whether we must be guided by Kilpin …

Order! The hon. member must be guided by the Chair.

Very well, then Kilpin will be put away; I will not read it again. That puts an end to Kilpin. Sir, I say with respect, and you will forgive me at this stage for saying it, that nobody seems to know what one is allowed to say at a third reading and it is high time third readings were done away with in this House; it is a waste of time.

What clause are you referring to?

Order! It is difficult enough for me without these interjections to control the debate and I hope hon. members will give me an opportunity to do so. These interjections do not facilitate my task.

I just want to conclude by saying that as Coloured Representatives in this House we believe that this Bill is unfortunate; that it has not been asked for by the Coloured people; that it will further broaden the gulf between the Coloureds and the Europeans; that it will mean that once more under this Bill a Minister will have the power to do away with the normal rights of people to elect their representatives. The Minister will have power to nominate people. May I say that it is a great pity that we have to have a third reading of a Bill when the Minister has told us that he has certain important amendments; it is a pity that this House will have to pass this Bill when the Minister knows that certain amendments are going to come forward later on. If we had been told what these amendments are, it might have changed our attitude in many respects, particularly since the Minister says that these amendments flow from an interview which he had with the people in Durban. I say it is a pity that the Minister did not answer many of the questions put to him. I can only say that we propose to show our disapproval of this type of legislation by voting against the third reading.

This side of the House has put on record in very clear terms its many objections to this Bill on many grounds, but particularly on the ground that it takes away a right from the Coloured people. And although it gives something in its place, we are firmly of the view that what is put in its place will not be accepted as good enough. We have had no evidence from the hon. the Minister that the Coloureds have changed in their attitude of opposition to this Bill. We opposed this Bill for several days at the second reading and in Committee. Our feelings were expressed very clearly on that point. Since that time our feelings have become even stronger because yesterday we had a Budget of mammoth military proportions. One must therefore see the effects of this Bill …

Order! The hon. member cannot raise a matter of that kind at the third reading.

I am thinking now of the effects of the provisions of this Bill.

Order! That has nothing to do with the contents of this Bill.

Let me then say this that the House, when judging the effects of Section 22bis which, as you know, Sir, has certain important provisions affecting the Coloured people, must consider those provisions against the background which was to some extent unfolded yesterday.

On a point of order, the hon. member is now discussing this Bill against a certain background which I submit he is not entitled to do at a third reading.

Order! If the hon. member refers to rule 180 of the Standing Rules and Orders he will see that his remarks must be confined to the contents of the Bill.

I am indebted to you, Sir, for your ruling. I do not want to dwell any more upon that matter, and indeed I only want to move now from, you might say, the sublime to a very small point. And that is that I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister in administering this measure will ever keep in mind the sentiments to which he gave expression here in regard to the close association and consultation with which he will work with the Administrators of the various provinces. As you will know, Sir, in many of the provisions of this Bill the wording “in consultation with the Administrator” appears, and although, of course, we much prefer the old wording of “with the concurrence of the Administrator” we appreciate that this is now passing into law. We sincerely trust that the hon. the Minister will very much bear in mind the reply which he gave to an interjection, namely that he would seek at all times rather to persuade Administrators than to do anything else.

One other tiny point is that I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister will not be emboldened by the acceptance by this House of a clause which gives the State a privileged position so far as the ordinary law is concerned to come with further provisions of that kind. I refer to Section 18 (3)ter, which is introduced by Clause 47. That was touched upon at the Committee Stage, and the hon. the Minister gave his explanation for the appearance of that clause. I think he will not dispute it if I say that his case in support of it was not very strongly made out. I sincerely hope that he and his Department will not seek for privileged positions of that kind in regard to matters of detail such as are contained in that sub-section.

Then just in conclusion one must say that one does not envy the hon. the Minister his task in attempting to administer this Act. He is embarking upon a course of unscrambling a situation which has existed for very long. One appreciates that there are many clauses of the Bill which will constitute him a constitution-maker. He will have power by regulation to lay down the qualifications for voting; he will have the power to disestablish committees; he will have the power to establish committees. It is quite clear that so far as constitution-making is concerned, he is going to enter upon virtually a virgin field. We certainly do not envy him his task, and we only trust that it will not be as fraught with difficulty and with unfortunate consequences as we fear.

When you come to the third reading and ask yourself whether or not to vote for it, I think that in view of the fact that certain questions put to the Minister during earlier stages have remained unanswered, I am inclined to put certain further questions to the hon. the Minister, particularly in regard to Section 25bis. The hon. the Minister will have the opportunity of appointing a committee to investigate whether or not a management committee can convert itself into a local authority. I wish to put this question to the hon. the Minister: When the committee investigates the question of whether such a management committee which has succeeded an advisory committee, can convert itself into a local authority, why is the White local authority in whose area the Coloured area falls, not allowed to have representation on such a committee? I admit that in terms of 2 (a) the Administrator will at least have somebody on that committee as his representative. But as you know, Sir, the Administrator of a province is not the only person who is concerned in that local authority; the local municipality is also concerned in it; and if this clause became law it would mean that the local authority need not be consulted by the hon. the Minister.

Order! Those questions which the hon. member is asking should have been asked in the Commitee Stage. We are taking the third reading.

Mr. Speaker, you are quite right in saying that these questions should have been asked, but it was purely by accident that I noticed that this question had not been replied to.

If the hon. member omitted to ask the question in the Committee Stage it is his affair. The opportunity to ask questions is past.

I admit that, Sir, but when the matter was discussed in the Committee Stage I unfortunately did not have the opportunity of appearing in this House.

A neglect of duty.

As I have said, 2 (a) …

Order! The hon. member should have raised that point in the Committee Stage.

No, Sir, I am not going to enlarge upon that any further. In terms of sub-section (3) the Minister may order in writing that a local authority of a type specified by him be established. How can the Minister have a local authority of a type specified by him established if he has not got the report of a committee on which the White local authority did not also have representation at his disposal?

Order! The hon. member is dealing with a stage which does not come under the third reading.

Mr. Speaker, I accept your ruling wholeheartedly and I shall try to abide by it as far as possible. As I have said, that is one of the questions which I wanted to ask the hon. the Minister.

You will not get a reply at this stage.

Section 25bis (5) provides that the State President may, by proclamation in the Gazette, at any time repeal, alter, amend or modify any law relating to or in connection with the requirements to be complied with in order to become a member of any local authority.

Order! It is not necessary for the hon. member to read the Bill; we have the Bill before us.

The point I want to make is this: Was it not necessary that we should have known the reason …

Order! I cannot answer such hypothetical questions at this stage. The hon. member must confine himself to the contents of the Bill, otherwise he must resume his seat.

I will find it particularly pleasant to resume my seat, Sir, but I just want to say this in conclusion that the Coloured people who have had the municipal franchise in the form in which we know it, will, because of this legislation, again have to start at the advisory committee stage. In other words, as far as they are concerned this is a retrogressive step. This Bill does not make provision …

Order! We are not dealing with that. We are dealing with matters for which the Bill does make provision.

I admit that it makes provision for the Coloureds to start at the advisory committee stage, thereafter a management committee and eventually a local authority. For those who already have the vote this Bill means that they will lose that franchise. That is the main reason why I am against it.

Sir, will you allow me to raise a point of order in relation to this third reading rule? I speak now from 20 years’ experience of the rules of debate in this House. It is of course our desire as an Opposition to discuss this Bill under the rules of Parliament as sensibly and constructively as we can. In all this time, on the numerous occasions in which I have taken part in third reading debates on various Bills, I have had no difficulty until the new ruling of 1960. Mr. Speaker, I am not the only one who has never yet quite understood what this new ruling means. It says that one must confine oneself at third reading to the “contents of the Bill”. What does that mean? Does it literally mean that we can re-examine, clause by clause, the contents of each Bill—and then criticize the contents of those clauses? Is there a real reason for the third reading, or is it a mere formality? I would like you to correct me if I am wrong because it seems to me that Parliament becomes a farce if experienced parliamentarians with legal training do not understand a ruling; and quite candidly no one here present does understand this ruling. We have no desire to go against your decisions, but we must be able to understand where and how we err. In the old days, as I understood it, a third reading was devoted to a re-examination of the Bill to determine whether, in the light of any alterations that might have been made in the Committee Stage, it ought or ought not to be accepted. If, in the Committee Stage, a Bill had been so altered that it changed the application of a principle of the Bill, one could even discuss that. Sir, can you now tell me what is meant by “the contents of a Bill”?

Yes, I can refer the hon. member to the minutes of 1 April 1960. There he will find it clearly set out in writing.

Could we have it interpreted for us, now?

Yes; the hon. member can go and look it up in the library, if he will take the trouble to read it.

I have taken the trouble to read Speaker Conradie’s ruling several times and I still cannot understand it. Nor can anyone in this House understand what it means or what scope it affords, if any.

In view of the very strong criticism which has been levelled at the Minister for introducing this Bill, I think it might be advisable to take a second look, as I propose to do, at some of the provisions in order to discover where the merits are in this Bill and I am going to confine myself to the contents of the Bill, obviously.

I hope so.

You and I, Sir, share that hope—I shall try at least to implement it.

The curious thing about Clause 22 is that the Minister appears to be endeavouring to carry out one of the most important principles of democratic government by providing for an extension of local government to a sphere where it does not at the present time exist; and in that particular context, without reference to groups or group areas, I think the Minister is well aware of the fact that local government is regarded as the very foundation of democratic government. Therefore I, for one, in dealing with this particular clause, cannot take exception to the desire or the intention of the Minister to extend the provisions of local government to such persons as do not enjoy it at the present time.

The Committee Stage.

Order! Does the hon. member think that he is assisting the Chair in its difficult task? I hope that the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) will not return to the second reading debate because it is clear that he is moving in that direction.

Well, Sir, I may have been prejudiced by the interjection just now, which indicated that I was heading in that direction …

The interjection was made after the hon. member’s remarks.

No, Sir, with respect, up to that moment you and I seemed to be getting along quite well. The need to conserve that essential part of our democratic government is one about which we are all ad idem. Is it not competent—and I suggest it is—to examine the effects of the Bill in regard to the very mechanics of local government which are indicated in this Clause 22?

Order! We are concerned purely with the third reading of a Bill, the principle of which was accepted at the second reading and the details of which were thrashed out in the Committee Stage.

With respect, I am not at this stage taking any exception to the principle or trying to deal with it, but in view of the fact that the Minister has very wide powers within the contents of this Bill to provide by regulation and by promulgation for certain matters which are within the scope of the Bill and therefore become part of the contents, I think—with respect—that I am entitled to examine some of the effects of the contents of the Bill by the regulations it presages.

Order! We are simply concerned with the contents of the Bill.

Very well, I shall try to be as simply concerned with it as I can. I think the situation which the Minister may be prepared to consider is that which occurs when he establishes a local authority. Having established, in the first stage, the consultative committee, which has in turn been elevated or promoted to the status of a management committee (which steps form part of the provisions of this Bill), he then decides that particular management committee, for good and sufficient reason, should become a local authority.

Order! I warned the hon. member that he was preparing himself for a second reading speech.

Sir, I would not dream of doing that as I know that the second reading is behind us. What I want to ask the Minister is, on what basis of consideration does he decide that a management committee should become a local authority …

Order! That is a matter that has been disposed of. It was dealt with in the Committee Stage.

Very well, then I will not deal with it any further. Arising out of Section 25, I want to ask the Minister whether in the case of a local authority which, in terms of its normal organization has established within its own area a certain rateable value …

Order! That matter has nothing to do with the third reading at all.

Sir, may I put the question before you dispose of it?

I am sorry, I am not here to reply to questions.

No, I want your ruling on it, Sir, whether I am entitled …

Order! I have given my ruling on it.

Very well. Section 25 also refers on page 9 to the period of notice which must be given when a committee furnishes its suggestions or comments after having been requested to do so. It refers to seven days as being the period. I do not know whether the Minister has considered this as carefully as he has considered some of the other contents of this Bill because there are, as we all know, unforeseen postal delays. Here I am trying quite genuinely to help the Minister.

Order! That is a matter that should have been thrashed out in the earlier stages. It is quite outside the scope of a third reading debate.

Section 25bis (2) (a) provides for a committee which shall consist of not more than five persons of whom at least one shall be a person nominated by the Administrator of the province concerned. That is all very well and I have absolutely no objection to it. I merely want to ask the Minister, when he appoints the members of this Committee … [Laughter.]

Hon. members opposite laugh about this legislation and yesterday they were asked to vote R120,000,000 …

Order! I want to appeal to hon. members not to make my task more difficult. The hon. member may proceed.

… in nominating or appointing the remaining members of the committee, as envisaged, whether he will not show the same consideration for the local authority that he has shown in another clause of this Bill, where he provides, for example, that certain things must be done with the consent of the local authority. I ask the hon. the Minister, when this clause has to be implemented, to consider not only the advisability but the necessity of ensuring that at least one person is appointed from the parent local authority, the senior local authority in this case, to consider whatever the committee is appointed to consider.

I think I should also refer to sub-section (3), where only the Administrator, apparently, is to be consulted. I think, with some limited knowledge of the workings of a Provincial Administration, that the Administrator himself would prefer to see the provision incorporated by regulation for the local authority, as well as himself (i.e. the Administrator) to be consulted. I am not going to deal—I am sure that members will be relieved to hear this— with any of the clauses following Clause 22, until I come to Clause 28 and here I would like to say a few words. This is a very wide clause. I say that in no spirit of criticism. It is, in fact, a wide clause, and I would therefore urge the Minister, when he has taken unto himself the power which this clause gives him and furthermore the powers which you may be sure he will have under the regulations, that the local authority should be considered to the maximum extent, and not in a superficial way. I think only on the basis of what it does to the Coloured voter in the Cape …

I have allowed the hon. member to make his appeal to the hon. the Minister, but he must come back now to the contents of the Bill.

Whatever may be said about the impact of the effects of the Bill, with which I believe you said I was entitled to deal since they arise out of the contents— whatever the effect may be on Coloured voters, past, present and future, it must be clearly borne in mind that this Bill will have a very important effect on existing local authorities. Sir, perhaps you will find dozens of cases in South Africa to this day where a group area for a certain group has yet to be determined within the confines of the local authority concerned.

Order! That is also outside the scope of a third reading debate.

Finally, dealing with Clause 43, I believe that the provision here that in addition to consultation with the Administrator of the Province, the consent of the local authority concerned must be obtained, is a provision which offsets or could offset, if properly implemented, a great deal of the criticism which has been levelled at the Minister. If this had been the spirit in which the other portions of the contents of the Bill had been framed, I for one believe that there would not have been so much criticism.

Order! I have allowed the hon. member to express his desire to assist the hon. the Minister but he must come back now to the contents of the Bill.

The contents of the Bill as such in relation to the workings of any major local authority in South Africa are of tremendous importance. Take for example an area such as the City of Johannesburg …

Order!

Sir, don’t you want me to deal with Johannesburg? Sir, I have heard people referring to local authorities in the Cape Peninsula, mentioning them by name, and I thought therefore …

Order! The hon. member must now confine himself to the third reading.

In that case, Mr. Speaker, I can only thank you for the indulgence you have shown me.

If one looks at this Bill as a whole, that is the contents of this Bill as a whole, one finds that the whole, or a greater part of it, is in every way objectionable. Certain clauses, Clause 3 is one of them, are to a degree slightly less objectionable, and it has been said in these proceedings that one would have expected this side of the House in respect of those clauses at least to express a certain measure of thanks or commendation for the content of those particular clauses. But that I think is a strange point of view …

Order! The hon. member must not allow himself to be led astray by what was said. This is the third reading of the Bill we are dealing with now.

No, Sir, I won’t be led astray by that, because you see it was expressed by the Minister, but coming to the particular clauses, of which Clause 3 is one, it is like saying to a man on whom you have set a pack of six dogs, when you have called off one of them, “You ought to be thankful”. That is the point of view that does not commend itself to those of us who have spoken against this Bill. But the objection mainly to the contents of the Bill is not only that the objects of these powers themselves are undesirable and objectionable, but the manner of their exercise is equally objectionable. It has been said in opposition to this Bill that, in sum, the objection is against a concentration of power in the hands of one individual, and I think that if one wants a summary of that objection, it can be obtained by looking at the contents of Clause 28, which has been touched on. By looking at the contents of Clause 28, whereby the Minister is empowered by way of regulation to make provision for a very wide field of endeavour, one comes to the conclusion that is really the high-light, or the depth (whatever one’s point of view is) of the whole of this Bill.

Order! I must draw the hon. member’s attention again to the fact that every speech in opposition to the third reading has dealt with Clause 28.

Yes, Sir, it has been touched on by most speakers, but if you will allow me, Sir, it may perhaps be thought after I have dealt with Clause 28 that I have thrown light on that particular clause, as being representative of the Bill as a whole, which no other speaker so far has been able to do. For that reason I should like very briefly to illustrate my objections to the Bill as a whole, that is the contents of the Bill as a whole, by a brief reference to Clause 28, as it does tend to summarize the flavour of the Bill taken as a whole. Now the Minister is empowered in that clause to make regulations as to the manner of constituting management or consultative committees, as to the manner of electing their members, as to their tenure of office, as to the filling of vacancies, as to the holding of meetings, as to the procedure at meetings and as to the qualifications of voters, and finally, how these committees are to be consulted and as to the prescribing of the powers, functions and duties of such committees. I said that one could summarize one’s objections to the contents of this Bill merely by looking at this one clause. Every conceivable matter relating to these two types of local authority is to be dealt with by way of regulation, and the objection to that is not only the difficulty, as we said earlier, of finding one’s way through the mass of regulations of that kind, but that all this power can be put into effect without consultation, without any discussion, without being the subject of scrutiny by any legislative body, either of this House or of a provincial council, and although from the point of view of the person promulgating these regulations, they may be in every way desirable, it is so often found after such things have been the subject of debate …

Order! The hon. member is going too far now.

All I want to say can be said in one sentence on this point, and that is that no amount of scrutiny of these things in an office by a number of individuals can show up the blemishes in those regulations as can a debate in a House such as this. That really is the principal objection to all these measures embodied in this Bill.

Not much was said in this debate to which I can reply. The points raised here are all points to which I have reacted in the earlier stages. Suffice it therefore to say that this Bill as a whole really comprises four different characteristics and they are in the first place the clauses which, like Clause 3 and a few others, deal with the establishment of a Department; those clauses all facilitate the administration of the Group Areas Act, and not only facilitate it but speed up the administration. That is the first characteristic. The second is the characteristic contained in Clause 29, particularly (h), which is an outstanding feature of the Bill, namely the future handling of affected properties. Both to the Department and to the members of the public who are affected, this provision in the Bill is not only a great concession, but it facilitates the whole process. The third characteristic is contained in the provision by means of which a further attempt is now being made to eliminate all hard cases, or to make it possible that all hard cases can be eliminated. That is the provision dealing with the ex gratia payments. And in the fourth place—that was the main point around which all the objections in the Bill really turned, because the rest of the Bill was negatived right from the beginning, also in this debate, except by a few hon. members who did not stick to the facts when they made certain allegations, like the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell)—there is the characteristic contained in Clauses 22 and 28. In this regard I just want to add this to what I have already said, that these clauses now introduce a new deal right throughout the Republic whereby consultation and discussion can take place on local Government level. Nobody can deny that right throughout the Republic this introduces a new deal in regard to consultation and discussion at local government level. In the second place a foundation is being laid here which makes possible the concept of administrative rights in their own circle and which sets no limits to the consequences of it. In other words, the same opportunities the White man had to develop from the lowest level of administration to the highest in the local government sphere are now being made possible for the Coloureds and the Indians in their own area. Finally, this Bill establishes the methods by which there will be the best opportunity for the Department of Community Development, which is intensely concerned with every local government and every Provincial Administration with whom there are continual consultations, and it creates that opportunity for consultation. In fact, without consulting all those bodies, no group area can be established. That consultation between the Department of Community Development and the Provincial Administrations and the parent local authority concerned is being made possible and much more effective by this Bill, and it therefore lays the foundation for proper channels right from the Central Government to the local government by means of which this consultation can take place.

I just wanted to mention these four points because, whatever may have been said by the opposite side of the House, these four points cannot be controverted. In this connection the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) emphasized the point that the local authority under whose jurisdiction such a consultative committee or management committee will be established ought to be represented in the consultative body, as well as on this committee of investigation. But of course as I have said right throughout the debate, I have said during the second reading and also during the Committee Stage, that at no stage do I want to ignore the local authority, and that I will not dream of taking any action without consulting them. But of course it is no use telling hon. members that.

That is what I told the Municipal Association which interviewed me, and to make it quite certain now, that is one of the amendments I will introduce.

Yes, now.

But I repeatedly said so. I wish to conclude. This Bill, as we have it before us to-day, has evoked one protest throughout the whole country, apart from hon. members opposite. There was one voice of protest, and that is what the hon. member for Peninsula tried to read out. For the rest, not a single word of protest was received by any of my departments verbally or in writing or by way of resolution.

Motion put and the House divided:

AYES—87: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Cloete, J. H.; Coertze, L. L; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; Diederichs, N.; Dönges, T. E.; Faurie, W. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Fouché, J. J. (Jr.); Frank, S.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Merwe, J. A.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

NOES—44: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bowker, T. B.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; le Roux, G. S. P.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Russell, J. H.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, H. G.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Waterson. S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

As we said during the second reading debate, we would move an amendment, which will be moved just now by my colleague, and I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to accept that amendment. In Clause 4 the hon. the Minister is trying to cover omissions of the past, in other words, covering himself as Minister in relation to schemes that have been brought into being and have been found not to conform with the present Marketing Act, and to cover that omission, the hon. the Minister has come with this amendment. Now we have no objection to the hon. the Minister validating actions where a scheme has been successful and validating schemes of which we have knowledge and which are in operation, and which are there after going through certain Marketing Act procedure. But we do object to the hon. the Minister amending the original Act and to just validate omissions of the past, and that to be written into the Act for the future. We feel, Mr. Chairman, that if the Minister has to validate something, he should come with a special clause dealing with that only. He should not amend the original Act in such a way that this amendment will apply to the advertising as far as future schemes are concerned. It is absolutely essential in my opinion that there should be the widest publicizing of any scheme to be brought into being, because it affects practically all sections of the community as far as that particular product is concerned; a product which is to be dealt with by a scheme does not only affect the producer, but it affects the consumer and the distributor as well. It is only right, as was laid down in the original Marketing Act, that the widest publicity should be given to that scheme so that everybody affected, especially where it is in one particular area such as the fresh milk marketing scheme, should have full knowledge of what steps are to be taken under the scheme, because it affects his whole life. In terms of the existing Act the Minister must of course advertise that scheme in two local newspapers circulating in the area where that product is to be controlled. If the Minister will accept our amendment which will be moved shortly, he will be in a position where he will not be involved in heavy expenditure in advertising the scheme in the local newspaper. As the Minister himself said during the second reading, that involves heavy expenditure. But if the Minister advertises that scheme in the Gazette, we feel the very least he should do is to place a small notice in two local newspapers circulating in that area where the scheme is to be brought into being, drawing attention to the scheme as advertised in the Gazette and giving the date and the number of the Gazette concerned. That would cover him. As I have said before it is not only the consumer who is concerned but there are also the producer and the distributor. The livelihood of many people is affected. I want to point out to the Minister and hon. members opposite that the producer himself is also a very large consumer of other agricultural products in the production of his own particular agricultural product. It is absolutely essential in our opinion that all these people should be aware of the fact that a scheme is to be applied to their product or that distribution in their area is to be controlled so that representations can be made at the right time. Because if you want to introduce a scheme which will be successful it is essential that everybody who is affected by that scheme shall know the particulars of it and be given an opportunity of making representations if he so wishes. As I have said before, if the Minister wishes to validate schemes which are in existence at the moment, the very least he should do is to bring in a separate clause validating what has been done in the past and not amend the original Act which will apply to all future schemes.

Mr. Chairman, as we have already intimated, we would like to move an amendment to this clause. We have informed the hon. the Minister about it. We feel that it is no more than right that all interested parties will know beforehand that a scheme is being proposed and that it will be applied. The Minister said here yesterday that there was no idea of misleading people. He also said it seemed that there was a little suspicion. That is not the case. There is no suspicion on our part in regard to this matter, nor do we think that the intention is to mislead anybody. But it is no more than right that people who are interested in such a scheme should have the fullest opportunity of knowing that such a scheme will be forthcoming, because otherwise there might be suspicion in their minds, and that is what we want to prevent. There are perhaps people who have objections, and they must have the fullest opportunity to voice their objections. Therefore I want to move the following amendment, of which we have informed the Minister—

To omit paragraph (a) of sub-section (1) and to substitute the following new paragraph:

1. (a) by the substitution in paragraph (b) of sub-section (3) for the words “cause the particulars concerning such scheme to be published by notice in the Gazette and in one or more newspapers circulating in the area in which the scheme is to apply” of the words “if he deems it necessary, cause to be published in the Gazette a notice containing the particulars concerning such scheme, and in one or more newspapers circulating in the area in which the scheme is to apply a statement indicating that the particulars of such scheme have been published in the Gazette”; and.

I hope the Minister will accept this amendment, because we would also like to make this legislation as effective as possible.

I am sorry but I cannot accept this amendment and I shall tell hon. members why not. If hon. members read the clause they will see that in the first place it is permissive for the Minister to publish a scheme in the Government Gazette. He is not compelled to publish it. He can institute a scheme without publishing it in the Government Gazette. But because we want to give notice to the persons concerned, to those who are connected with the industry covered by the scheme, and because we want to publish that notice to the effect that a scheme is being instituted as widely as possible, the Minister makes use of the right he has to publish the scheme in the Government Gazette. But as the law stands at the moment it means that if the Minister makes use of that right, he cannot publish only in the Government Gazette but must publish also in one or more newspapers circulating in the area concerned. If a Minister were to do what hon. members are afraid of, namely if he does not want to give proper notice to the producer and the consumer who are concerned with the product which is being controlled, he simply need not publish the scheme in the Government Gazette. He can then just institute the scheme, because in terms of the Act he has the power to do so. If we make it difficult for him to publish the scheme in the Government Gazette, the logical consequence will be that he will make use of his other power simply to institute the scheme. Then these people will know nothing about it. The hon. member opposite mentioned the example of the fresh milk scheme which was instituted in various areas, in the Pretoria-Johannesburg complex, Bloemfontein and Cape Town. In other words, in each of those areas the whole scheme must be published in at least one newspaper, which will cost a tremendous amount of money. Never has any scheme been instituted in regard to which there was publication in other newspapers apart from the Government Gazette. All the schemes established under the Marketing Act have always been published in the Government Gazette only. If I were now to accept the hon. member’s amendment, it means that any scheme which in the past was published only in the Government Gazette, but in connection with which the attention of the public was not also attracted to the local newspapers—as hon. members now suggest in their amendment—can now be tested in court. I am not referring only to the fresh milk scheme now, but any scheme established in the past can now be tested in court, and then the court will say that the power which the Minister is now taking was not used at that time, that the scheme was in fact published in the Government Gazette but that notice of it was never given in the local newspapers. That is another reason why I cannot accept the amendment, because it will mean that all the schemes of the past will be able to be tested in court again on the same grounds.

Mr. Chairman, surely the intention is, when a scheme is established, to publicize the contents of that scheme as widely as possible; and when the scheme is published in the Government Gazette, the Minister does so particularly in order to notify the public about the scheme. The object is to spread that notice as widely as possible, and therefore a statement is usually made in the Press circulating in that area for which the scheme is instituted. It is usually stated in the Press that such-and-such a scheme was accepted by the Minister and that it has been published in the Government Gazette for everybody to read. Before the scheme is instituted it is a preliminary notice, because the Minister must convince himself that the majority of the producers of that product are in favour of the scheme. The Minister must do so before he can finally establish the scheme. I cannot see why hon. members have these objections. As I have said, the primary consideration is that the Minister need not publish it in the Government Gazette at all. For the reasons I have given I cannot accept this amendment. I want to ask hon. members not to make the position more difficult. If I accept the amendment, any person may again go to court to have any scheme established in the past tested, and where this section is made retrospective the plea will be that this section was not complied with. I hope hon. members follow this argument and that they will not insist on the amendment.

I want to support the amendment of the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan). I want to agree with the Minister, as I did yesterday also, that it is permissive for him to publish a scheme in the Government Gazette. The words in the principal Act are permissive. The Minister need not do so if he does not want to. But where I do not agree with the Minister, with respect, is the statement that when a scheme has been published in the Government Gazette, the widest possible publicity has been given to it.

I did not say that.

The Minister said that the object is to publicize the scheme as widely as possible. I take it the Minister means by that if a scheme is published in the Government Gazette it is publicized as widely as possible I do not agree with that, because the Government Gazette is read by very few members of the ordinary public. It is only people interested in certain aspects of our economic and other national activities who read the Government Gazette. Therefore I say that the fact that it is published in the Government Gazette does not necessarily mean that it is widely publicized to those affected by the scheme. Now the Minister says that the amendment provides him with a loophole. If in terms of this amendment we want to compel him, when he publishes a scheme in the Government Gazette, also to make a statement in the newspapers circulating locally in an area where the scheme will be applied, to draw attention to the fact that the scheme has been fully published in the Government Gazette, then we give him a loophole for simply not publishing the scheme in the Government Gazette. I did not expect such a statement from a Minister whom I know is so well disposed to the farmers—that he will now look for loopholes when he thinks it is necessary for the public to know certain things; and I am also sure that the Minister and his Department, when they consider that it is necessary to publish the scheme in the Government Gazette, will never think of looking for a loophole so as not to do it, simply because he must publish a statement in a local paper. It is not the complete scheme which is published in the local paper. It is just a short statement drawing attention to the fact that the complete scheme has been published in the Government Gazette of a certain date. It will take one of the responsible officials in his Department just two or five minutes to write out such a statement and to ring through to the Press to ask that it be published. I can therefore not see why the Minister insists on refusing this amendment, simply on the basis of the argument he mentioned that we are giving him a loophole for not publishing in the Government Gazette. I cannot accept that, because I think this Minister stands on a higher moral basis than that when he has to serve the best interests of the farmers and of the public. He will not seek such loopholes.

Sir, I insist that if the Minister and his Department consider a scheme so important that he thinks the public and the parties concerned are so interested in the scheme that it should be publicized as widely as possible before the scheme is promulgated—then I think that if he thinks it is so essential that it should be published in the Government Gazette in the general interest, it is equally essential that the persons particularly concerned in such a scheme should be notified simply by way of advertisement in the local newspaper that the details of such a scheme have appeared in the Government Gazette. Then the people who consider that they are affected by the scheme can buy the Government Gazette and read the complete scheme. I think it is a duty resting fairly on the Minister and his Department to give that notice to the people concerned.

I see the other point of the Minister—I am not a lawyer—that if this amendment of ours is accepted, and seeing that provision is made in Clause 4 (2) that the date of the coming into operation of that clause will be considered to be the date on which the principal Act came into operation, the position of the Minister will be made difficult. I think I can realize the Minister’s difficulty. But I think the Minister can seek another way out if he accepts our amendment. He can insert a clause saying that schemes already promulgated are legal, and then leave the door open for the future, so that schemes promulgated in future will be covered by the provisions of this clause. I do not think there is anything to prevent the Minister from inserting a sub-section to legalize schemes already promulgated in the past, irrespective of the fact that they were not published in local newspapers. I therefore cannot understand this objection. Therefore I think that, all things considered, this amendment of ours is reasonable. We have tried to get the Minister out of the difficulty of having to spend thousands of rand to publish complete schemes in perhaps eight or ten newspapers, as in the case mentioned, the fresh milk scheme, where it would have had to be done because it is applicable in the four big centres in the country. We have tried to save the Minister from that difficulty by simply asking that an advertisement be published, instead of the complete scheme, which will then notify the people concerned through the local newspaper. I think that is a reasonable request.

I think I could perhaps shorten the discussions. The position is that two powers are being given here to the Minister. He can do one of two things. He can introduce a scheme without advertising it or he can advertise it in the Government Gazette. Why should the Minister advertise it in the Government Gazette? The only reason is to bring it to the notice of as many people as possible. Having taken the trouble of bringing it to the notice of people by means of the Government Gazette, he will also make use of all the other means at his disposal to bring the scheme to the notice of the people concerned. That is logical. Why does the Minister otherwise use the power which he has? If he exercises that power it is only logical that he does so only to bring it to the notice of as many people as possible. If he has other means at his disposal whereby he can bring a scheme to the notice of the public, except the Government Gazette, he will naturally use them. It is logical that he will do so. He will make a statement to the daily Press that such and such a scheme is being advertised. Any newspaper in South Africa to whom you say that a new scheme is to be introduced, is sufficiently interested, if you ask them to send one of their reporters and give him a broad outline of the scheme to give full publicity to it. It is important news to such a newspaper. In other words, that scheme is advertised as widely as possibly. Even the people concerned with the production of the product in respect of which the scheme is being advertised, are consulted. They are notified and the scheme is considered with them. Not I but other Ministers have in the past introduced 17 schemes under the Marketing Act. The majority of them were advertised in the Government Gazette, but not one in any local newspaper. Nor was notice given in any local newspaper in the way the hon. member has suggested should be done. In respect of no scheme introduced in the past has there ever been any complaint that it had not been advertised sufficiently widely. Everybody who was concerned with it was fully acquainted with the nature of the scheme the day it was introduced. All we are doing in this Bill is to legalize a practice which has existed in the past and which has always been accepted in the past as being legal, namely that the Minister may advertise in the Government Gazette and in one or more newspapers circulating in the area concerned. Our legal advisers’ interpretation in the past has been that it was legal to do it that way, namely that the Minister “may” advertise in the Government Gazette or in other newspapers as well. The judgment of the court in this connection was that if the Minister exercised the power which this legislation gave him and advertised in the Government Gazette he must also advertise in another newspaper. It has never been interpreted that way in the past. Someone went to court in respect of the milk scheme and obtained judgment in his favour on that technical point. If I were to accept the amendment moved by hon. members, without taking the other complicated steps as suggested by the hon. member for Florida (Mr. Swart), it would mean that those same people could again go to court and adopt the attitude that as far as the 16 or 17 schemes introduced in the past were concerned, the Minister had not complied with the provisions of the Act, because this clause will be of retrospective effect. They will then be able to obtain an interdict in a court of law in respect of each of those schemes on the same grounds. I hope hon. members follow that. We want to prevent that. I want to ask the hon. member this: Why will the Minister advertise in the Government Gazette? There is only one reason, and that is to make the scheme known and if that area has a local newspaper, why should he not make use of that newspaper’s anxiety to obtain news to make the scheme known? Surely that is clear. For those reasons I think hon. members are seeing dangers in this amending clause which do not exist at all and which never existed in the past, because in the past it was not interpreted the way in which it is to-day. I hope hon. members will accept it as such and withdraw their amendment.

The hon. the Minister has just told us that there are two ways of dealing with this matter. One by not advertising at all and the other by advertising it in the Government Gazette. There is no question of even discussing the first one because the Minister will always publish in the Gazette. I do not think the Minister will ever try to introduce any scheme without advertising it in the Gazette. I do not want to go into all the details. I just want to make this point. We fully realize the Minister’s difficulty with regard to the amendment we have moved, but we do want to impress upon him that we feel very strongly about the fact that we think that the public should be, as the Minister himself has said, acquainted with the fact that such a scheme is being advertised and that it will be brought into operation. That fact should be brought to their notice. A small amendment can very easily put that position right. I therefore wish to move the following amendment—

I think we are being perfectly reasonable in moving this amendment and I hope the Minister will accept it.

We fully realize that the Minister seeks to validate all schemes which were not advertised in local newspapers. The hon. the Minister must understand that we wish to assist him in that regard. This side of the House is supporting him in that. But we do feel that under the Marketing Act we should ensure that the widest possible publicity is given to any scheme. I appeal to the Minister to accept this amendment. This amendment ensures that publicity. We realize that the earlier amendment may hamper the Minister in trying to validate existing schemes. But the amendment just moved by the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) provides that existing schemes will not be affected by the first amendment. The Marketing Act does provide for the regulation of the production and sale of agricultural products in the interests of both consumer and producer. We have the position to-day that the consumers consider that their interests are not being safeguarded. The Bill provides for a consumers’ council. But there is very little activity in respect of the establishment of such a consumers’ council. The very fact that provision is made for the establishment of a consumers’ council indicates that the widest possible publicity should be given to any scheme. Any scheme must be brought to the knowledge of the producer and any scheme which is designed to protect the interests of the producer and the consumer should be brought to the notice of the consumer. If no indication is given in the local newspaper that a scheme is about to come into operation, the consumers will know very little about it. What we ask the Minister to do is this. Validate your amending Acts that have been passed that are in danger of being questioned in the courts, but add a provision to ensure that in future some indication will be given in the local papers of a proposed scheme. It is as simple as that. We have no doubt the Minister could make provision for that. If he feels that this amendment was sprung on him too suddenly, perhaps he will indicate that he will consider it later in the Other Place. Even that would satisfy us. We want to help the Minister, but we want to retain the confidence and support of the public in general, to assist the farmer to provide food at as economical a price as possible.

I really cannot understand our friends opposite. The farmers have asked that it should be possible to proclaim a scheme under the Marketing Act. The Minister is trying to close loopholes. He has said that there have been court cases. He is only asking hon. members to protect the farmers and to word this section in such a way that the farmers will be protected. But it seems to me that our friends opposite are so concerned about the consumer and so little concerned about the farmer that they want us to leave the back door open so that the commercial people may enter and sabotage the Marketing Act. I hope the Minister will be adamant on this point.

May I put the point of view of the consumers. I believe that the producer is well able to keep up his own end, but I want to touch on this point as it affects the consumer. What we ask for is nothing new; no new principle is involved. It is part of the principle of the Marketing Act to provide for orderly marketing and to safeguard the interests of both the producer and the consumer. The hon. member for Cradock said this side is not interested in protecting the producer, but unless he can satisfy the consumer the producers will not have a market. All we ask here is that the consumer will have notice as to what is taking place in regard to the marketing of any basic article of his food, such as milk and dairy produce. The producer sets out to produce the best article he can and to obtain the most satisfactory marketing conditions for it, but in marketing there are two factors, the welfare of both producer and consumer. There is no new principle involved here. Local government encountered the very same problem. The Minister raised the problem of expense in the multiplicity of publications in the papers. In the big urban areas the newspapers are the only means of communicating between the producer and the consumer and of keeping the consumer acquainted with what is going on. The average member of the public has no knowledge of what is published in the Government Gazette. All we ask is that there will be a notice in the paper to draw his attention to the fact that on such a day a notice which affects his foód will be published in the Gazette. Then if the consumer is interested he can read it. If not, he cannot squeal afterwards. That is how the local authorities work. Their ordinances and their proclamations have to be published in the Government Gazette. Attention is drawn to them by notices in the local papers. I hold no brief for any attempt on the part of the producers, because it is a little more inconvenient or costly, to try to evade that point of connection between themselves and the people they have to depend on for their business. They could not exist without the consumers. I appeal to the Minister to give this amendment further consideration. There may be some legal flaw that unless he follows this course in every case, someone will go to court. That should not be difficult to deal with. Costs do not enter into it because a small advertisement in one or two local papers does not cost much, and even if it is a general publication throughout the country, is it not better to incur that cost than to start off with something which is detrimental to orderly marketing? If the question of a court case comes into it, surely it is not beyond the ability of the Minister to insert a short clause which exonerates him. I believe there is a fundamental principle which we will undermine if this amendment is not adopted. It is something which has been accepted as part of the Marketing Act and as an every-day feature in public life. I see no reason why the farming community should expect to be treated in this regard any more leniently than any other member of the public. It is a matter which affects the well-being of everyone in the area. Surely it is not too much to ask that the farmers should take these necessary steps to keep in touch with the consumers. An example was given only a few months ago when the new coupon system for the sale of milk came into operation, a system under which some of the lower-paid people who are only paid weekly now have to buy their coupons and pay a week or a month in advance for milk they have not yet received. It is a good scheme, but my point is that the public should have been informed about it in advance. The ordinary newspapers are the channel for making these communications.

In order to see this matter in its right perspective it is necessary to refer to Section 19 of the Financial Adjustments Act of 1932 which provides that where it is required under an Act that something should be advertised in the Government Gazette and in the newspapers, the Minister concerned can instruct that it be advertised in the Government Gazette only and that would be sufficient. That has always been the position in respect of all notices. We should also bear in mind that it has only been as a result of a court decision that the Minister must also in this case advertise it in an ordinary newspaper. But we should not lose sight of the background, namely, that as the Marketing Act reads at the moment, a position which has been accepted all these years, it has always been in the Minister’s discretion whether or not he even advertised in the Government Gazette. He has never been obliged by law to advertise in the Government Gazette.

On a point of order, is the hon. member for Cradock entitled to say that the hon. member for Durban (North) is committing sabotage?

I said he wanted to sabotage it.

The hon. member may continue.

We find that the court recently ruled that the relevant provision of Act 35 of 1932 does not cover what is envisaged under the Marketing Act. The court has ruled that once the Minister has decided to advertise he must also advertise in the local newspapers. But the courts have never found that the Minister is obliged to advertise, not even in the Government Gazette. I want to know this that if the position arises where the Minister regards it as necessary to advertise in the Government Gazette for the information of the producer and the consumer, why should we compel him to advertise in a local newspaper as well because the legal position is that if he advertises in a local newspaper he must place the entire advertisement as it appears in the Government Gazette in the local newspaper. That is what this amendment entails. But I go further. I come to the second amendment moved by the hon. member for Gardens. If you analyse the amendment of the hon. member for Gardens, Sir, it means that we will be laying down by law that the Minister is compelled to provide the newspapers with news and I cannot see why we should lay that down by law, because the Press will publish anything which is advertised in the Government Gazette which they regard as being of news value and which is in the interests of the producer and the consumer. But I want to go further. If we lay down by law that the Minister is compelled to advertise a news item in the Press, as suggested by the hon. member for Gardens, must he do so in all the newspapers of South Africa? Because he cannot discriminate. If he places it in the Cape Times he must also place it in the Natal Witness and all the other newspapers, because it is an item of news to people everywhere and they do not all read the same newspaper.

I am even taking it further. Surely hon. members know that there are control boards under the Marketing Act and that the producer and the consumer are represented on those boards. It is incorrect to maintain, therefore, that the consumer will not know what is going on in respect of a controlled product and the marketing thereof. The consumer has his representative there and I cannot see why hon. members have moved this amendment. I want to ask the Minister not to consider it, because if he accepts it will only mean that the producer will have to pay for it; where we are already faced with over-production and where even hon. members opposite are complaining about the decreasing tendency in the prices which the farmer receives they should assist us so that we do not incur unnecessary expenditure. That is why I wish to ask the Minister not to accept the amendment, because it will only mean an increase in the production costs of the producer.

I think it is most unfortunate that the hon. member for Cradock should have tried to introduce politics into the matter.

What politics?

By saying that our side are not interested in the producer. Everyone in this House knows that it is the United Party which passed the Marketing Act and over the years on both sides of the House we have co-operated to make this a workable Act for the benefit of everyone concerned. In relation to the amendment we moved, we only had the second reading late yesterday afternoon. When we drew up this amendment this morning we sent a copy to the Minister for his information. We want a workable Marketing Act and we want the schemes under that Act to be successful. For that reason we suggest in this amendment that the Minister should validate any omissions of the past in a separate clause or a separate sub-section to Clause 4. We said we would give him our support if he did that. What more can we do to show that we are dealing with thise Bill objectively for the benefit of everyone?

In reply to the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins), our amendment does not say that the Minister, having published a scheme in the Gazette, should then have to advertise in all the newspapers. If he had only listened to the amendment, he would have heard that we kept to the wording of the present Act, and that instead of publishing the whole scheme in two newspapers circulating in the area, the Minister should just put a small notice in two papers.

May I put a question? If you have a scheme for the whole of the Republic and that scheme affects people in one area who receive the paper published there, do you want it in all the papers?

We say in our amendment only two papers circulating in the area should have a small advertisement and not the whole scheme. [Interjections.] We are trying to deal with this matter objectively and I object to party politics being dragged into the matter. Over the years we have applied schemes successfully and everybody who is affected is entitled to know about the scheme. The hon. member for Florida (Mr. Swart) asked the Minister to consider this angle, that if it is an important scheme dealing with the product consumed by very many people, we feel sure that he will publish it in the Gazette, but how many people see the Gazette? Even we in this House, with the number of Gazettes published to-day turned out like sausages, find it impossible to read them all. But if there is a small advertisement in the Press it will come to the notice of everyone. Surely that is reasonable. We are trying to help the Minister to see that the schemes are accepted by the bulk of the people interested.

On a point of explanation, the last speaker was not informed that the amendment did not reach the Minister’s office this morning, through an error.

I really cannot understand why hon. members are so concerned about this advertisement which they wish to publish in the newspapers. That notice will in any event be given in the newspapers but we simply do not wish to be compelled by law to do so because if you are compelled to give notice the schemes of the past will be illegal. Hon. members now want another clause to declare those schemes to be legal, but that is unnecessary. Hon. members have said that if you give notice in the Government Gazette, you must do so in the newspapers, and that this was an accepted principle. But, it is not an accepted principle. This Parliament adopted a law, Section 19 of the Financial Relations Act of 1932, which provides that where a law requires publication in the Government Gazette and in the newspapers, the Minister concerned may issue an instruction that publication should only take place in the Government Gazette and that this will be sufficient. We adopted that law and it is still on the Statute Book and no one has objected to it yet. Now they say if I do not accept this amendment a terrible thing will happen. That is directly in conflict with what this House decided.

The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) says that if you do not publish the notice in local newspapers, the consumers will not know about the scheme. However, the Marketing Act provides that any scheme which is investigated and recommended by the Marketing Council must also be referred to the consumers’ committee for their comments. You have to refer it to them

Do you keep that committee in cold storage?

No, it meets regularly four times a year and it has its representatives on all the boards. However, the most important consideration of all is why notice must be given as widely as possible. I do not think any hon. member believes that a Minister would institute a scheme that the majority of producers know nothing about. I want to see the Minister who would dare to do this because the repercussions would be so great that he would not dare to do it. I cannot see why hon. members should be afraid that the Minister will institute a scheme with which the public are not acquainted. When a scheme is established, it is published as widely as possible. But there is this further point. It may be that a scheme was published in the past and that amendments are made to it at some future date. You then have to publish those amendments in the Government Gazette. This means that once again you have to publish the entire scheme, with all the amendments which you effect, in the local newspapers, and that proposal will be on the recommendation of the Council on which all these interests are represented. I am sorry but I cannot accept this amendment.

In spite of what the hon. the Minister said—and he made out a reasonably good case—I want to say that I am not used to the type of argument of the hon member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins). In spite of his predilection for sometimes yielding to the temptation to talk politics. I am not used to his advancing that type of argument. He usually puts up a reasonably good argument if he has studied the matter. The hon. member says that if the amendment of the hon. member for Gardens is accepted, it will only mean that the farmers will have to spend enormous sums of money on the publication of advertisements. The hon. member knows that is not so because the person who would pay is the hon. the Minister or his Department, and it would only be a small advertisement. The argument that the farmers would have to pay a great deal of money is one which is not worthy of that hon. member —that a small advertisement in two newspapers would cost the farmers a great deal of money.

But an advertisement in only one or two newspapers would not be worth the trouble.

The further argument is that there are producers and consumers represented on the boards but to say that for this reason it is not necessary to publish the scheme does not hold water because this amendment of the Marketing Act refers particularly to schemes which are not yet functioning. Except in the case which the hon. the Minister mentioned, most of them have not yet come into operation and in that case you will have no boards which represent these various bodies.

May I explain the position? It means that notice has to be given in the Press of every amendment which is made to a scheme, in terms of this amendment, and which is published in the Government Gazette.

I think that this is a responsibility and a duty which the Government of the country has and which a department has in regard to the people who are affected. I think that it is a duty and a responsibility which must be carried out.

The hon. member for Wakkerstroom used another argument which was just as petty and that was that the hon. the Minister must be held responsible for giving news value to the Press. To link up the idea of news value with this amendment which we have moved is completely wrong. I am not interested in news value which has to be given to the Press in this case, or whether it is news value or not. I am only interested in the fact that the people who are going to fall under a scheme must have knowledge of it. If the hon. the Minister considers it so important that it should be published in the Government Gazette, then the public should be notified by a notice in the Press. I am not interested in the slightest in news value for the Press and I think that argument of the hon. member for Wakkerstroom does not hold water.

I also want to say that I think that if this amendment of ours had originally been included in the Marketing Act in 1937, instead of the section as it now stands, the hon. the Minister would not have had the difficulty at all that he now has to make certain clauses retrospective, because the most important reason why it is not always published in the local Press is the question of expense, as the hon. the Minister himself said. We are now trying to solve this problem of expense for him by means of this amendment, and this would also have happened in the past if the section in the Marketing Act had originally been framed in this way. Therefore I am even more convinced that this is an improvement even on the original terms of the Marketing Act as passed in 1937.

Question put: That paragraph (a) of sub-section (1), proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

AYES—85: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Cloete, J. H.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; Diederichs, N.; Dönges, T. E.; Faurie, W. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Fouché, J. J. (Jr.); Frank, S.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Nel, M. D. C. de W; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Merwe, J. A.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

NOES—39: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Bowker, T. B.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Russell, J. H.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Swart, H. G.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendments negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 6,

I move—

Last year when the Marketing Act was amended the Opposition moved an amendment which I now propose to delete. I accepted that amendment last year, but it has now transpired that in the case of certain boards, particularly where the Citrus Board has to deal with exports and where producers have to give notice in advance of the quantity of citrus that they are going to deliver by a certain date, it is difficult for them to penalize those persons who fail to deliver the quantity that they undertook to deliver. The boards have to make provision for shipping, and where producers fail to deliver what they undertook to deliver, the pool concerned is involved in losses, and it is for that reason that we propose to delete that portion and to substitute for it the amendment which I have just moved.

I should just like to hear from the Minister whether there were actual cases last year where the Citrus Board had booked shipping space and where the Board had to pay for space that was not taken up.

There were such cases, and those producers were penalized, but as the Act now reads those people would be able to go to court in every instance and say that they failed to deliver because of circumstances beyond their control. We are now inserting the words, “where the board considers it reasonable to do so it may with the approval of the Minister” claim the amount involved from the person concerned. There were such cases, but nobody took the matter to court. If the matter had been taken to court the boards would have had to prove that the person concerned was not prevented by circumstances beyond his control from delivering the quantity which he had undertaken to deliver.

The hon. the Minister has not replied to my question fully. What I meant was this: Were there actually such cases during the last season, because we passed the Bill practically towards the end of the session? Were such cases reported to the Minister during the last season?

No such cases were reported to me, but the Citrus Board as such was faced with this difficulty, and this amendment is being proposed at the insistence of the Citrus Board, and it is being done particularly on the recommendation of one of the hon. members of the Other Place.

But last year when the Minister accepted the amendment proposed by us, he gave us to understand that this request had come mainly from the banana-growers, and now the Minister says that the amendment is being proposed at the insistence of the Citrus Board. Who really asked for it; was it the Citrus Board or the Banana Board?

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

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

I move—

Before I come to the saliant principles of the Bill, I think I should make a few general observations. As hon. members know, last year the Select Committee on Public Accounts drew the attention of Parliament to the worsening financial position of the Unemployment Insurance Fund, and it recommended that special attention should be given to the matter. It will be recalled also that the strong financial position of the Fund led to the decision being taken in 1957 that the rates of contributions and the benefits should be increased.

The contributions were decreased.

Yes, the contributions were to be decreased and the benefits were to be increased.

There is a slight difference.

That is what I meant. At that time it was hoped that this action would result in the Fund coming out more or less square, as it was not considered necessary to keep on building up surpluses. Unfortunately this hope has not been realized. On the contrary, there has been a small but a growing reduction in the capital assets of the Fund, and although the Fund is more than able to meet its obligations in the foreseeable future, I agree with the Public Accounts Select Committee that the position must be reviewed. Expenditure on benefits has increased from approximately R5,000,000 in 1956 to over R12,000,000 in 1960, and the estimated amount for 1961 is R15,000,000. Income has remained stationary during that period, with the result that the Fund has shown a deficit from 1959 onwards. This deficit has grown from R3,000,000 in 1959 to an estimated R6,000,000 in 1961. These deficits have, of course, been financed by drawing on the Fund’s investments, which were consequently reduced by R3,000,000 in 1959, by R3,500,000 in 1960 and by over R5,000,000 in 1961. The money invested by the Fund with the Public Debt Commissioners was still quite imposing, because even at the end of 1961 it still exceeded R120,000,000.

Can you give us the percentage of unemployed at the present moment?

I will tell the hon. member that later; I have the figures here. At the end of 1961 the Fund exceeded R120,000,000. Obviously with this amount invested the Fund, as hon. members will appreciate, is still in a very strong position, but I think hon. members will agree that this state of affairs cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely. The Unemployment Insurance Board has gone into the matter very carefully and has unanimously recommended certain important amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act.

The proposals of the Board fall into two categories. Firstly, they propose increased contributions by employers, by contributors and by the State. These recommendations are being considered but it is not practicable to introduce legislation on this subject during this Session. The second is a proposal to amend the conditions relating to the payment of benefits so as to bring the use of the Fund more into line with its primary object, namely to tie a contributor over during a period of temporary unemployment. Those are the amendments in regard to the second category.

Before I proceed to discuss the detailed amendments, may I put before hon. members as briefly as I can the main causes of the deterioration of the financial position of the Fund, as I see them. For this purpose I propose once more to refer to the difference between the years 1956 and 1961. During this period payments in respect of benefits rose, as I have said, roughly from R5,000,000 to R15,000,000, an increase of 200 per cent. The main causes of this increase may, I think, be summarized as follows: (1) The unemployment figure as at 31 December 1956 was 12,631; the figure as at 31 December 1961 was 31,169.

We heard a different story during the election campaign.

The second reason is that in 1957 the scale of benefits was substantially increased. The rates of increase vary in the different groups from 14 per cent to 30 per cent—those were the benefits. Thirdly, the maximum remuneration for participation in the Fund was raised in 1957 from R1,500 to R2,500; that is to say, the ceiling of the salary of persons who could participate in the Fund was raised from R1,500 to R2,500. I want to point out that this brought into the Fund a number of additional contributors falling within the scope of the Act. These factors which I have mentioned account very largely for the increase in the amount paid in benefits.

With those facts in the background I would like to deal with the main provisions of the Bill as shortly as possible. If hon. members will refer to Clause 1 they will find that in terms of Section 40 (1) (g) of the Act which was passed in 1946, benefits may be withheld for a period of six weeks where a contributor loses his employment through his own misconduct or where he voluntarily leaves his employment without just cause. There has been some doubt as to whether a contributor is required to register for employment during such period, and it is now proposed that an unemployed contributor should be required to register during the whole period of the penalty if he is to qualify for benefits from the date such period expires, and that the claims officer should be given power to extend the penalty period if the contributor fails to register. The proposed amendment to Section 38 now provides for this.

The next clause to which I want to refer is Clause 2 (1) (a), and here I want to point out to hon. members that there is an error in the explanatory memorandum. If hon. members will refer to the explanatory memorandum they will see that the explanation of Clause 2 which amends Section 39 of the principal Act, is this—

The date “1960” should be “1950”. I am now dealing with Clause 2 (a). In terms of Section 39 (2)bis the benefits which may be paid to a contributor shall not exceed one week’s benefits for each completed four weeks as a contributor. This ratio was introduced into the Act in 1950. Previously, under the Unemployment Benefit Act of 1937, the ratio had been 1:6, and it is now proposed to revert back to the ratio of 1:6. Hon. members will notice that this provision will only come into force after the Bill has been placed on the Statute Book, in other words it will not be retrospective. Sir, it is imperative that benefits should as far as possible be only paid to genuine work-seekers. Most of the regular workers have large credits and the ratio of 1:6 would not really affect them. Those who would be affected would be contributors who are continually losing their employment, and also married women who periodically return to the labour market.

Clause 2 (b) is the next sub-section I want to deal with. The present Act provides that the number of weeks for which benefits are payable is not to exceed the number of weeks standing to a contributor’s credit and that the period of payment must not exceed 26 weeks in any period of 52 consecutive weeks. The Act provides that in the event of an emergency, the Minister may suspend the operation of these two restrictions. Now the proposed additional paragraph (1) to Section 41 of the Act, will have the effect that a contributor employed on short time will not be regarded as unemployed unless his contract of service has been terminated, whilst the proposed paragraph (m) will provide that an unemployed contributor shall not be entitled to benefits unless he has been in employment for at least 13 weeks during the preceding 52 weeks. It is felt, however, that both these provisions should also be subject to suspension by the Minister in the event of an emergency arising as far as unemployment is concerned. Hence the proposal contained in 2 (b) of the Bill.

The purpose of the amendment in Clause 2 (c) is to apply to illness, allowance payments and the restriction requiring a contributor to be employed for 13 weeks immediately preceding the date of unemployment. This proposal arises partly from the necessity to reduce expenditure and partly from the view that the primary object of the Unemployment Insurance Fund is to assist temporarily unemployed contributors until they can resume their work. The fund is not intended to provide a source of income for persons suffering from chronic illness and who are unlikely to ever work again. Such persons should receive assistance from other agencies and not from the fund.

Such as what?

Oh, social welfare, I suppose.

Coming to Clause 2 (d), I may point out that according to the present wording of Section 39 (11) (a) (1), the date as from which maternity benefits are payable is open to doubt and the object of the amendment is to make it quite clear that payments may not be made for any period prior to 18 weeks before the expected date of confinement.

Clause 2 (e) proposes an amendment to Section 39 (11) (b). It arises from the fact that a large number of women cease to be employed when they get married and they have no intention of resuming their employment. Yet they apply for and receive maternity benefits.

Do you want them to go on working? Would it be wise that they should go on working?

It is for them to decide whether they want to go on working, I think. Yet they apply for and receive, as I say, maternity benefits. I am of the opinion, Mr. Speaker, that such women should not be entitled to benefits unless they can prove that they had become pregnant while in employment. I am proposing therefore that the qualifying period of employment in the case of maternity benefits should be increased from 13 weeks to 18 weeks during the first 52 weeks immediately preceding the expected date of confinement.

The proposal contained in Clause 3 (b) will render persons on short time and persons who have not been in employment for at least 13 weeks during the 52 weeks immediately preceding the date upon which a period of unemployment is deemed to have commenced, ineligible for benefits. They must have worked for at least 13 weeks. The reasons for these proposals are as follows: (a) Payment of benefits to persons on short time is open to abuse by employers; (b) in most industries employers do not resort to short time and it would be unfair discrimination to subsidize employers in certain industries; (c) the payment of benefits for short time would aggravate the conditions of under-employment, in that more workers would be maintained in the industry concerned than warranted by economic forces. The industry would tend to become permanently subsidized and a stimulus would be imparted to the continuance of unemployment and the wasteful employment of labour. The payments for benefits for periods during which contributors are laid off on a short time might cause a very severe drain on the fund, which would necessitate a very considerable increase in contributions. The Unemployment Insurance Fund Board considers that in these circumstances benefits should not be paid to persons on short time.

I think hon. members will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister still has the right in terms of Section 39 (3)bis of the Act to suspend this prohibition. As far as the question of the 13 weeks employment is concerned, the Act provides that if a contributor has credits standing to his name, he may be paid benefits even though he has not been in employment or even worked at all for a considerable period. There is no doubt that this has also led to abuse, particularly where married women are concerned. Furthermore, there is no age limit specified in the present Act and any unemployed contributor who is capable of and available for work of some sort is entitled to apply for benefits, even though on account of age he can hardly be regarded as being in the labour market, or he may not himself be seriously contemplating any further employment. As the result the fund has been called upon to pay benefits to old-age pensioners and others who are unlikely ever to work again. In most countries applicants must have been employed for a stated length of time within a specified period in order to qualify for benefits. I give a few examples: In Canada, 30 weeks in the last two years; West Germany, 26 weeks in the last two years; Italy, 52 weeks in the last two years; and in the Netherlands, 78 days in the last 12 months. So that the Board considers that a qualifying period of employment each year should be required, and it has unanimously recommended that a contributor should not be entitled to receive benefits unless he has been employed as a contributor or otherwise for at least 13 weeks, whether for a continuous period or not during 52 weeks immediately preceding the date upon which a period of unemployment is deemed to have commenced.

I turn to Clause 3 (c). As the Act stands at the present moment, a contributor is entitled to refuse an offer of employment if it is not suitable work as defined. In the case of contributors in Groups (1) to (3), inclusive, “suitable work” is any work which a contributor is physically capable of performing, which will not cause undue hardship and for which the wage payable is not less than the benefits would be. In the case of the other groups, “suitable work” means during the first 13 weeks of unemployment, work of a similar class and in the same group as the contributor ordinarily undertakes, and therefore, as in the case of groups (1) to (3), the intention of this provision is to protect the artisan and the skilled worker. But a large number of factory workers fall outside the first three groups and there is a tendency for many of them to take advantage of this provision and to refuse reasonable offers of employment which may be alternate employment. It is considered that the position would be met by providing that the period of grace be reduced to six weeks in the case of groups (4) and (5), since the tendency to take advantage of the position exists mainly in these groups. In the case of groups above group (5) employees often have good reason for not changing the industry in which they are employed because of the various privileges they enjoy, such as sick benefits, holidays and provident funds.

I now come to Clause 4 which provides that an employer who is registered with the fund shall continue to be regarded as an employer if he fails to notify the Secretary for Labour that he has ceased to employ contributors. This will remove a difficulty in areas not often visited by an inspector, more particularly where the public prosecutor is reluctant to institute proceedings in the absence of evidence that a contributor was employed during the period covered by the charge.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to stress the facts that the proposed amendments, which incidentally have the unanimous approval of the Unemployment Insurance Board, will not cause any hardship to any conscientious work-seeker, but they will materially assist in reducing expenditure, a great deal of which is due to nothing but abuse of the fund by people who have no intention or desire to become permanently employed. So what I am doing is that I am trying through these amendments to tighten up the administration of the Act and the provisions and regulations to see whether we can cut down on the expenditure through making provision for the stopping of certain gaps. When that has been done, the other matter of increased contributions by the employers and by the contributors and by the state will be taken into consideration. It is now receiving our attention, but we thought it would be advisable before we came to a question of increased contributions, which will be quite a serious matter, to see whether it would not be possible to reduce benefits which are paid not to deserving cases, but to cases where there have been abuses of the fund. Hon. members probably know of their own knowledge that there have been abuses of the fund. I believe there are many cases where there have been abuse. But my object is to see firstly whether we can bring some improvement in the administration and the provisions of the Act. I move.

I think that no member in this House has any objection to measures taken to tighten up the administration and to improve the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act. Certainly no member can cavil with any steps taken to prevent abuse under the provisions of the Act. But the position becomes quite different, Sir, when the House is faced by a Bill such as this which even if it is intended to prevent abuse, seeks to achieve its object by hitting the innocent as hard as the guilty, and we on this side of the House will still have to be persuaded that the majority of the workers of South Africa are guilty of misconduct and abuse of the Unemployment Insurance Act. [Interjections.] I can understand why these murmurs come from the other side. Unless it can be shown that this Bill, which reduces the benefits to which contributors to the fund are entitled, is intended to punish guilty people more than to hurt innocent people, it is a bad Bill. And there is no doubt about it that the effect of the measure is to punish also the innocent. This side of the House cannot be a party to a measure which is directed at the workers of South Africa at a time when every worker in South Africa faces an uncertain future. The time may come in the near future when a great number of workers, completely innocent, will find themselves justifiable applicants for relief from this fund. And the Minister chooses a time like this to come with a measure intended to reduce the benefits and to reduce the rights of the workers! I want to express my personal surprise, my bitter surprise, at the fact that the hon. the Minister who occupies the position of Minister of Labour in the Cabinet, should as his first legislative measure in this House bring this Bill before us. I can remember the days when he was proud of the Unemployment Insurance Act. I can remember the days in 1948 when this Act was under assault from the present Government party that he was one of the main champions who rose in defence of the Act. But his first legislative act as a Minister is to diminish the rights of contributors to this fund. I cannot understand it. And just to make sure that there will be no misunderstanding, I want to move now the following amendment—

What the hon. the Minister is doing here, if I may make this general remark too, is to reduce the rights of people who have been contributing to an unemployment insurance fund. I am surprised that the hon. the Minister has not moved an amendment for the deletion of the word insurance from the Title of the Bill, because an insurance is a contract of the highest good faith. I can speak of personal experience, and I think many members here can speak of personal experience of how private insurance in South Africa adheres to this principle of the highest good faith which should be observed in all insurance contracts. But not this Minister! Not this Government! I wonder what would happen if private insurers after people had been contributing their premiums regularly over a period of years, suddenly decided to alter the terms of their policies to the detriment of the insured! It is an unheard of thing. It has never happened in the history of South Africa by any respectable company. I know of an incident that is happening now, but that is because the company has become bankrupt. Nobody can convince me that South Africa is bankrupt or that this fund is bankrupt.

You have often said so.

We only have got a Government that is politically bankrupt. I think we should have a look more closely than the Minister helped us to look to-day at the various clauses of this Bill, the objectionable clauses. I am not so worried about Clause 1 (a). It seems to be only right that if a man is subject to a penalty, it does not mean that during the period in which the penalty applies, he should escape the obligations which fall upon normal people who are normally unemployed. I will not quibble about Clause 1.

But there is Clause 2 (a) which provides for a change in the law as it presently stands to this effect that whereas a contributor in the past, since 1950, would earn the right to one week’s compensation from the Insurance Fund for every four weeks of contribution, it will in future be for every “six weeks of contribution”. That is an alteration in existing rights. One could understand it if the hon. the Minister had said that in respect of any new contributor, anyone who from the date of this Bill becomes law, becomes a contributor to the fund for the first time, the altered period should apply. That would be a new contract and one would understand it and the Minister would be perfectly entitled to impose such a condition. But this will now apply to people who are contributors to this fund and over a period of years, believing that they were buying certain rights, have contributed. The Minister comes and changes those rights without consulting them or gaining their consent. I think that here the Government of South Africa is indulging in practices which would be unforgiveable and immoral if the same thing were done by a private insurance company.

Clause 2 (b) gives the Minister the right in case of an emergency, an employment emergency, to suspend some of the disadvantages that are imposed upon contributors in this Bill. Normally one would say that is a good provision. But this provision would have been unnecessary if the hon. the Minister had not committed the injustice that he is asking this House to vote for at the second reading of this Bill. An unemployment emergency! Sir, every case of unemployment is an emergency to the man concerned and to his wife and to his children! Every case! But the hon. the Minister says: I don’t care what happens to individuals, to ten individuals or 1,000 individuals, let them suffer, but if it becomes really large-scale and a lot of people suffer, then I will act. That was not the purpose of the Unemployment Insurance Act, and it was accepted and passed through this House by the party to which the hon. Minister belonged at the time. The Minister in his introductory speech said correctly that the purpose of the Unemployment Insurance Fund was to tide people over a period of personal emergency. It is intended for the individual who is unemployed. Surely if there is an emergency of large-scale unemployment, it would be unfair to expect this fund to carry the whole burden. In a time of national crisis this Parliament, the Government, would have to take crisis action.

Calm down, man!

I can’t calm down about it. I refuse to calm down about it, because here an injustice is being perpetrated against people in this country who in good faith contributed towards a fund, believing that they were entitled to certain rights.

Then I come to Clause 2 (c) which applies to sick people an injustice that the hon. the Minister wants to commit against everybody. He is taking very good care that not even the ill and the incapacitated will escape the punishment that he wants to mete out. He provides that the chronically ill will also suffer. The Minister says that it is not the purpose of this fund to provide for the chronically ill. I think that probably was the intention originally. We should not forget that the Unemployment Insurance Act was amended by the present Government to include cases of illness under its provisions. Now the Minister provides that benefits will not be paid to people unless they were employed for 13 weeks, whether continuously or not, in the preceding 52 weeks. Again I say that if the Minister had made this rule applicable to new contributors, we might have said that the Minister has a case. But he is altering with retrospective effect the rights which people have bought, which they have paid for under a contract. Again I say that if a private insurance company were to indulge in practices like that, it would lose all its business and it would lose the confidence of all people who have any dealings with insurance companies. In fact, Sir, it is inconceivable that any decent South African Insurance organization would do what the Government is asking this Parliament to do.

Sub-section (e) of this clause is perhaps worse. The poor woman who is going to have a baby! The hon. the Minister of Labour seems to have some difficulty about doing justice to women who are going to be in labour. If one wants to understand what the Minister is doing, I think one should take one concrete example. I think we should take the example of a woman who marries on 1 January 1963, after this Bill has become law and the Minister has had his way, if some of the hon. members opposite who represent workingmen constituencies do not stop the Minister. We cannot stop the Minister without their help. I hope they will not be silent in this debate. But if this Bill becomes law, you will have this position that if a woman marries on 1 January 1963, and then finds that she is going to have a baby and that the expected date of her confinement is 31 December of the same year, then one finds that under the existing Act if she applies in advance for those benefits on 30 June, she can rely upon the insurance that she has bought up to six months before her marriage, by having worked for three months in the period six months before her marriage. But now under the Minister’s suggestion, the same woman will have to work after her marriage and after the beginning of her pregnancy.

Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned for its dinner adjournment, I was referring to Clause 2 (e) of this Bill, and was quoting the example of a woman who got married on 1 January 1963, and who became confined on 31 December. Some of the work she does to-day before her marriage will qualify her for benefits. Under the Minister’s amendment, however, and with particular reference to the stipulation that in future the date of qualification will work retrospectively from the date of confinement and not from the date of application, will have as a result that any work she puts in before her marriage will not avail her at all. It also means that a married woman will in future have to be working when she expects her child. From this there arise two questions. The first of these is “What about the rights and obligations of the Fund towards this woman who might have contributed to it for years and years?” She might have been working for 5, 6 or 7 years before she married and stopped working. What about those rights which accrue to her under the law as it stands to-day and until it is amended by this Bill when it becomes law? She gets absolutely nothing for that. The second question is “Must we now assume that it is the policy of the Government to use economic weapons to force our womenfolk to marry, continue to work when they marry, whether it is necessary for them to work, or not?” This is the effect of this Bill. It offers a powerful inducement to a woman not to stop working when she gets married but to go on working in order not to lose those benefits which accrue to her under the Unemployment Insurance Act. I think that this is a very foolish thing which the hon. the Minister is proposing, because we know from reports which we have had from his own Department, that there is growing unemployment—in fact, it has almost trebled during the last few years. One of the problems facing the Minister and his Department as a result of this is that it is not so easy any more to find work for juveniles. And yet the hon. Minister comes here with a measure which must have the effect of compelling women on marriage to continue to work, thereby depriving juvenile girls of the opportunity of stepping into their shoes and finding work for themselves. This, Sir, can be said to be contrary to the good morals and the interests of the public of South Africa.

Why do you use the word “compel”?

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether it is for me to give the hon. member for Mossel Bay a lesson in sematics. When you are providing a powerful inducement for a person to act in a certain way, then it is compulsion. This is exactly what the hon. Minister is doing here, namely applying economic compulsion on women for them to work after their marriage. I say again that this is contrary to the morals and to the interests of the public in South Africa.

Then, Sir, we come to Clause 3 (b) which provides that short-time will no longer be a qualification for people to receive benefits from the unemployment insurance fund, unless the Minister finds that things have come to such a mess in South Africa that he has to declare an employment emergency and to repeal the measure he has now introduced. The reason of the hon. the Minister for this deprivation of rights is that he does not want to be in a position where the unemployment insurance fund should be used to subsidize employers who arrange their affairs in such a way that the unemployment insurance fund supplements the wages of their employees. That was a very drastic statement for the Minister to make. When he made it, I sat back and I waited for him to quote examples of this particular malpractice in the past. This has been law for some time now, Sir, and surely the hon. the Minister could have told us, if he did not want to quote particular examples, that it has happened in the past and that it is a bad thing. But on two or three places in his speech he only spoke about the “possibility” and never once referred to the actuality of the situation. In other words, Sir, it is pure speculation on the part of the hon. Minister to say that it has happened. Furthermore, it is an insult to the employers in South Africa to make such a statement. I hope in his reply he will give us examples of these malpractices. He has given us neither proof nor evidence so far that such a state of affairs exists in South Africa. So he is not willing to subsidize firms who place their workers on short-time, but he is quite willing to offer an inducement to employers to dismiss their workers. You see, Sir, I know from experience—and the hon. the Minister should know too—that sometimes it is an enlightened employer who places his workers on short-time, because he does not want to throw people on the street in time of economic stress. After all, they have given him years and years of loyal service and he feels that he owes them something for that. He does not, therefore, want to destroy their security in life and make them dependent upon the unemployment insurance fund completely. So he comes to an arrangement with them that some of them will work shorter time so that all of them can remain in their work in the hope that the position will improve and that they will then be placed on a normal footing again. Now, however, it will be difficult in view of the provisions of this Bill, to make such an arrangement. Rather is he tempted to put these people out of work so that he can get rid of any responsibilities. Here again, Sir, the hon. Minister is taking a very short-sighted course. I suggest that he has not thought this through which he is suggesting to the people of South Africa.

This clause further lays down that in order to qualify for unemployment benefits in future, workers will have to work 13 weeks out of the 52 weeks preceding their unemployment. I have already referred to this principle when I dealt with people who become ill because the same principle will apply to them. I want to emphasize that the Government is hereby taking away rights from these people, rights which they have bought in good faith. Because, Sir, they have paid for these rights, but now the hon. Minister is taking them away. I want to tell you, Sir, what is worrying me. The hon. Minister of Finance told us in his Budget speech what we already knew, namely that there was a tendency, again in the first few months of this year, for unemployment to increase. Will hon. members try to think who the people are who, apart from juveniles to whom I have already made reference, are the most difficult to place in work in times of growing unemployment in South Africa? These are the elderly people—people of 45, 50 or older; not old age pensioners, but people who will be in the prime, in the most useful period, of their lives. Experience has shown that it is extremely difficult to find work for a man who loses his employment at the age of 50 or there about. These are people who will probably have contributed to this fund for the major part of their working lives. The Minister and his Department will then have to battle to find work for them, something which experience has shown is not an easy task. But knowing that, the hon. the Minister nevertheless comes along and proposes that these people should get unemployment insurance only for the first 26 weeks of their first year of unemployment, while they in fact have contributed to the fund for 10, 15 years and are entitled to twice that benefit. So the Minister is taking away their rights in that respect from them. I should like the hon. Minister when he replies to tell us what solution the Department of Labour has to offer to the problem these people of over 50 years will present once they have drawn their benefits for the 26 weeks.

Clause 4 of the Bill is not so objectionable as most of the clauses are. But Clause 5 is an interesting clause. If the Minister has done this in another context we would have appreciated it greatly, namely to introduce a conscience clause! Here in Clause 5 the hon. Minister admits guilt; he tries to satisfy his own conscience that it is not as bad as it looks, because Clause 5 provides that all these rights which are being taken away in this Bill will continue to exist, if the man or woman is qualified, for six months after this Bill has become law. What a confession to make! If I had any doubts whether this was a negative Bill which entailed a diminution of rights, then Clause 5 dispels those doubts. Why should this have happened? You know, Sir, that there was a time when this Government claimed that it was the working man’s Government.

It still is.

But it is not so tonight, Sir. There is no evidence of that tonight. Why is this done? I want to suggest the reason for it: It is being done, Sir, because the Government, and the hon. Minister of Labour has been guilty of a grave miscalculation and of a grave error of judgement. In the years preceding the last two general elections they greatly increased the benefits payable from the fund and at the same time decreased the rate of contribution to the fund. They did that because they believed that prosperity would continue in the country and that there would be no growing unemployment while this Government was in power. They were hoping that the chickens would never come to roost in respect of the policies they were pursuing. But now, Sir, the chickens are beginning to come home to roost, because the unemployment figure for those who register for employment has gone up—I speak only of those who register for employment. And they are the minority of workers in this country. For them the unemployment figure has gone up from 12,000 to over 30,000. There is now a drain on the fund and they have to withdraw the investments at a rate of millions of Rand a year. So the only reason for this Bill is that this Government has miscalculated the prospects for South Africa under its own administration. For that the working man has now to pay the penalty. The hon. the Minister told us that he was considering increasing contributions, although not this session. He would do it next session, i.e. in a year’s time. But how does he know that he will be able to justify such an increase in a year’s time? Is he then such a pessimist? Why, Sir, does he pick on the working man first? Why does he not come with a Bill to do it all simultaneously? That would have been just and understandable in so far as he could not do otherwise. Why does he pick first on the working people? The hon. the Minister endeavoured to tell us about some of the principles underlying the Bill but suggest that there are other principles underlying it than those he mentioned. It is the duty of the Opposition, Sir, to reveal the true principles. One of the hidden principles is to save money, not for the principle of saving money, but to save for the Government one of its cheap sources of capital. How many times have we on this side, and especially my hon. friend the member for Kensington complained that the money which was being accumulated for the purpose of protecting the working people of South Africa against unemployment was being invested at rates which could not be justified considering the state of the money market and the cost of money at the time the investments were made. But now, Sir, this source of cheap money is being drained because the funds are being used for the purpose for which they were accumulated, namely to help people over a period of temporary embarrassment. But through this the Government is losing cheap money and immediately the worker is being called upon to make sacrifices to restore that source of cheap money to an embarrassed Government. That is the first hidden principle which underlies this Bill. The second hidden principle is that if you cannot administer a difficult Act like the Unemployment Insurance Act efficiently, and if you cannot by means of proper administration prevent abuses, then go on a punitive expedition and punish all the workers whether they are guilty or innocent —even if you punish more innocent then guilty people as is happening under these provisions. This, Sir, is unforgivable. It is the most wicked thing which I have seen happening in the South Africa Parliament for the past 14 years. [Laughter.] I am glad there is laughter because it is the most revealing laughter that has run through South Africa for many years. When we are protesting on behalf of the working people of South Africa we get these guffaws from the opposite side. I want to repeat, Sir, that if the hon. the Minister had come with one Bill under the present circumstances to increase contributions also, we would have understood it perhaps. But now he is going to penalize the workers for a year in advance probably hoping that it will not be necessary to penalize the employer at the end of that year. We would also have had sympathy with him, Sir, if he had applied these punitive measures only to future contributors and not to people who have already contributed in the past and who believed that by doing so they were acquiring rights which should be regarded as sacrosanct according to all the conceptions which surround the concept of insurance.

I second.

*Mr. Speaker, we have once again seen the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) at his best this evening. He is known to this House as a master of overstatement. Everything usually assumes extraordinary proportions as far as the hon. member is concerned. He helps hon. members on the other side to see ghosts. Let us take and analyse a few of the exaggerations which he made. He contends that by means of this legislation we are seeking to tell the country and the workers that the vast majority of workers are guilty of malpractices in regard to the Unemployment Insurance Fund. But that is not true. There is no truth at all in this statement. The hon. member himself will admit that there are malpractices but to suggest that we contend that the vast majority of workers are guilty of malpractices, is devoid of all truth. He came to light with another allegation in this House, namely, that we are doing these things without consultation. But that is also not true. Everything which stands in this Bill has been recommended by the Unemployment Insurance Council and this Council consists of an equal number of representatives of employees and employers. Let me tell the hon. member who is serving on that Council and then he can tell me whether this is not consultation, where the Minister is acting on the advice of this Council. These persons are: Mr. Bolton, representing the Associated Commercial Employers of South Africa; Mr. Burger of Cape Town who is connected with the Federated Chamber of Industries; Mr. Carstens of the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut; Mr. du Plessis representing the Confederation of Employers’ Organizations; Mr. Warrell of the Transvaal and Orange Free State Chamber of Mines; Mr. de Villiers as the representative of the South African Labour Confederation and Messrs. Rem, Steyn, Tyler and van den Berg as the representatives of the workers. These people have recommended what is contained in this Bill and yet the hon. member for Yeoville comes along and says that the hon. the Minister has framed this legislation without consultation while under the Act which the United Party passed in 1946, this Council was established for the exclusive purpose of advising the hon. the Minister. Now the hon. member has the audacity to come to this House and to say that there was no consultation.

He goes on to say that we have been bestowing all sorts of privileges before general elections but that the results of this are catching up with us to-day. Let me state in this connection that the Unemployment Insurance Fund was certainly never brought into being to go on increasing its assets. At some or other stage the expenditure incurred in respect of unemployment had to exceed income. We are not denying that there has been some measure of increase in unemployment. But here too the hon. member exaggerated because, as I have said, everything assumes greater proportions as far as the hon. member is concerned. It is really true that we have a large-scale unemployment in South Africa to-day? What is really the percentage of unemployment in the country to-day? At the moment it is 2.49 per cent. Two per cent. is regarded as normal because there are always certain people who are unemployed. Indeed, 2 per cent is accepted as a condition of full employment. Our position therefore is .49 per cent more unfavourable than what is normally regarded as full employment. We do not deny that there has been a slackening off to some extent in the economic sphere in South Africa but the Government has already announced steps with a view to overcoming that economic recession. We do not deny that. However, let us compare ourselves with other countries. Other countries also have their economic recessions. If one studies the information of UNO regarding unemployment, one finds that the unemployment figure in Belgium in December 1961 was 4.8 per cent; in Canada in October 1961 it was 4.9 per cent; in Ireland in November 1961 it was 5.7 per cent; in the U.S.A. in November 1961 it was 5.6 per cent. We do not deny therefore that there has been some degree of unemployment but it is completely wrong to exaggerate it and to make out that it has assumed terrible proportions. It is a pity that hon. members on the other side continually seek to exploit matters for the sake of political capital. Our complaint against the Opposition in fact is that they do not wish to assist the Government in restoring confidence in our country so that our economy can once again expand. Our other complaint against the Opposition is that they sometimes make statements and say things which are detrimental to the economy of the country. In this connection we need only think of the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) and what he said a few days ago in this House. Let us think too of the debate on such a vitally important matter for South Africa as Defence which took place last week in the Other Place. This is our charge then against the Opposition, namely, that they do not assist us to give the economy of our country the impetus which it needs to continue expanding for the sake of the workers and for the sake of South Africa, our homeland. They are always prepared to paint a black and exaggerated picture of South Africa.

The hon. member for Yeoville waxed lyrical this evening about the interests of the workers of South Africa. He said that this Government posed as the champion of the workers. I say with every confidence that I still regard this side of the House as the champion of the interests of the workers in South Africa. In contrast to this, the workers know the Opposition; they know the United Party. They know the United Party as a Party which continually comes to light with promises which are then just as quickly forgotten. How many promises have not been made by the United Party within the period of the past 12 years and then forgotten? Those promises were forgotten because in the first place they were half-baked and ill-considered. Mr. Speaker, the workers of South Africa will not forget either that the hon. member for Yeoville, the hon. member for Turffontein and others have come to this House year after year with motions that the Unemployment Insurance Fund should be used as the basis of a national pension scheme, and that they have tried to destroy the fund in that way. This is a policy which they have advocated in this House for years and which they have put before the voters of the country. However, I am pleased that sound advice has apparently triumphed on that side of the House and that they have abandoned that ill-considered plan. The workers of South Africa will also remember that it was the United Party which in the years 1947-8 made such a shambles of the Unemployment Insurance Act that the then Minister of Labour of the United Party Government was compelled to suspend the operation of the Act for three months and to appoint a commission of inquiry to go into the operation of the Act. The hon. member for Yeoville referred to the present Minister of Labour and said that in 1946 when the Act was placed on the Statute Book he thought that it was such a wonderful Act. The fact is, however, that the United Party made such a failure of the application of that Act that it had to be suspended for three months and that a commission of inquiry had to be appointed which deliberated on the Act for 18 months. It was also the National Party Government which in 1949 had legislation enacted to place the Unemployment Insurance Fund on a sound basis. The United Party Government went so far as to bring in all the Bantu workers in industry within the scope of the Fund. What was the result of this ill-considered and stupid action on the part of the United Party? The result was that thousands of Bantu workers began to lie idle with the sole object of receiving unemployment benefits. That idleness assumed such proportions that the Gold Producers’ Committee of the Chamber of Mines had to warn the then Government in 1948 against this particular provision in the Act. For example, they also included seasonal workers under the legislation, that is to say, people who regularly became unemployed and who as such had to be a regular burden on the Fund. They even went so far as to bring in married female teachers and ministers withing the scope of the Fund. It was the present Government which, when it came into power in 1948, had to rectify the position and place the Fund on a sound basis. On that sound basis the assets of the Fund grew to the colossal amount of about R140,000,000 and it was because the Fund grew so phenomenally that the Government then decided to make certain concessions. We are grateful that the Government saw its way clear to make these concessions to the workers. I would like to refer to a few of these concessions. The hon. member says that we have actually used the money too-royally but I want to say in my turn that workers as well as employers have been grateful for the concessions which this Government has made to them over the past 13 years. The contributions of workers and employers to the Fund, for example, have been reduced by half—and in some cases more than half—of what they were in 1948-9. In the highest wage group employers and employees to-day contribute 20 cents jointly per week. In 1948-9 this amount was 40 cents; in other words, twice as much. The fact is that for certain wage groups the contributions have even been reduced by more than half. Indeed, the Fund rose to such an extent that even the Government reduced its contribution from 50 to 25 per cent of the contributors’ contribution. I say again that I am grateful that the sound basis on which the National Party Government placed the Fund made these concessions possible. Notwithstanding these concessions, however, it was possible so to increase the benefits from the Fund that South Africa’s legislation in this sphere was quoted by the International Labour Organization as being one of the best and most favourable in the world. That was in 1956. I should like therefore to mention a few examples to show how these benefits to workers from the Fund have been increased. In 1948 the highest wage group which fell under the Act received a weekly benefit of R5. At the moment the highest wage group draws a benefit of R14— an increase therefore of 180 per cent.

To which wage group are you referring?

If the hon. member had studied the Act he would have known that this was wage group No. 7 under the Act of 1946. This group only received R5 per week in benefits under the 1946 Act. To-day wage group No. 12—this wage group is equivalent to wage group No. 7 at that time—draws R14 per week. However, apart from these benefits, Mr. Speaker, a large number of new benefits have been created. In 1952, for example, sick benefits were instituted.

Who suggested that?

That hon. member has apparently suggested everything, Mr. Speaker. I sometimes wonder whether he did not suggest his own birth! As I say, sick benefits were instituted in 1952 which made it possible for any contributor to the fund who became unemployed as a result of illness or who retained less than one-third of his income, to be considered for sick benefits from the fund. In 1960 these benefits were paid to 23,736 employees and the amount involved was R2,890,790. This was a big contribution towards the maintenance of those workers who became ill in 1960. In 1954 a second new and important benefit was instituted, namely, maternity benefits. Let me mention the year 1960 again. In 1960 there were 22,702 female workers who drew benefits in this regard. The hon. member forgets that 22,000 women obtained benefits under this provision in 1960 and the expenditure connected with it was R2,476,000.

Is that very wrong?

I shall come back to this question of misuses. The next step which the Government took was to introduce death benefits in 1957. I want to say immediately that if there is anything in regard to which the Government can perhaps be criticized it is in regard to these death benefits but we still believe that this was a very great advantage to the dependants of deceased contributors. In terms of this benefit the widow or her dependent children receives benefits for six months in a lump sum on the death of the contributor and in the year 1960 death benefits amounting to R669,000 were paid to the widows of 2,746 contributors. Through these benefits thousands of people received assistance, people who found themselves in the greatest need. If we add all these things together, I think that in the year 1960, 49,000 contributors benefited from the new benefits which the Government introduced and the colossal amount of R6,000,000 was paid out to them.

We admit that unemployment is a contributory factor but I say that it was only to be expected that at some time or other the expenditure of this fund would exceed its income if we had a period of unemployment. However, this is not the only factor which has contributed to this unfavourable position of the Fund. As I have already stated, the contributions of the Government and of employers and of employees were reduced by at least 50 per cent. I want to point out further how the contributions were reduced as a concession to employers and contributors. In 1950 there were 550,000 contributors to the Fund. They contributed R13,000,000 to the Fund. Ten years later, in 1960, the number of contributors was 767,000 and they contributed only R4,750,000 as against R13,000,000 ten years previously. In other words, a tremendous concession was granted in respect of the contributions and this resulted in large sums of money remaining in the pockets of the employers and the workers. The number of contributors rose by 39 per cent but as a result of the lowering of the contribution tariffs the income dropped to one-third of what it was in 1950.

But there is another very important reason why the expenditure of the fund rose and that is the pattern of rising earnings of our industrial workers in South Africa. In terms of the Act benefits are being paid on the basis of 12 wage groups at the moment. In 1948 there were seven wage groups. I would like to compare 1950 with 1960. In 1950 the wage limit of the highest wage group was fixed at between R884 and R1,500. There were 109,034 contributors in this wage group to whom the highest unemployment benefits were paid. However, as a result of the consolidation of cost-of-living allowances and the rising earnings of the workers, the maximum earnings of the highest group in 1957 rose to R2,500 and two new wage groups with higher incomes were created at that time. In 1957 these higher wage groups immediately brought in an additional 60,000 workers who contributed to the fund and who also had to be considered for benefits. In other words, whereas in 1950 there were 109,000 workers belonging to the highest wage group, in 1960 there were 346,000 workers in the higher wage groups. One can understand that every time that workers rise from a low wage group to a higher wage group, they immediately draw increased benefits although they have contributed at the lower tariff. This has been a great drain on the Fund and has contributed to this unfavourable position of the fund.

There can be no doubt that the Unemployment Insurance Fund has become an emergency relief fund to a very large section of our workers. Since these benefits have been increased to such an extent I think every right-thinking person—and I am sorry that I cannot include the Opposition in this—will assist the hon. the Minister in trying to eliminate abuses. Since these benefits have been so greatly increased, one would think that the Opposition would assist us to eliminate these misuses. We are accused of creating hardship, but I think that we can actually be accused of being too generous. However, the purpose of the Unemployment Insurance Act is to be of assistance and to protect workers during times of unemployment but this law must not be misused to create artificial unemployment and to demoralize the worker in South Africa. If we were to permit these benefits to encourage a large number of workers to become unemployed artificially, with the strong competition of to-day, we would have to pay dearly as far as the productivity of our labour force is concerned. Therefore I want to emphasize once again, as I said at the start, that all these amendments which are now being effected to eliminate these malpractices were recommended by the Unemployment Insurance Council. My own idea is that it is completely wrong to speak about hardships. I cannot believe that the representatives of the workers on that Insurance Council who made the recommendations would contribute towards the hardships suffered by workers. I would like to deal with the clauses of the Bill. As the hon. member for Yeoville clearly stated, it is provided in the principal Act that a worker who has resigned his employment because of misconduct or without sound reasons, may be punished by having his benefits postponed for six weeks. I know that the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) has agreed that they have no objection to this. All that this clause does is to say that if a work-seeker stays away and does not sign the register, the claims officer will be given the power to fine or punish him by means of an extended period without benefits. If a contributor is punished for six weeks because he has resigned his work without good reason or because he has lost his employment because of his own misconduct and then simply stays away for those six weeks and does not present himself at the labour bureau, it will be difficult to place him in employment, because during those six weeks when there was no trace of him suitable posts may have been found which are no longer available then. Therefore this amendment is being introduced to ensure that in those six weeks this workseeker will present himself regularly at the labour Bureau. I do not think that the ordinary reliable workers will be affected but only those people who regularly change their work. The next clause is Clause 2 which limits the benefits to one week’s benefits for every six weeks’ completed service as contributor. I want to tell the hon. member for Yeoville that all that the hon. the Minister is now doing is to bring the law in conformity once again with what it was in 1946. In 1946 the provision was that a contributor was entitled to one week’s benefits for every six weeks during which he contributed, and that provision was amended in 1950. All that we are doing now is to bring it back to the basis upon which the United Party established it, and there are many good reasons for this. It is not going to affect the good and reliable worker because he will build up large credits but it is going to affect and penalize the worker who resigns his employment often, so that his benefits will be built up one-third more slowly in the future. He will now receive a week’s benefits for six weeks. In other words, it is built up one-third more slowly. This means that the worker who often resigns his employment will not have very large credits. This does not penalize the good worker; it penalizes the man who is work-shy and who changes his employment often or becomes unemployed. This amendment is being effected to pin him down.

The hon. member said “We are busy punishing the sick and the innocent”, because an amendment is being introduced in connection with sick benefits. The facts are as I have mentioned them. The sick benefits were introduced in 1950 and they entail a tremendous expenditure of more than R2,000,000. Under the existing provision, however, a contributor qualified if at any time for 13 weeks he was a contributor to the fund and if he still has credit with the fund. This had the effect that even chronically ill people could be considered for benefits even though they were no longer bona fide workers or potential workers. All that they did was that they presented themselves for one or two weeks for employment and having worked for that week or for two weeks they were entitled to be considered for benefits.

How can you say such things? They had to work for at least four weeks.

That is true. The sick man who only built up credits in a short period is not the type of a man who will stay away from work for a year or more. [Interjection.] I repeat that the purpose of this provision is only that a man who stays away from work for a long time must be pinned down. Therefore it is now being provided that he has to work for at least three months in the year preceding his application.

We come to the question of maternity benefits which are now being improved. These benefits were introduced in 1954 but there have been many complaints that they have been abused by married women. The hon. member for Yeoville said that the hon. the Minister mentioned no examples but I want to give the House information which has been given to me. This information is that at the moment there are 8,700 unemployed women who are registered and according to a survey made by the Department 70 per cent of them are not bona fide work-seekers. The hon. member now says that we are forcing them to work but if they want benefits I think that they must be regular workers. If they work temporarily just to receive benefits they stand in the way of unmarried women who want employment. In other words, you cannot permit such people to be a drain on the Fund.

Have they contributed or not?

They have contributed but let me say something now about the contributions. Take the question of confinements. The same malpractices have arisen here where people contribute, perhaps for a long time, and then marry and are no longer regular workers.

That is not a malpractice. The law says that.

Yes, that was in the law but the law was not passed to provide benefits to people who do not work. The law was enacted to help the bona fide worker. Let me say again that these benefits are abused in this way that married women who do not wish to work any longer, go out and work for a week or three as soon as they fall pregnant, and thereafter they can be considered for benefits. It is now being amended therefore. As the law now stands they receive benefits for 18 weeks prior to the confinement. It is now provided that they will have to work for a further 18 weeks in the year preceding the confinement. This means 36 weeks or nine months. This will enable the regular worker to obtain these maternity benefits but those who do not work regularly will not obtain them.

Those are not the true facts.

They are the true facts. There is also the other group who fall under that provision, the older workers. The hon. member waxed lyrical about the older workers. I want to say immediately that this law is an insurance law. It is not a law which accumulates funds which anyone can draw. It is there to protect workers in time of unemployment. Older people of 60 or 70 years— it does not affect the people of 40 or 50 years whom the hon. member mentioned who can still work. They can work for 13 weeks before they apply for benefits. It affects the older people who have built up benefits but who no longer work. They are no longer bona fide workers. They only make application for work for one or two or three weeks and then they are again considered for benefits. That is why this provision has been instituted so that this matter can be rectified. The hon. member spoke about abolishing short-time work and he asked on what grounds we were doing this and what evidence we had. I would like to give the evidence from the report of the Unemployment Insurance Council of 1958 on page 17. They say—

The Unemployment Insurance Council opposed these provisions. These provisions were not in the law but on legal advice they discovered that loophole in the law and these benefits have been paid in the past four years. However, the Council opposed these payments and asked the Minister to abolish them and the reason which they gave was because it resulted in unjust competition between certain employers and others and because it subsidized certain employers at the expense of others.

Nonsense.

No, that is so. How can the hon. member say it is nonsense? If you pay an amount to certain workers of an employer, employees for whom that employer is not responsible, you then subsidize his employees and you find that employers will be inclined in a time of recession to encourage their employees to apply for those benefits. This is a way in which employers can abuse that provision. Therefore, the Council recommended that this opportunity to obtain benefits in that way should be abolished.

I want to conclude by saying this. The hon. member says that we have taken away rights which people have bought with their own money. We must make an appeal to the workers of South Africa. The Unemployment Insurance Fund is an insurance law. It insures people who are unemployed but it is not an investment fund into which people pay money which they can demand should be repaid to them. If people do not become unemployed in their careers and are not repaid their money, they must be grateful because they have had an income. They must not become unemployed deliberately simply to obtain benefits. That is not the purpose of the Fund. Therefore we want to make an appeal that the worker must co-operate with the Government to combat this draining of the Fund as far as possible by the elimination of these malpractices.

The hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) not only seeks to manipulate the physical form, but he also sought in the course of his speech to manipulate the truth to suit his arguments. [Interjections.]

Order!

I wish to say that the hon. member has based his speech on untruths. Let me show up a few of them. The hon. member made the categorical statement that the Act of 1946 was suspended by the United Party Government. I challenge the hon. member to prove it.

He cannot.

I am going to prove the palpable untruth the hon. member uttered here to-night. [Interjections.]

The hon. member says I told an untruth. I can give the proof. Will he allow me to do so?

The hon. member for Pretoria (West) need not concern himself because I will bring the evidence and I will use his own Minister as a witness to prove that the hon. member told a palpable untruth when he said that this side of the House suspended the 1946 Act. I am going to quote from Vol. 68, Col. 6513, of 25 May 1949. This is what the then Minister of Labour, Mr. Schoeman, had to say when the Unemployment Insurance Amendment Bill was brought before the House. He said this at the very commencement of his speech, talking about the 1946 measure—

Now what does the hon. member say? That is the evidence of his own Minister. Let me indicate a few of the other untruths and halftruths on which the hon. member based his speech.

On a point of order, may the hon. member say that the hon. member has told untruths?

The hon. member may continue.

The hon. member said that a respectable Opposition would assist the Minister to combat the abuses which are taking place. I want to remind the hon. member that he was in the House in 1961 when this side of the House supported the Minister of Labour in respect of the provisions that were then introduced in the Amending Act of 1961 to combat the very evils and abuses which the hon. the Minister to-night again referred to in his speech. Let me remind the House that amendments were introduced to take care of the position where contributors failed to report and this side of the House made suggestions and moved amendments to assist the Minister to combat this evil. In respect of sickness benefits where there were abuses, amendments were introduced last year and this side of the House assisted the Minister to combat those abuses. When it came to people who were abusing the fund and taking holidays at the expense of the fund, it was this side of the House which assisted the Minister to combat that evil. Let me take another instance. The hon. member says it was his side of the House, the Government, which introduced the additional benefits such as maternity grants and sickness allowance and death benefits.

Are you against it?

I am not against it, but I am going to prove that he told an untruth. There sits the Minister who can testify that it was this side of the House which moved and suggested and made these proposals for these additional benefits to be paid to the workers, and let the Minister deny it. He was a party to it when these propositions and motions were moved by this side of the House. The Minister can testify that any constructive proposals that came or the use of the Fund for the benefit of the workers were in fact made by this side of the House in the past ten years. Now the hon. member says it was the Government which introduced them.

Then the hon. member gave us a lengthy discourse on the benefits that accrued to the workers because their contributions were reduced in 1957. He said even the Government’s contributions were reduced by 25 per cent and the workers’ contributions were halved, and the employers’ contributions were halved. But the hon. member did not continue, as I challenged him to continue, to say that the workers’ contributions to the fund were retained on a sliding scale, but the employers’ contributions were pegged, and that the pegging of the employers’ contributions in 1957 is one of the reasons why the fund to-day is declining, whereas in former years its capital increased.

That is not the truth.

I will show the hon. member in a minute that it is true. It shows the extent of the knowledge of the hon. member for Pretoria (West) in regard to this fund, if he says that the employers’ contributions are not pegged.

They are pegged.

The hon. member said also that it was never intended to build this fund up to astronomical figures.

What? Did he say that?

Yes, and let him deny it. He said it was never intended that this fund should continue to increase, but that it should be retained at a level where it could meet its obligations. Like every other Government member, when it comes to playing politics with the interests of the workers, they present the point of view which at the moment suits them politically. But the hon. member for Pretoria (West) forgets that he spoke himself when the Bill was before the House in 1957. May I remind him of what the then Deputy Minister of Labour said? In that year the Deputy Minister put up a powerful argument that the fund should be allowed to continue to increase to give security to the workers, and he used the Rand Daily Mail as evidence.

What?

He quoted this relevant portion from the Rand Daily Mail and he used the example of what had happened to the Unemployment Insurance Fund in Britain. He said—

I would ask the hon. member for Pretoria (West), who suggested to-night a restriction on the capital growth of the fund, to take note of the words of the Deputy Minister of Labour.

But let me come back to the hon. the Minister. I am surprised that the Minister in this first measure he has brought before the House should allow himself to be swayed that he could present such a measure which is obviously detrimental to the 768,000 contributors to the fund. Throughout his political life the Minister has represented working constituencies. He represented Brakpan and Bezuidenhout. He should have an understanding of the feelings of the working men and women of South Africa. I am surprised, knowing the Minister as I do, that he has permitted himself to be inveigled into the position of having to come with a measure of this nature. But he comes with this measure and offers only one reason really for its justification, that there is a decline in the capital funds and he must take steps to stop it, and the step he is going to take is to apply these restrictions in regard to certain classes of benefits. The first restriction is on illness, on the sickness of the worker. The second benefit that is now restricted is to stop the benefits of the worker who goes on short time. The third one is for the working women, and the fourth one is a general application of restrictions to all the 768,000 workers. Let me take one instance. What saving, in fact, will result to the fund by the restrictions now being placed on sickness benefits? What do the figures reveal? We find that R2,890,000 was paid to 23,736 contributors for the year ending 1960, according to the latest report. This represented only an increase of some R250,000 over the former year, and as I understand the latest figures they are also in that region, with a slightly smaller increase. So in order to curtail the sickness benefits for the comparatively small cost of R250,000, the Minisster has taken these steps which are obviously prejudicial to the interests of the workers.

Let us take another one, short time, about which the hon. member for Pretoria (West) had so much to say. What is the saving that will be affected there? What do workers get for short time? Contributors who are laid off for a full week or more and receive no wages are entitled to benefits, although the contract of service has not been terminated. The beneficiaries for 1960 amounted to 6,276, who received benefits totalling the comparatively small sum of only R69,384. That is the point, R69,384. It is like tickey-snatching out of the pockets of the workers of South Africa. And of the 6,276 who got the benefit? Five thousand and eighty-five of the hon. member for Germiston’s (Mr. Cruwagen) constituents who worked in the clothing industry. I am surprised to see that the hon. member for Germiston is not putting up a fight for his constituents in this House to-night.

He is not interested in them.

What is even more incredible in this measure is how members of the Government change their attitude or their political approach as it suits them. In 1957 when the rate of contribution in respect of workers and the rate of contribution in respect of employers and the rate of contribution by the Government was reduced, there was a completely different approach to unemployment. Let me indicate to the House the attitude which was then adopted. I quote from Col. 1067 of Hansard, Vol. 93. This was what the then Minister had to say—

A very laudable sentiment, Sir—

That, Mr. Speaker, was said on 13 February 1957.

Who said that?

The then Minister of Labour. The Government was able to be optimistic at that time, but that optimism was attributable not to Government money but to the workers’ money because this fund belongs to the workers; it does not belong to the Government. It was the workers who contributed. During the whole history of this National Party Government they have only contributed something like R34,000,000. That is all, the rest comes from the employers and the employees of South Africa. When you look at the report of the Auditor-General you realize that the feeling of optimism which was displayed prior to the general election was not justified at all. When you look at the report of the Auditor-General you find that deficits have been reflected in this fund since 1957 and not since 1959 as the hon. Minister stated, which I assume was a mistake on his part. It indicates clearly the manner in which the Government is prepared to exploit at the least provocation for political gain, the interests of the workers of South Africa. What did we warn the Government against at that time?

What do you mean by “political gain”?

The hon. member has apparently just woken up, Sir. We warned the Government at the time when this step was taken, that the step which they were taking and the manner in which they were taking it, would result in a possible decrease in the capital account of the Unemployment Insurance Fund to the detriment of the workers of South Africa. We warned the Government for this reason that formerly the level of contributions by employers and employees had always been based on some actuarial valuation as to whether the fund could or could not meet its obligations. But the Minister of the Nationalist Party Government of the day made an arrangement which had never been made before. He threw the onus upon the worker representatives and the employer representatives because pressure was being exerted at that time by the workers to raise the level of the benefits that could be paid to workers from a maximum of £750 as it then stood, to £1,250 and because the Government would not assume its obligations and its responsibilities in that regard, he threw the onus as to what should happen in that regard upon the Unemployment Insurance Board representatives of employers and employees. They came to a compromise agreement, an agreement under which the employer representatives would recognize the rights of the employees to additional benefits, provided that the employer contributions were pegged at a fixed level which was fixed at 9d. whereas the employees in the higher income groups had to contribute as much as Is. We warned the Government at that time of the losses that the fund would sustain as a result of that arrangement. To prove it, Sir, I would like to quote to the House what was said then so that there can be complete understanding about this matter. I am quoting from Hansard of 7 February 1961. I don’t want to quote what was said in 1957. This reinstates the position. I quote (Col. 982, Vol. 106)—

If ever words of prophecy were uttered, they were uttered then. That was the attitude adopted by this side of the House. In the light of the fact that the Minister has produced a Bill of this nature to save the fund, to keep it at a static level, to penalize workers to that extent, is absolute proof of the right attitude and right point of view adopted by this side of the House at that time. The Minister in fact has admitted it when he said he would probably have to come in 1963 with a measure to increase the rates of contributions payable by workers and employers in future. If the Minister does come with that measure I want to make this plea to him tonight: Allow these contributions to be fixed on a sliding scale basis as they were fixed before, on a £ for £ or penny for penny basis, and do not fix them on the basis where a separate agreement is arrived at with one group who are interested and another agreement with another group. Let the old principle which worked satisfactorily where the fund took care of the needs of the workers of the day, apply as it did apply successfully in the past. I am sure that if those steps had not been taken in 1957 we would not have been faced to-day with a shortfall of some millions in the fund, which in plain words, Mr. Speaker, is a loss of security for the workers of South Africa.

I want to come to one other matter. The other aspects of the Bill have been adequately dealt with by my hon. friend, the member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn). There is one particular matter in respect of which I do want to make a plea to the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister himself has a fatherly interest in the matter. The Minister possibly has more than a fatherly interest in this matter.

He is not interested in prospective brothers.

Well, that is what I am coming to. I want to ask the Minister whether he will not consider dropping this provision in the Bill which affects the maternity grants. I will tell the Minister why I am asking him to do that. Originally when this benefit was granted to working mothers, it was on the basis that if a woman had not worked for 52 weeks but had been a contributor to the fund over a period of five to six years, she could still claim that benefit even though the date of birth of the child may be some nine months after the date on which she originally made her application. In other words, a period of 12 months could have elapsed in which the woman had not worked but she could still have lodged her application. But the Act was amended in 1961 and we conceded the arguments which were then presented by the Minister, because we did not think that it would affect in any way detrimentally the over-all position, the position that she would have had to have worked for 13 weeks in the 52 weeks preceding the date of her application. What has transpired since this benefit was first granted in 1954? Let me tell the House. At the expense of some R12,000,000 of workers’ money, not Government money, South Africa has been enriched by more than 107,000 new citizens.

Little ones?

Some of them have grown big. You see, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour is not only Minister of Labour but he is also Minister of Immigration. The Minister will admit to-night that he could never bring 107,000 immigrants to South Africa at no cost to the Government in such a short period of time—in nine months; one year. If the Minister has any doubts he should look at the report of his own Department because in that report we are told that this year at a cost of R2,467,000 South Africa’s population has been enriched by 22,702 new citizens in a period of 12 months. That is a wonderful effort, Sir.

By contributors to the fund only?

The mere fact that this side of the House of which the Minister was a member, introduced the original motion and introduced amendments to the amending Bill which the then Minister of Labour introduced in 1954, proves the virility of this side of the House in the productive efforts of the women of South Africa, with the result that there have been more than 107,000 babies. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I go further and say this: That we on this side of the House, by the Government’s acceptance of our proposals, have fathered more than 22,702 babies in the past 12 months. We have maintained a consistent record in this regard over the past four years.

Mr. Speaker, this issue goes further than the Unemployment Insurance Fund. It hits at the very vital interests of South Africa. The Minister, as Minister of Immigration, will admit that he could never bring 107,000 new citizens into this country in a period of six years at no cost to the Government. The benefits that have been paid in this regard have not been paid at the expense of the Government. This fund belongs to the workers. This is a communal effort on the part of the workers who have paid their money into the Unemployment Insurance Fund and the women of this country at least expect to get something back of what they have paid into that fund because that is an essential reward to the women who are doing their duty towards their country. It is a small reward. I make a strong appeal to the hon. the Minister that he will consider dropping this particular aspect from the Bill. The effect of the Minister’s amendment is going to be this: A young girl can work for four or five years, then get married and cease to work. We do not want our women to work. We want them in our homes to build a solid nation, because a nation is built in the home, it is not built in the office, it is not built on the streets. If we have to reach the economic position where we have to send our young mothers out to work in order that the White people may maintain their standard of living, then we are not building a nation, we are building the end of our nation. That is the plea which I want to make to the Minister that he drops this from the Bill. By doing that we will be assisting young married couples to build a home. If a young girl has worked for R80 per month for three or four years, gets married in January and finds in March that she is going to help build a South African nation she can lodge her application there and then for this maternity benefit and she gets back at least a portion of what she has paid into that fund over the years that she did work. It is a short-sighted policy for the relatively small cost because the saving that the Minister will effect under this Bill will not be a very big saving. When you think of the other advantages that can be gained by leaving the position as it is for the welfare and the benefit of our nation, then I plead with the hon. the Minister not to consider proceeding with this aspect of the Bill.

Last year The Select Committee on Public Accounts asked that the particular attention of Parliament should be given to the deteriorating condition of the Unemployment Insurance Fund. The hon. the Minister gave his attention to this matter with the measures which we have here before us are the result of that attention. Any responsible person had to take note of that request which came from the Select Committee on Public Accounts. The hon. the Minister of Labour did, and decided to take positive action. The hon. the Minister had two ways open to him. The first was to increase the contributions of contributors. The second was to eliminate abuses as far as possible. He then followed this last way. We wish to express the hope that the elimination of malpractices will lead to the fact that it will not be necessary for the hon. the Minister to increase contributions in the future.

What about the genuine cases?

I am making my own speech. I do not interrupt the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) when he makes a speech.

I was amazed this evening, Mr. Speaker, that the United Party expressed concern about the position of the Unemployment Insurance Fund, in the person of the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant). He expressed concern about the state of the fund while it was he himself who in the past wanted to give the fund away for a national pension scheme in the first place. Last year the hon. member for Turffontein came to light with an even more stupid idea when he stood up in this House and suggested that we should utilize this fund for a “honeymoon” fund. Indeed he asked that we should convert it partly into a marriage fund! I do not know whether he still remembers that. This evening he and his colleagues are suddenly concerned and worried about the position of the fund—the fund, as they put it, which cannot fulfil its obligations. What does amaze one is their concern about the state of the fund but what amazes me even more is that now that the Government is taking these measures to prevent exploitation of the fund, they do not support the Government in this matter. Let me put it that those who oppose these measures are no friends of the workers. They are not acting in the best interests of the workers of South Africa. They are doing no service to the workers.

You say then that the workers are the exploiters of the fund.

On the contrary, they are doing the workers of South Africa the greatest disservice.

When we are called upon to make decisions and to take resolutions in connection with this fund then there are certain things in this connection in regard to which we must have full clarity and must not lose sight of. In the first place: The Unemployment Insurance Fund is the fund of the bona fide workers of South Africa. The fund belongs to those who are contributors to the fund. Secondly: The Unemployment Insurance Fund is no state fund and no government fund. The State or Government cannot distribute this fund right and left as it pleased. Let me add, Mr. Speaker, that the workers of South Africa who are contributors to this fund have given this fund in trust to the state and the government of the day must administer it and ensure that this fund is used exclusively for the purpose for which it was brought into being, namely, for the primary purpose for which it was established. This brings me to the third consideration. Thirdly: This fund must be utilized to enable those people amongst the contributors who become unemployed through force of circumstances, to pay for their basic requirements of life and those of their dependants during the period of their unemployment. In other words, the Unemployment Insurance Fund is a fund to enable bona fide workers who were contributors and who are still bona fide employment-seekers to bring together two impossible extremities, the extremities of income and expenditure; when income has ceased upon loss of employment but expenditure continues as always because the basic requirements continue to exist. In other words, the Unemployment Insurance Fund is intended to assist bona fide workers who are bona fide employment-seekers—I say this with emphasis, who are bona fide employment-seekers—over a crisis which is a living crisis. The trustee must therefore not permit this fund to be wasted. He must protect it against exploitation, against abuse and against malpractices.

On further analysis it appears that this is precisely what these measures which we have here before us envisage doing. These measures are not aimed at honest workers or honest employment-seekers. They are chiefly aimed at those who are more interested in benefits than in employment. With these measures the hon. the Minister seeks to present its being more beneficial for a man to be unemployed than to work. That is very clear.

Do you think so little of the workers?

I am speaking now about the exploiters. Has the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) not been listening? I said it was aimed at those who are more interested in benefits than in employment. Therefore, Sir, I want to repeat: With these measures the hon. the Minister wishes to prevent it being more beneficial for exploiters to be unemployed than to work. These measures were analysed here to-day by the hon. the Minister himself and by the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) and their analyses support what I have just said. I am not going to deal with these measures one by one. That we can do at the Committee Stage. I simply say that the Government is engaged in protecting this fund against exploitation. It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that as trustee, the Government is not going to permit this fund to be drained or emptied through the utilization thereof for purposes other than those for which it was brought into being, even though those aims may be as deserving as possible and even though they be as praiseworthy as possible. Other funds must be found for those things. Think, for example, of maternity benefits. Think of sick benefits; other funds have to be created in order to comply with the requirements which exist in this regard. I say that it is clear that the Government cannot allow this fund to be bled dry for purposes other than those for which it was originally established. The measures which we have before us prove this. In effect, these measures tell us: This Unemployment Insurance Fund is not a charitable fund; this fund is not a welfare fund; this fund is not an additional old-age pension fund; this fund is not a sick fund except in so far as temporary illness may create temporary unemployment; this fund is not a maternity fund either except in so far as pregnancy creates unemployment on the part of bona fide working mothers. And when I speak about bona fide working mothers, I am not speaking either about the exploiters in this case; I am not speaking about those women who, once they discover that they are pregnant, go out to work merely with a view to obtaining these benefits and not because they are really honest employment-seekers. I am not speaking about them. I want to go further, Sir, and I want to say that this fund is no idlers’ or topers’ fund; this fund is not a “hobo” fund. This fund is not a “honeymoon” fund either, for the information of the hon. member for Turffontein. This fund is a fund of the workers of South Africa who have built it up during the years of plenty for the lean years which may come. These measures tell us all this very clearly.

Are these lean years?

They are lean years for the United Party but since 1948 those of us sitting on this side have always enjoyed years of plenty. The Saps are becoming so few, Sir, we are already moving deeper and further into their benches. I do not think that they should speak about lean years.

We are “overflowing” and they “flow out”.

I say that this Fund is a fund of the workers of South Africa which they have built up in the years of plenty for the lean years which may lie ahead. As trustee, the Government must build up this Fund into a mighty fund so that if abnormal times are forthcoming which create large-scale unemployment, the workers of South Africa will not fall unsaved or die of hunger and misery. Therefore, the Government will continue to keep a watchful eye on everything which threatens to drain this Fund unnecessarily and to rob it unnecessarily.

Unnecessary unemployment will also be guarded against. Unemployment must where possible not be combated by the utilisation of the Unemployment Insurance Fund in the first place but by the creation of opportunities for employment for the workers of South Africa. The Government also accepts this as its very first duty and very first task because its ideal remains: Full employment.

But it does not succeed.

I will come to why the Government has not succeeded in this regard to the extent to which we would have like it to have succeeded although we do actually have full employment in South Africa to-day.

And the fund is becoming bankrupt!

The Fund is not becoming bankrupt. We are again taking timeous meausres here to prevent the Fund becoming bankrupt. If we had listened to the United Party the Fund would have become bankrupt. If we had listened to the hon. member for Turffontein the Fund would have been bankrupt long ago. It is a bankrupt party which is speaking there. I want to proceed, Mr. Speaker, and say that nothing is calculated to drain this Fund at such a swift pace as continued and large-scale unemployment. However, if unemployment is the result of economic and political factors over which the Government has no control …

What political factors?

… this untilization and draining of the Fund is unavoidable and justified—a case of needs must when the devil drives. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I cannot even hear myself think because of the conversation which is in progress on both sides.

Order!

Where unemployment is, however, the result of the neglect or the inability of the Government or of the unwillingness of the Opposition to co-operate to keep the economic activities of our country at the highest level, that unemployment is unnecessary and it places an unnecessary burden upon the Unemployment Insurance Fund. Mr. Speaker, in this sense there is unnecessary, not necessary unemployment in South Africa to-day. I am not referring now to “won’t works” or the vultures who prey on the Unemployment Insurance Fund. I am referring to the fact that we do not obtain all the capital from abroad which we can obtain for our industrial development and for the erection of our factories which will provide work for all who wish to work. These are unpleasant facts but I must lay them where they belong—at the door of the Opposition and its Press which are the cause of this with their evil-smelling tales which they broadcast to the world. This has resulted in South Africa being called the skunk of the world—these evil-smelling tales about Government policy!

Order! The hon. member should use more savoury language.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, but we have to deal with a skunk here …

Yes, but who is the skunk to which the hon. member is referring?

I am referring to South Africa which according to the Burger has been called the skunk of the world. Now I say that the irresponsible statements of the Opposition have given us that reputation and it is those irresponsible statements of the Opposition which have given South Africa that reputation and which continually frighten away foreign capital and in this way contribute unnecessarily towards unemployment. It does not help for the Opposition to come along here with pious words and requests that we should combat unemployment by opportunities for work while they contribute towards destroying potential opportunities for employment at source. In the name of the workers of South Africa I want to make this plea to the Opposition this evening: Stop these irresponsible talks, stop them for the sake of the workers of South Africa. Let them rather remain quiet and rather say nothing and leave it to the Government to bring the economic activities of South Africa to the highest possible level in order in this way to ensure full employment and to restrict the unnecessary draining of the Unemployment Insurance Fund by unnecessary unemployment.

As far as the Government is concerned, it will do its duty as trustee of the Fund, undaunted and very definitely.

It will protect the Fund against abuse and malpractices, against unnecessary exhaustion. It will not sit quietly and summarily allow the fund of the workers of South Africa to be robbed by vultures. It would be criminal neglect of duty on the part of the Government if it were to tolerate this. We trust that these timeous steps of the hon. the Minister will have the effect of halting the deteriorating financial position of the Fund. As I have already said, we trust that it will never be necessary to increase the contributions of the workers. I want to ask the hon. the Minister in any case to consider compelling employers to make higher contributions for the higher groups. As you know, they are to-day paying 8 cents per week per capita as their contribution to the Fund in the higher groups. I want to ask that the hon. the Minister should reconsider the matter and consider raising the contributions of the employers in order to bring these into conformity with those of the employees.

In conclusion I want to ask him to invest the money of the Fund as advantageously as possible so that money can earn the highest possible interest.

It is too late.

It is not too late. How can it be too late? We know that the Fund still has more than £60,000,000 or R120,000,000 available and it is never too late for the National Party to do something in the interests of the workers. We will always, as in the past, step into the breach for the workers of South Africa, as we are going here again through the medium of these measures.

The hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. G. L. H. van Niekerk) to-night has made a plea on behalf of the workers of South Africa, but it is surprising that in looking towards the welfare of the workers of South Africa, he did not apply the practical implications that are involved in the introduction of this Bill. Because if he had looked at the Bill factually, he would have found that the provisions of this Bill adversely affect the workers of South Africa, and deprive them of certain rights they previously enjoyed under the principal Act of 1946. He was rather inclined to adopt the usual tactics employed by that side of the House of looking for a scapegoat, and of course that scapegoat was once again the English Press and the Opposition. Now, Mr. Speaker, the whole question here, looking at the interests of the workers, is to find what advantages they can gain as a result of the introduction of this Bill, and there we find a great deal of difficulty because in the past this Act has been amended over and over again. If you look at the principal Act and the amending Acts, you find it was amended in 1949, 1952, 1954, 1957, 1959, 1960 and 1961, and we were told last year when a Bill was introduced that it would be an attempt to stop certain abuses. Therefore we would like to know from the hon. the Minister whether he considers that amending Act of 1961 has failed in its object to stop certain abuses. Because as we see the position on this side of the House, the Select Committee on Public Accounts which submitted its report, showed that at an unemployment figure of 2 per cent this fund would continue to deteriorate. So with the normal unemployment figure (and we are told that it is a normal employment time now) the fund is deteriorating. Mr. Speaker, what will happen if there is an increase in unemployment? If the fund in what are normal employment times is now going into the red, what will happen in abnormal times? If these are normal times, one fears for the future of this fund. Sir, looking after the interests of the workers and looking after the interests in such a way that they are not deprived of certain rights, I believe it to be the duty of members of this House who represent in their own constituencies perhaps many thousands of contributors to this fund, to voice their objection here to-night in the course of this debate, because it has been outlined by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) that certain rights have been taken away from the workers and from the contributors to this fund. We have supported in the past any measures that had been taken to prevent abuse of this fund. In Clause 1 of the Bill before us to-night, the Minister is taking a further step whereby a contributor who is penalized will have to register at the labour office and will have to continue to register during the period that he is penalized. Such a step is a step in the direction of stopping abuse. But the whole principle in this Bill is to curb expenditure and the steps that are being taken here to curb expenditure are impinging upon the rights of the workers that they previously enjoyed. When you look at the Department of Labour’s report for 1960, you will find that the main benefits, the main unemployment benefits amounted to £3,670,500—sickness allowances £1,445,500, maternity benefits of £1,233,500 and dependants’ allowances of £334,500. The three major benefits are now to have certain steps taken against them by the provisions of this Bill in an attempt to curb that expenditure, and the steps that are being taken are indeed severe steps, and so far we have failed to hear any justification from that side of the House for these steps. For instance in the report that I have just quoted, the question is mentioned of illness-allowances and maternity benefits, and it states that the increase in the number of persons who received illness-allowances and maternity benefits was not unduly large if the substantial increase in the number of contributors to the fund was borne in mind. So these increases that are outlined in this report show that they are not unduly large. Therefore we want to know where these abuses are taking place. If it is a normal increase in the amounts that have been paid out under these certain benefits, to what extent are abuses taking place? It seems wrong and unjust that the genuine and bona fide contributor and the genuinely unemployed person should be subject to these severe provisions, because if the percentage is a small percentage—possibly there are a certain number of persons, and to my knowledge it must be a very small number indeed, who abuse certain provisions of this fund, the genuine cases should not be made to suffer as a result. We on this side of the House have never condoned an habitual won’t-work, we have never condoned a man who is merely interested in receiving his 26 weeks’ benefits. When the hon. the Minister started his speech this afternoon, he mentioned the fact that we supported certain provisions of that Bill that was introduced last year, and that Clause 1 of this Bill goes a step further in regard to abuses and as far as people who are penalized are concerned.

The claims officers have tremendous powers.

Quite so. I know of a case in the constituency that I represent where a person felt that he had been unjustifiably penalized for a period of six weeks by the claims officer. It took him over four months before finality was reached. He appealed to the Benefits Committee, he took an appeal to the Unemployment Insurance Board, and his appeal was rejected, but it took a period of four months before he knew his financial fate, and during that period of time his furniture was repossessed, his family suffered severe hardships, his bond on his home was foreclosed. These people suffered severe hardships as the result of the arbitrary power that the claims officer has.

[Inaudible.]

It is all very well for the member over there to try and brush aside these matters, but if he goes and talks to those who are unemployed, standing in the unemployed queue, he will get a better idea from the inside as to what problems are facing these people, the sufferings of their families. The provisions of this Bill go very far indeed and the three main amendments which amend Section 38 of the principal Act (the application for benefits) Section 39 (the scales of benefits) and Section 40 (the conditions relating to payments of benefits) are all matters which vitally affect the contributor, these are matters in respect of which he has felt secure in the past in the knowledge that if he should become unemployed, he is covered by certain provisions. These provisions are now to be altered, and in judging the merits of this Bill, I think those persons who have the interests of the workers at heart should judge this Bill on its practical application and what it will mean in terms of the worker. What the practical application will be is the yardstick by which we should judge the merits of this Bill. Taking that as your yardstick, we find that these certain provisions, firstly the provision in Clause 2 of the Bill, are provisions which are going to affect also the future contributors to the fund—but what is it going to mean in the practical application? It is going to mean that where the period of benefits that is credited to the contributor was one week for every four weeks that he has contributed, it is now going to be one-week benefits for every six weeks that he has contributed to the fund. It means that to qualify for the full 26 weeks benefits, he will have to work a period of two years at present, but under the new provisions in sub-section (b), he will have to contribute for a period of three years before qualifying for the full 26 weeks benefits. That means a period of a whole year more. The new contributor will be put to the disadvantage of paying the same contribution to the fund, but receiving far less in regard to their benefits. So if a person commences work and then contributes to that fund for a period of two years, or 112 weeks, that person in future will only receive benefits for 18 weeks, whereas the person previously under the system of one week for four weeks received the full 26 weeks. So that is a disadvantage of two months which the new contributor is faced with. Therefore it is clear from these new provisions that a person who is paying the same insurance cover (this claims to be an insurance measure) receive nowhere near the same cover that other persons have been enjoying.

In further applying the yardstick of the practical application of this Bill in regard to the workers, we come to the clause that deals with illness-allowances. In terms of the provision that we have here, what is the position? We have heard from the other side that these provisions are necessary, because this is not a measure to provide for illness. But in the past it has been used for that particular purpose. During the introduction of this Bill, the hon. the Minister of Labour stated that he did not consider these allowances as falling within the scope of unemployment insurance and that the responsibility must rest elsewhere. So what is the position now when a man, perhaps at the age of 40 or 45, suffering illness, qualifying for the benefits, at the end of the period of benefits goes to claim benefit for another period when he remains unemployed? During that period of remaining unemployed he is not in the position to make the necessary contributions for another 13 weeks to that fund. Then he is not entitled to re-apply for any further benefits. The Minister stated that he becomes the responsibility of someone else. Where does that other responsibility lie? As I can see it the only avenue open to him is the Department of Social Welfare where he can apply for a disability grant. But what is the position if he applies for a disability grant? He is subject to the invidious means test, the same means test that applies in respect of old-age pensions. So you can see what the hon. the Minister is subjecting that person to. And if he does not qualify in terms of the means test for a disability grant, he then becomes the responsibility of charity. Why should a man who has contributed to a fund to secure the necessary cover for unemployment, then be subjected to have to live on charity? He has contributed to the fund and felt secure in the knowledge that he would have some form of benefits accruing to him, but he then finds that after contributing for many years, he is not entitled to any further benefit from that fund. Then he is dependent on charity. I think that is a scandalous situation, and this Bill brings about a situation of that kind. That is why I think it is not right for the hon. the Minister to try and shelve this whole question of the illness-allowances without realizing the severe effect of making provision here that he must come to you for a further period of 13 weeks before qualifying for any further benefits.

As I mentioned earlier, in the Department of Labour’s Report it is stated that there was no undue increase in the number of payments made under illness-allowances.

The other question that arises has already been dealt with by the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant), who covered the position in regard to maternity benefits. Even under the existing law a certain degree of dissatisfaction exists. I wish to quote a particular case here. And may I say that when referring to these particular cases, one gets a good insight into the practical application of any law that is passed by this House. Here you have a person who had been employed for a period of ten years. She had contributed to the fund for a period of ten years and was married. She then found that she was unable to continue in her employment because she was called upon to look after the two children of the husband’s previous marriage. Under those circumstances she looked after those children for the period of a year, and just after that period of a year she wished to apply for benefits under the maternity allowances provision in the Act. However, her application was rejected because she had not contributed for a period of 13 weeks prior to her application. Now that period is going to be further extended to a period of 18 weeks. So you can see that there will even be more cases that will fall outside the provisions of this Act, cases where persons have contributed for a period of over ten years, receiving nothing in the form of benefits.

The other important factor in regard to this Bill is in connection with the new provisions under (1) and (m), which amend Section 40 of the principal Act. The hon. member for Yeoville mentioned this point and I want to take it a little bit further in regard to its practical application to see what the provision will be if this Bill becomes law. The provision here is that a person cannot re-apply if he has not contributed for a period of 13 weeks immediately prior to a period of unemployment, a period of 13 weeks during a period of 52 weeks immediately prior to the term deemed to be a period of unemployment. In regard to this provision, we come to the position of the older worker who endeavours to find employment, who is sometimes retrenched and replaced, and then sometimes at the age of 40 or 45, with family responsibilities, finds it exceedingly difficult to obtain suitable employment. Consequently there is. and there always has been for a long period of time, ever since the economy of this country slowed up, a large number of these people who have become quite desperate in regard to finding some means of supporting their families and their dependants. Now with all good intentions in the world, the contributor who has perhaps worked for a long period of time, draws his full 26 weeks benefits, and then during the following period is unable to find any type of employment whatsoever; in terms of the provision that is before the House to-night, that person must be employed for another period of 13 weeks, during the 52 weeks prior to another period of unemployment. Consequently he must find some form of employment before he can draw any further benefits. This is going to be another severe hardship to the man who is genuinely unemployed. It is all very well for members to talk about the won’t-works and those who abuse the Act, but we have got to take into account that the practical application of this Bill is seriously going to affect the genuine person who cannot find employment. He is unable to find employment, and because he is unable to find employment, the fund that he has contributed to is unable to assist him if this amending Bill should be passed.

The other point is in regard to still older people. The hon. the Minister in introducing this Bill spoke about the old-age pensioner, the older person. There are several cases that I have knowledge of where a great deal of hardship has been caused by the present system, whereby a person has been drawing benefits for six months from the Unemployment Benefit Fund and then because in terms of the Act he cannot draw more than 26 weeks benefits, he applies for an old-age pension and he draws an old-age pension for the next six months. But often the period of time between the ceasing of the unemployment benefit and the granting of an old-age pension can be up to two and three months, and during that period of time those people suffer severe hardships. Then it is adjusted again as the law is to-day, when they go back after drawing the old-age pension for six months, to six months drawing of the unemployment benefit. As I understand the provisions of this Bill, and I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to confirm this, or otherwise, these elderly folk who perhaps are over 65 years of age who have drawn benefits for 26 weeks and who naturally because of their advanced age, cannot find work, will then cease to become the responsibility of the Unemployment Benefit Fund after drawing their 26 weeks benefits. If that is so, then the additional burden will fall on the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, because they will then commence drawing their old-age pension immediately the 26 weeks benefit has been drawn under the Unemployment Insurance Act. That being so, I would like to know from the hon. the Minister whether this particular provision has got the approval of the Minister of Pensions, because it is going to increase the amount of money paid out in pensions, because instead of them being able to draw in respect of the contributions they have been credited with over the years, after each period of 26 weeks, these people now will only draw for one initial period of 26 weeks, and thereafter for the rest of their lives they will continue drawing benefits as old-age pensioners, or they will draw other social benefits. They will then become the responsibility of the Minister of Pensions. I was hoping to raise this matter at a later stage with the hon. the Minister of Labour, because, as I mentioned earlier, having to go from one fund to the other has caused some degree of hardship. But there are some people, and here is one particular case I have been asked to raise, who would like to continue to draw their benefits from the Unemployment Insurance Fund. They think they are entitled to those benefits in view of the amount of credit standing in their name, before they go onto the old-age pension. Because there is quite a difference between the benefits that they enjoy from the Unemployment Fund and the benefits they receive as old-age pensioners. Therefore they would like to know whether it is not possible for them to be able to draw the full amount that is standing to their credit in that fund, because they had been contributors for many years, and they believe that they are entitled to that consideration.

So in summing up the whole position in regard to this Bill. I support the amendment that has been moved by the hon. member for Yeoville, because in judging the application of this Bill as we see it, it adversely affects the workers, and it is surprising that people on the other side who generally say that they are looking after the interests of the workers, have not applied the practical application of this Bill to see how it affects them and how adversely it can affect the genuine person who is a contributor to the fund and is entitled to those benefits. This Bill deprives that person of certain rights we feel most strongly about, and we believe the Bill should not be proceeded with.

The hon. member who has just sat down says that the workers will judge these amendments on their merits. But if there is one thing of which I am very convinced this evening it is that the workers will judge the United Party on its merits, particularly as regards the United Party’s pathetic action in respect of this matter of unemployment insurance. In 1959 the United Party’s attitude was that the Unemployment Insurance Fund was a fund for the unemployed which had to be used to assist them in difficult times when they became unemployed. This evening and this afternoon the United Party refused to give its support to the elimination of abuses and to steps which are designed to protect the fund for this very purpose for the workers of our country. The United Party is the last party that can come along and object, as they have done to-day through the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn), to the withdrawal of short-time benefits. They have a very short memory. They are the very people who opposed the granting of those short-time benefits in 1959 when this matter was before the House. At that time they moved an amendment in this regard and the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) who moved the amendment, had the following to say, inter alia—

The hon. member for Yeoville must listen how he has changed his opinions since 1959. The hon. member for Umhlutazana went on to say—

And the United Party voted as one man against the giving of short-time benefits in 1959. This evening they pose as the advocates of short-time benefits.

Did you support us then?

The hon. member for Yeoville comes along and says that we have been acting too royally with the fund by granting benefits left and right. In 1959 the hon. member for Umhlatuzana stated as follows in this House—

What is wrong with that?

Yes, but this evening the hon. member for Yeoville accuses us of having acted too royally with the funds of the workers. Hon. members on the other side talk about things which are morally indefensible but they are the last people who can say such things. The hon. member for Yeoville is certainly the last person who can speak about such things. I have here a pamphlet which was issued during a very important election by the United Party entitled: “The Workers’ Charter: The United Party’s Guarantees to the workers of South Africa.” If we revise this pamphlet we find that the United Party said—

Does the hon. member agree with what is stated here?

We did not reduce the contributions.

No, I am putting a direct question as to whether he agrees with what is said here.

On the contributions which were payable at the time, no.

Do you know what the hon. member for Yeoville wrote in Weekblad on 29 May 1959? At that time he wrote—

And at that time the amount in the fund stood far higher than the amount of £50,000,000 at which it stood in 1952. However, this pamphlet goes on to say—

In all probability it was he who drafted it because he was the propagandist of the United Party.

At 10.25 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate was adjourned until 23 March.