I move as an unopposed motion—

I second.

Agreed to.

I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

House in Committee:

Clauses 1, 2 and 16 and the Second Schedule put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments made by the Select Committee in Clauses 1, 2 and 16 and the Second Schedule.

Amendments in Clauses 1, 2 and 16 and the Second Schedule, put and agreed to, and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

Bill read a third time.

I shall be pleased to learn from the Minister what has happened in regard to the suggestion made during the second reading.

The position is that there was a case in 1938, the Cilliers case, which clarifies the position. It said—

I think that covers the objection of the hon. member.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 15

I move as an amendment—

Mr. Chairman, this side of the House welcomes the amendment which the Minister has proposed because it does away with any doubt which formerly existed that the proposed Clause 15 would be in conflict with the existing provincial legislation which gives special powers to the Municipalities to collect rates. But it raises the question of the necessity for Clause 15 (2). One wonders why Clause 15 (2) has been put into this Bill at all. in view of the fact that there is presently existing provincial legislation which seems to provide adequate machinery for the collection of rates in a special process by a municipality or local authority. We would be grateful if the Minister could give an indication why it was felt necessary to include the present Clause 15 (2) in the Bill.

Secondly, a perusal of the Provincial legislation discloses that when a property in respect of which rates have not been paid has been sold, priority is given to the payment of rates over the payments of any other matters, such as an amount in respect of a mortgage bond on that property. But if one looks at Clause 15 (8) one finds that priority does not appear. In other words, sub-clause (8) seems to make it clear that the property is sold subject to any encumbrances which may be on it at the time of the sale. We would be grateful if the Minister could give us the reason why it has been thought necessary to make this change and to do away with the priority which was given to the collection of rates from the proceeds of the sale of the property under the Provincial legislation, and why that does not appear in the Bill.

I should also like to refer to sub-section (8) and to put some points to the Minister. I apologize to the Minister that I did not until this morning discover this reference to mortgage bonds. This clause introduces an entirely new principle into our law in regard to sales in execution. The position at the moment is that when there is a sale in pursuance of a judgment of a magistrate’s court or of the Supreme Court, the property is sold and there is firstly the preference for the municipal rates enjoyed under various provincial statutes, and secondly there is the preference enjoyed by anybody having a registered charge on the property in the form of a mortgage bond, and if the creditor is not a person holding a mortgage bond any surplus of the proceeds of the sale available go to satisfying his claim. It seems that the parties concerned, the local authority and mortgagees in their order of preference, have preference over a concurrent creditor on sale, and I would draw the Minister’s attention that the payment of rates in terms of this clause may be in respect of rates which are not preferent in respect of the various ordinances of the different Provincial Councils which give a measure of preference. The provision here, that the property is sold subject to every condition, servitude, bond or other encumbrance is quite a reasonable provision in so far as it makes the sale subject to the conditions of title, the registered servitudes over the property and the other encumbrances of various sorts laid down in the conditions of title, but I am at a loss to understand why reference is made here to a bond. The effect of this would be that the property registered in the name of A is sold in terms of an order of court granted under this clause and instead of the mortgage bond being paid off on the sale in execution, the bond is transferred over and liability for whatever is owing on that bond presumably rests on the purchaser. Now, this is an entirely new departure and I would be glad if the Minister could give us an explanation as to why this provision has been inserted. It seems to me that it would be far better if the word “bond” were deleted, because the provision then will be that the mortgagee would have his ordinary preference in terms of his registered mortgage bond. It is most unusual; I know of no parallel for a provision of this sort.

Then there is a second difficulty I have, and that is that the clause is subject to the terms of any order made under this section. That means that different courts are perfectly free to impose different conditions. I presume that the court could under this order direct that the mortgage bond is not to be dealt with in terms of this clause, but that the mortgagee would have his ordinary preference. I must say that from my experience it would be far better if that procedure were followed, rather than to introduce what I think is an uncertainty in respect of the law. I think the Minister would agree that the law should be certain. I can see no good reason for this. I think it would be far better if the ordinary rule in relation to sales in execution applies. The order in this case can only be given by the Court and in those circumstances it appears to me it would be far better if the ordinary rules of court and the ordinary law in relation to preferences should apply and we do not introduce this most unusual provision into our law.

With regard to the first matter raised, at present the position is that a person who is unable to procure registration of immovable property in the usual manner, as the result, e.g., of the decease or absence of the previous registered owners of that property, is at liberty to apply for an order of court in terms of the law in force in the various Provinces, or to apply to a commission constituted in terms of Section 33. It has been found, however, that the latter procedure is very cumbersome and not cheaper than applying to court. Accordingly this new section is substituted which provides for a uniform procedure to be applied in all four Provinces. Another reason is because the ordinances in the Cape only provide for cases not exceeding R400. The Provincial priority, however, still stands under the ordinance.

The second is this. I think the hon. member will realize that it is rather unfair to push this complicated matter on to me without giving me any notice, but the hon. member has been very helpful in regard to this matter. If he feels very strongly in regard to the word “bond”, and wishes to move an amendment that it be omitted, I would be willing to accept it. But I think the rest should stand, because the rest is the considered opinion of the Commission which sat on this matter, and on which the hon. member’s profession was very adequately represented by people of very high standing.

I cannot agree with the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker). This is not a case of a sale in execution. but only a case where a person acquires property which is transferred into his name and the position is made easier for him, consequently he has to take over all the burdens which attach to that property. It is not a case of a sale in execution. I think the hon. member misunderstands the position. Had itbeen a sale in execution the bond would in any case have fallen away. If there are two or three bonds and the property is sold at a certain price, they have to accept it at the price paid and the bonds fall away automatically. We are dealing here with property which is being transferred, where the person may have inherited it, and in that case the position is made easier, and all the burdens which attach to the property are transferred with it. I think all we need do is to delete the words “mortgage bond”. If we delete the words “mortgage bond” the property will be transferred and the bond registered against it will not protect the rights of the mortgagee. I think the hon. member understands very well what this clause means.

I wonder whether this clause could not stand over until the other clauses have been dealt with, in order to give me a short period in which to look at it. I would draw the attention of the hon. member for Edenvale (Mr. G. H. van Wyk) to sub-section (2). What he has said is perhaps quite right in relation to sub-section (1), but if a person acquires property I can well understand that in that case he may wish to take it over subject to the mortgage bond because he may not be in the position to pay the bond. But if the sale is in terms of sub-section (2) for the payment of rates, then quite clearly this becomes a sale in execution. I am sure the hon. member for Edenvale will, on reflection, support what I have had to say in regard to the provisions of sub-section (8) in relation to sub-section (2). But I propose that this clause stand over until the others have been dealt with, and I will have a good look at it in the meantime. I again apologize to the Minister, as I did earlier. I only discovered this point this morning. I did not notice the word “bond” here before, otherwise I would certainly have consulted with the Minister. I move—

I have no objection.

Agreed to.

On new Clause to follow Clause 28.

I move—

1. (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of sub-section (2), upon the written application to the registrar of any person who is the holder of the rights to minerals reserved before the commencement of this Act in respect of any land on which a township or settlement has before or after the commencement of this Act been established, the registrar may issue to such holder a certificate of rights to minerals in the prescribed form in respect of such rights without the production of the title deed of each erf, lot or other piece of land in any such township or settlement which is subject to such reservation of rights to minerals.
2. (b) Upon the issue of such certificate the registrar shall cause an appropriate note to be made in the relevant township or settlement registers and thereupon each erf, lot or other piece of land which is subject to the original reservation of rights to minerals shall be deemed to be subject to such certificate.”

Agreed to.

On Clause 38,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

The remaining Clause having been agreed to,

The Committee reverted to Clause 15, standing over.

On Clause 15,

I do not propose to move an amendment at this stage. I think the exact form of the amendment is something which should be considered and I would rather have an opportunity of putting it on the Order Paper for the Report Stage. The position is that the Minister has been good enough to give me a note from the legal advisers that it is purely a technical question. I will not move an amendment now, but I will consider the matter and communicate with the Department. Offhand I may say that my view is that possibly the best way of dealing with the matter is to make a provision in terms of which the holder of any registered mortgage bond must be served with a notice of the application to court. The court has power to alter the conditions, and he would then be able to protect himself adequately. Perhaps I shall move an amendment in the Report Stage which, I take it, will not be taken to-morrow, because it is not a matter which one would like to rush.

Amendment proposed by the Minister of Lands, put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Mr. Speaker, during his second reading speech the hon. the Minister outlined the reasons which have given rise to this Bill. He gave those reasons and pointed out how essential it had become for him to introduce this Bill. He referred in the first place to the fact that since 1957 to 1961 unemployment had risen from 12,000 to 31,000. Secondly, the Minister argued that increased benefits had been paid. Some of the benefits have been increased by 30 per cent to 40 per cent. He referred to another reason, namely that the number of persons who could claim under the Fund had increased because the limit placed on income had been increased from R1,500 to R2,000. According to the Minister those were the three main reasons for this Bill. Naturally you could give various other reasons why we have this Bill before us, but you cannot prove them. Since 1957 we have had our first experience of what unemployment really means and how the Fund operates, and the first lesson we have learnt from this experience has been that when Parliament effected the most recent amendments it was too lavish in the benefits it granted. Experience has also taught us that we have gone too far in the benefits we have granted and the way in which we have used the Fund and that legal provision was made for certain things when we effected the last amendment which ought not to fall under unemployment insurance.

The first point I wish to make is that in their main points of criticism against the Bill the Opposition did not take any of the reasons advanced by the Minister into account. The Opposition, by way of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn), has not dealt with any one of the reasons which have given rise to the introduction of this Bill. Nor did he indicate a single way in which we could have avoided the necessity of introducing this Bill by adopting other measures. The hon. member for Yeoville confined himself to a number of arguments—I do not know whether you can call them arguments, Sir; I think they are simply statements—and he said amongst other things that the Bill was penalizing innocent people as well as guilty people. I do not know to which guilty people he was referring. Nowhere do I find any reference in the Minister’s second reading speech to guilty people. He confined himself solely to the reasons why he thought it necessary to come to Parliament with these amendments. I am sorry that the perceptive powers of the hon. member for Yeoville are always away on holiday or on strike when he has to deal with matters affecting the workers. Just listen to this argument, Sir—and I repeat that it is not really an argument but merely a statement. He says he still has to be convinced—“We have to be persuaded that the majority of the workers are attempting to abuse the Unemployment Insurance Fund”. I do not know where he gets that from; nowhere in his speech did the hon. the Minister refer to people, less so to the majority of the workers, in South Africa who have abused the Fund. I do not know why the hon. gentleman made that allegation because the Minister never alleged that. Let me say this: Who is being hit by the measures contemplated here? It is certainly not, as the hon. member for Yeoville would have us believe, the majority of workers who can draw benefits under the Bill. He apparently does not realize that so far 3 per cent of the workers at the most have drawn unemployment benefits. If 3 per cent could draw unemployment benefits, surely it cannot be said that the majority of the workers, as the hon. member for Yeoville alleges, have abused this Fund and submitted claims dishonestly. Why do the Opposition talk about the majority of the workers of South Africa while they know and ought to know that the majority of the workers of South Africa will never receive benefits under this Fund? On the contrary, I contend—this, too, is merely a contention, but every reasonable person will agree with me—that the vast majority of workers who are contributors will never draw one penny from the Fund. But that does not prevent them from making their contributions voluntarily and insuring themselves to some extent should the fatal day perhaps arrive when they too will be unemployed. A small number have up to date received those increased benefits to which the hon. the Minister has referred. Parliament approved of those improved benefits out of the goodness of its heart. I simply cannot understand how the Opposition can come here and maintain, as they do in their amendment, that we are curtailing rights. How are the rights of the workers who can draw benefits from the Fund, determined? Their rights are and can only be determined according to the benefits which are provided from time to time. Obviously, when somebody receives benefits under the Fund and the majority of the workers think they cannot be expected to contribute for that specific purpose, they will rebel against it. The hon. member for Yeoville lacks the contact with the workers of South Africa which would have enabled him to realize that the majority of the workers sometimes strenuously object to the existence of the Fund, not because they oppose unemployment insurance in principle, but because they are under the impression, rightly or wrongly, that the Fund is sometimes abused.

Are the trade unions in favour of these amendments?

I shall deal with the trade unions in a moment. If I forget I hope the hon. member will remind me again. Let me confine myself to the point I wish to make. The point I wish to make is that the Opposition allege that the majority of the workers do not abuse the Fund and my reply to that is that it has never as yet been alleged that the majority of the workers have or will abuse the Fund. Let us confine ourselves to the reasons for increasing the benefits, a fact which will eventually lead to it that the Fund will no longer be sound. These steps are being taken to ensure that the Fund will remain healthy and sound in future. The hon. member should not come to this House and talk about the majority of the workers while we know that only a very small percentage of them will ever receive benefits under the Fund. Let me emphasize again that the great majority of workers will never receive benefits and that in spite of that they are nevertheless willing to make their contributions. One day when they come to the end of their careers they will be grateful for the fact that it was never necessary for them to draw benefits under the Fund.

While we support the hon. the Minister, however, in the steps which he is taking, I wish to emphasize one point. The Opposition made great play of one point namely that the rights of expectant mothers under this Fund were being curtailed.

Is that not true?

It is being done but not to the extent that it is worth making such a big hullabaloo about it. If the Fund justifies it provisions can be made for expectant mothers, but that is not the point. The point I wish to emphasize is this that the Unemployment Insurance Fund ought never to be used for that purpose. Naturally we all agree that in the absence of another fund under which benefits can be paid to expectant mothers, they should draw those benefits, but it is wrong in principle that the Unemployment Insurance Fund should carry that burden. What is the sense in placing the responsibility of maternity cases on the shoulders of the contributors to the Unemployment Insurance Fund? I do not think we should insist upon it any longer that the Fund should be used for that purpose. That is the reason why I make bold to say to the Minister that, as far as the Fund permits it, the necessary provision should be made, but that he should have the position investigated at the first opportunity which presents itself. I think he will get the unanimous support not only of the country but also of the trade unions concerned if he provided that maternity cases should not fall under the Unemployment Insurance Fund. Another fund should be established to render that service to the female workers of South Africa; they deserve it. This matter is too important and of too great a magnitude to be treated as a side-issue, as an issue of lesser importance and to be included as an incidental matter under the unemployment benefits. I do not think any hon. member opposite—most certainly not any hon. member on this side, if he realizes fully what I am pleading for. will oppose my plea. Hon. members will also readily agree with me that there is an incessant call on the Fund for maternity benefits. Assuming the position were to arise to-morrow where there was no unemployment; you will still find, Sir, that incessant demands are made on the Fund as a result of that position; it will mean that there will be a continual drain on the Fund, because everybody will agree with me that as the nation prospers, the birth rate increases. The more the nation prospers the higher will the birth rate rise and the greater will be the demands made upon the Fund. That has. therefore, nothing to do with the matter. You will not allow me, Sir, to advocate this any further. I simply wish to point out that the time has arrived that the Unemployment Insurance Fund should no longer be used for purposes for which it was never intended. We should realize that.

But you included that in the legislation.

I wish to ask the hon. member a question: What does he suggest should be done with the hundreds of thousands of pounds which have been paid into the Fund by the female workers?

I am glad that the hon. member has asked that question because that shows that he is taking a keen interest in the welfare of the workers. The money which those female workers have contributed should be used for unemployment benefits and not for maternity grants. Does the hon. member understand that?

He will never understand it.

When the woman who works in a factory becomes unemployed she should draw unemployment benefits from the Fund just like any other worker, but the Fund should not be used to pay maternity grants. I trust the reply satisfies the hon. member. He should not again go to the country and make the people believe that those people who have made contributions cannot receive any benefits. I wish to state clearly, as clearly as words will allow me to do, that people who have contributed to the Fund should draw benefits when they become unemployed but the question of unemployment should no longer be associated with maternity grants. We have been doing that long enough. If maternity grants are paid, the impression will always be created, even during most prosperous times, that there is a certain measure of unemployment when that is not the position at all, because when benefits are paid it is not always specified for what purposes those benefits have been paid. I plead most earnestly for that, Mr. Speaker. We are asked to treat people who are ill with the utmost sympathy. Your own common sense ought to tell you that sick people should be assisted but then they should be sick people, not expectant mothers. The mineworkers, for example, that their sick fund under which sick benefits are paid; when a mineworker becomes ill he draws benefits under that fund, but that is not associated with the Unemployment Insurance Fund at all. As far as maternity grants are concerned, the time has arrived that the position in that respect is cleared up as well and that the fund be placed on a sound basis.

I now wish to deal with this important point, and I am not advancing this as an excuse but as a real reason why we have for some time in the past paid benefits freely, lavishly and very liberally. A cry was raised throughout the country and you must remember, Sir, that up to the present the Unemployment Insurance Fund has consistently remained a thorn in the flesh of the United Party; it has always worried them. You will recall how they told expectant mothers and sick persons during elections that there were millions and millions of pounds in the Unemployment Insurance Fund and that the Government refused to pay benefits to them. That was the cry which they raised at the time.

Fewer people were unemployed when we were in power than now that you are in power.

That has nothing to do with the matter. A cry was raised against the Fund; it has always been a thorn in the flesh of the Opposition. They told the people at public meetings: “Look at that strong Fund, yet you have to perish in misery.” Time and again they wanted to use the Fund for pension purposes; the following day they suggested that the Fund should be used for another purpose but they always refused to accept that the Fund should be reserved for unemployment benefits and unemployment benefits alone. They continually raised one cry after another and made propaganda that the Fund should be used for one or other purpose. Hon. members opposite cannot get away from that; they are responsible for that. As a result of the cries that were raised and as a result of that propaganda and hon. members’ misunderstanding as to the reason why the Fund existed, it was quite natural for Parliament to say, as it did when the last amendments were effected: Very well, in that case we will be a little more liberal. And the trade unions concerned approved of that generosity. When there was a cry that increased benefits should be paid, Parliament in its wisdom increased those benefits by 40 per cent.

We have, however, learnt through bitter experience that, while we were able to pay increased benefits temporarily, in the first instance, in response to the unwise propaganda which was made, we could not do so permanently. Those people who are mostly concerned with this Fund, namely the majority of the workers to whom hon. gentlemen are always so quick to refer, are concerned about the soundness of the Fund. They do not wish the Fund to be used for every bagatelle. They would like to see the Fund maintained for the purposes for which it was originally established. In those circumstances we decided to grant those increased benefits. However, the majority of those workers who are directly concerned are to-day beginning to realize that the day may arrive when a greater number of workers will claim under the Fund in which case it may be found that the Fund is running out and cannot serve the purposes for which it was originally established, with the result that the workers will suffer. Far be it that the objection comes from the majority of workers, the conservative people, the people on whom you can depend that they will be at work every day, those are the very people who are keeping a watchful eye on the Fund. They are the very people who say: “Oh, no, the time has arrived for you not to be so liberal, and to maintain the Fund for the primary objects for which it was established; we do not want you to ruin the Fund at this stage: we wish the Fund to be strong and sound in the event of there being large-scale unemployment in future.”

The hon. member wanted to know whether the trade unions had approved of this Bill. So far the female workers have been the only people who have objected. Had you been in their shoes, Mr. Speaker, you would also have approached the Government and asked it not to touch the maternity grants. That is obvious, and everybody in this House sympathizes with them. However, as I said a moment ago, in the absence of another fund to which those people can turn, they have to rely on this Fund because they cannot claim under any other’ fund. The responsibility rests on our shoulders to say: Look, another day is dawning; we will indeed provide for the future, but the time has arrived that we no longer allow our generosity to run away with us but that we come to our senses and see to it that that Fund is placed and maintained on a sound basis. Another fund should be established to provide for other contingencies. Does anybody opposite disagree with that? No, they cannot disagree with that. When we are dealing with the interests of the workers, we should cease to regard that as something which we can kick around in this House like a football in order to make political capital out of it. Some hon. members think that the workers will approve of the pleas which they are making here, as the hon. member for Yeoville obviously thinks. His voice was like a bell made of lead, there was no vibration and it found no echo with the workers. His voice was as dead as a bell made out of lead, and I do not think that even ½ per cent of the workers of South Africa have taken any notice of the objection of the hon. member for Yeoville against this Bill. No, Sir, we should consider these matters more seriously. I realize that political capital can be made out of measures such as these by somebody who merely gets on to a soap box but who does not really know what is in the interests of the workers, somebody who is merely trying to see what poison he can get out of it in order to incite people. Hon. gentlemen should confine themselves to the reasons for this Bill; they should realize that it is necessary for us to apply this measure in a very conservative manner and very carefully. If they do that they cannot come to any other conclusion than the conclusion that the suggestions which I have made this afternoon are sound. Hon. members must not think that they can play about with the interests of the workers and make political capital out of them.

I wish to say a few words about the diminution of rights to which the amendment refers. Rights are determined and limited in conformity with the findings of the actuaries. The actuary tells you that you can take so much out of the dam and if you take more out of it that dam will eventually dry up. You should only take out so much so that the Fund will remain sound. It is a totally wrong interpretation of the provisions of this measure to talk about a diminution of rights. Those rights are determined by the position of the Fund, by the amount available for payment in the form of benefits. After all. anybody who gets water from a city council for his domestic use is limited in the amount of water he may use by the amount which is available from time to time: he does not get an unlimited supply. Similarly the benefits which can be paid under the Fund are not unlimited either and in paying benefits we should ensure that the Fund remains strong and sound.

I have been asked whether the trade unions support this measure. I have said that the only members of a trade union who have objected, as far as I knew, have been the female workers in the clothing industry, and that was the most natural thing in the world.

And the T.U.C.?

Of course, the workers in the clothing industry dictate to the T.U.C. as to what they should object to and they are only objecting as a mere formality. [Laughter.] Hon. members do not know what they are talking about; they do not know why those things happen. The T.U.C. is represented on the National Board of the Insurance Fund and the members of the T.U.C. will be the first people to say:“No. look here, you are infringing on our rights.” However, when people representing employees on that Board support this measure unanimously, you are indirectly hearing the most reliable voice which you can hear from organized labour. Organized labour no longer voices its opinion by way of mass meetings; they have grown up and you sometimes find somebody giving the lead. In this respect there are people who can give the lead and the trade unions—in other words, organized labour—have voiced their opinion and given their views at the Board of the Fund, the Board on which there is equal representation. What have hon. gentlemen against that? Or do they think that when anybody simply gets up at a conference and lodges an objection without giving reasons, we should accept that as a yardstick; that we should consider that when we deal with this Fund? No, surely those are the most responsible people that you can find as far as this matter is concerned—the people who were there and who have to account to their respective trade unions. Those people are not irresponsible people. You can rest assured, Sir, that they are called to account just as you and I are called to account when we plead for something in this House which is not in the interests of our constituents. Those people are likewise called to account; they are properly consulted and advised, and before they agree to such a step they will first of all consult the trade unions concerned.

That is the aspect of this Bill which we should consider instead of trying to look for sympathy, as the Opposition is trying to do, for people who are supposedly being treated unjustly.

I just want to say a few words to the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher). The other evening the hon. member tried to show sympathy in his speech, but I want to tell him once again that everybody in this House has sympathy for his fellow-beings. He is not the only champion of the workers. When you stand on the beach or on the banks of a river and somebody is drowning, you must not do what the hon. gentleman did the other evening, and that is to give a lecture and to say to the people who are standing around: Do you know, if that man remains in the water long enough water will enter his lungs; that will eventually cause his heart to stop. No, you should not do that. Sir. You should jump in and save that person. The hon. member told us how very difficult it was for the poverty-stricken household to make ends meet, the household where the people were unemployed. That is something which every Member of Parliament worth his salt knows and if he does not know it he has no right to be here. We should not try to pull wool over the eyes of the workers. Because in the near future South Africa will have to measure her strength against highly industrialized countries, we must in future consider the benefits to which workers are entitled in countries similar to ours. We will not always be in the position where we have a Fund which is a fairly strong Fund in comparison with countries similar to South Africa. We will shortly have to consider giving similar benefits to our own unemployed and not being as lavish and liberal as we have been in the immediate past, so that when hard times hit us we will be able to pay the maximum benefits to those people who, during all the prosperous years, have been the biggest contributors to the Fund. We should not strip this Fund by way of all these incidental matters which have nothing to do with unemployment whatsoever. I want us to discuss these matters in that spirit. Then and then only can we again make further proper use of this measure. We who are virtually the trustees of that Fund cannot allow our sympathies to run away with us.

Confession is good for the soul, and this afternoon we have heard confessions from the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg), not only on his own behalf, not on behalf of his own soul, but on behalf of the soul of the Nationalist Party. He tells us now that this expenditure from the fund was unforeseen because now we have more unemployment than we could have expected before. Instead of 12,600, as the Minister said, five years ago. it is now 31,160, because this Nationalist Government has failed miserably. That is the reason why there is this increase in the number of people who are drawing benefits. What is the remedy of the hon. member for Krugersdorp? He tells us to-day that the fund’s expansion was misconceived, the idea was wrong, that the additions that the Nationalist Party made were wrong, that this was originally an Unemployment Insurance Fund, and that they used it as a fund for social welfare. If that is the contention of the hon. member, I think he should approach his Government and ask them to make provision for a welfare fund. But to say that what the Nationalist Party have done was wrong! Well, that is the most serious confession of all. I am now referring to the Auditor-General’s Report, Part III, page 530. There are five headings under which relief is given under this fund. The first deals with the ordinary payments for which the fund was established by the United Party. The second is called “illness allowances”. When was that introduced? According to this report, in 1953, by the present Government. Then there is the heading “maternity benefits”. There you find a considerable amount of expenditure. When was that introduced? In 1954. “Payments to dependants of deceased contributors.” When was that introduced? In 1957. In other words, this Nationalist Party has been using this fund and has amended the fund. Now a front-bencher of the Nationalist Party, speaking on behalf of the Government, comes along and says that it was all a mistake, that should never have been done, and, in order to get out of his difficulties, he follows the old trick of the debater: he abuses his opponents. He abuses the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn). “Who spoke of abuses?” the hon. member for Krugersdorp says. “Did the Minister speak of abuses?” “No, those were the words of the hon. member for Yeoville.” Now let me read from the peroration of the hon. the Minister when he introduced the Bill during the second reading debate. This is what the hon. Minister said—

This is the Minister. Why then attack the hon. member for Yeoville? The hon. member for Yeoville was repeating the words of the hon. the Minister. To attribute to the hon. member for Yeoville the statement that there had been abuses, and that the hon. the Minister had not mentioned them, is hardly fair debate. But we go a little further. Does the hon. member for Krugersdorp seriously contend that there should be no maternity benefits? Does he think that? Does he think there should be no benefits for illness? We know the history of this fund. This fund was established by the United Party and it was established on such a firm foundation that it went on from year to year increasing dramatically and rapidly under the prosperous economic conditions that this United Party had given the country. When a conservative Minister of Labour, now our hon. Minister of Transport, took command of the fund, he did the obvious thing—he acted conservatively in the early stages, which is sound finance. It is always sound in the beginning to build up your reserves, and he did so. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) (Mr. van Rensburg) devoted most of his speech to attacking the hon. member for Yeoville personally. I am not going to refer to that. I have found from experience, as you have, Mr. Speaker, that the personal attack never has any lasting effect. It is a sign of weakness. It is a sign that the person who makes these personal attacks cannot advance any arguments. I think the hon. member for Yeoville put up a very good case, and attacking him personally does not help a bit. But the attack on the United Party for its 1953 proposal to extend this fund into a social welfare organization, that the hon. member does not like, is something that I must reply to. Before the 1953 election, the United Party, on statistical advice, and in the light of actuarial experience of other funds, put forward a scheme for these workmen. South Africa at that time did not have a national income large enough to provide a pension scheme for the whole country. So our plan was to give a pension scheme to the members of this fund and to regard it as a contributory pension scheme. By a slight increase in the contributions we could expand it into a pension fund. I think that was well conceived. But the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) attacked the United Party on account of it. I don’t think that attack was justified. I think it was grossly unfair and embarrassing for the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister quite recently made an appeal to us to grasp each other’s hand and look in each other’s eye as English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking South Africans. What the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) did was to grasp the Minister’s hand and look in his eye and say: “What a political charlatan you were in 1953!” The hon. the Minister in 1953 was one of those people who advocated the United Party plan in two constituencies where this fund makes a great appeal, Brakpan and Bezuidenhout, where you get the class of man who contributes to this fund. To attack the United Party because it tries to make this fund strong, able to withstand the present unemployment, is not the purpose of this discussion and this Bill. I want to examine this fund and see what it is all about. You will remember that the Minister told us that they had two lines of approach in mind. I will quote his words—

Those were the amendments proposed, but why was only one proposal adopted and not the other? Why does the Minister deal only with the benefits and not with the contributions?

There is only one manner in which we can approach this matter and that is to examine the fund as we know it. The Auditor-General’s Report contains an analysis of this fund. I take first the question of the expenditure of the fund. I am quoting round figures, and I am only taking three significant figures in regard to the benefits paid out under the fund. The total expenditure on benefits in the year for which I have the data in this latest report, that is to say the year ending 31 December 1960, was R14,250,000. The shortfall—one can’t call it a loss—but, because of the amount of unemployment, expenditure exceeded revenue, exceeded contributions, by an amount of roughly R3,400,000. I call it a shortfall. Now let us take the income of this fund. How is the income derived? Now here is the income as given in the Auditor-General’s Report:

The contribution of the Government, I call it the Minister’s contribution, was R1,190,000; the contributions of employees and employers together amounted to R4,760,000; the interest earned by the Fund (quite a strong fund of R130,000,000) for the year was R4,893,000. In other words, for every R9 contributed to this Fund, R4 came from interest, R4 came from contributions by employers and employees, and the contribution of the Government was only one-ninth of the Fund’s income.

Let us take this question of interest. I mentioned that the interest amounted to R4,893,000. If we take the amount in the Fund at the beginning of the year, we find it was R134,000,000. It is very easy to make a calculation of rate of interest, because repeatedly we have asked the hon. the Minister of Labour how much this fund is earning. The amount it is earning comes to about 3¾ per cent per annum. Now the hon. the Minister of Finance has just raised two loans, one a short-term loan, for about five years—the kind of loan that the money of this fund would be invested in—and he is paying 5¼ per cent, that is to say 1½ per cent more than he is giving to this workers’ fund. He has a long-term loan that he has floated this week as well, at 5⅞ per cent. And you will remember his revolving credits, Mr. Speaker, revolving credits with the American banks, which one could call in crude South African language “over-drafts”. For his overdrafts with the American banks he is paying very much more than that: he is paying raising fees as well. But to our people, our own workers, he is paying this paltry 3¾ per cent. It is grossly unfair. It is worse than that. There was a question asked by a member of the Select Committee, and the reply to that question was rather terrifying, I think. It seems that the money is not only invested at a low rate of interest, but is not intelligently invested. Mr. Emdin, the hon. member for Parktown, a member of the Select Committee, asked this question—

The reply—

Selling Government investments at a loss! That is the suggestion. The suggestion is that it may be necessary for this fund to sell some of its investments at a loss in order to keep the Fund going. That is the story. Now I want to make a proposal to the hon. the Minister: We have, approximately, in the Fund R130,000,000.

How much was in the Fund in the time of the United Party?

The United Party built it up. It was a sound fund and it was controlled intelligently. The United Party handed over a very healthy investment.

May I put a question to the hon. member? May I ask how much of the R115,000,000 was contributed by the Government?

I have already given the pro rata contribution of the Government, namely that for every R9 contributed to the Fund, R1 comes from the Government, R4 from the contributors and employers, and R4 the Fund earns itself through interest. That is the position.

We must do something. I think this Bill is unnecessary. That is the case I am trying to make. If we examine the Fund, it is unnecessary to have this Bill. If we must have a Bill like this, it must be a Bill not only in respect of benefits, but we should then deal with the other part as well. If the hon. the Minister cannot introduce the other part, it is most unfortunate, but then we should not have the second part cither.

Now if the Fund were to get 1½ per cent more, which is fair, it would mean 1½ per cent on R130,000.000, or R2,000,000 as any schoolboy could tell us: R2,000,000 extra per annum. That would be a fair return in interest, which it is not earning at present. That would leave altogether R1,400,000 short, which is not a serious situation. What is serious, Mr. Speaker, is the amount of unemployment. This is not a serious financial situation for the Fund. I think the Fund could stand this very easily. After all, what have we built it up for? The hon. the Minister of Labour of the old days, who is now Minister of Transport, always said to us: We must put a little bit away for a rainy day, for the sun won’t always shine. And now we have come to the rainy day; the sun is not shining; and we have to be prepared to see the Fund falling slightly. And if only R1,400,000 is required, then I think the obvious suggestion is that the Government should make that contribution for unemployment relief to the Fund. Let the Government give the money. Let the Government pay what it should pay and then we will have the Fund in a healthy condition, even in time of unemployment. But if we suggest, as the hon. member for Krugersdorp does, that we should now allow the Fund to be re-created purely as it was at the beginning, and I assume together with it a social welfare scheme, then I think we require something much bigger than an ordinary Bill of this kind. The obvious step for our Government to-day is to say: We are going to tide the Fund over this period by making a contribution of say R2,000,000 this year to see the Fund through a difficult period, and in the meantime the situation should be reviewed.

I want to say that at one period we were told that in respect of this Fund it was not necessary to have contributors who were in permanent employment. Hon. members on the other side said so. But the Government is now looking round for any contribution it can get, and is actually asking the Municipality of Johannesburg to contribute on behalf of its employees who are permanently employed in Johannesburg. These men are never going to draw on the Fund. These men are permanently employed in Johannesburg, but they are now asked to contribute to the Fund for at least two years. Why should they? But the Government are going further than that. They say that the temporary employees of the Johannesburg Municipality should contribute as well, right throughout their period of service with the Johannesburg Municipality. Now what is a temporary employee who is in the service of the Johannesburg Municipality? He is a man who is given a post in the hope that he will qualify to hold the post. But if he does not qualify to hold the post, he is still retained in employment. If he cannot qualify he is still retained in employment until he goes on pension. He contributes to a pension fund.

Will he benefit from the Unemployment Insurance Fund?

He will never require it; he will never require this fund; but the municipality is being asked to contribute on behalf of these people. They will never require the use of this fund.

But if they should lose their job, won’t they qualify for benefits?

He does not fall into this category at all. The only possibility in his case would be that when he retires on pension, he might get a job, and then become unemployed. But if he is a pensioner of the Johannesburg Municipality, he will still not require the fund, because he will be much better off.

Why don’t they apply for exemption as a group?

They are exempted at present. But the Fund is so anxious to get a few contributions that they are asking contributions from the Municipality of Johannesburg. I should like to know on what grounds there is any justification for us proceeding with this Bill. I think the amendment of the United Party meets the situation. If the Government is anxious to explore the position further, I amsure they can get help from the Select Committee on Public Accounts. But to say we are going to deal with certain abuses and not with the contributions is quite wrong. Therefore I can support this amendment of the United Party in the hope that the Government will see reason.

The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) spoke a great deal but said very little about the Bill. However, there is something in what he says when he says that the money invested with the Public Debt Commissioner should yield a higher return to the Fund. That is a point which he can make but he has yet to convince me that it is advisable for the Government to borrow its own money at a higher rate of interest. He has not clarified that matter as yet.

However, what does worry me is that the Opposition is trying to make petty political capital out of this Bill, a Bill which is in the interests of the workers of South Africa and which provides social security to the workers of this country. I want to appeal to them and ask them, when we are dealing with unemployment and with poverty, to keep those matters above party politics. For that reason I wish to place this matter beyond party politics and deal with it at that level. We are dealing with measures which ensure the social security of the workers of South Africa. That is all we envisage. To start with, I want to be magnanimous and say that the United Party showed great insight when they instituted the Unemployment Insurance Act in 1946. It is a pity that they did not continue to show that foresight. Had they done that, they would perhaps once again have come into power in 1948. In those years of prosperity the United Party looked so far ahead that they established a fund that would look after the workers during the years of adversity. We have to admit that families were saved a great deal of sorrow and distress in the past because of the benefits they received from the Unemployment Insurance Fund. I well remember the cry which was raised in the country, even by the Opposition, in 1956, 1957 when the Fund had grown: “What do you want to do with such a strong fund, why should the fund continually be strengthened?” That is because public opinion had been influenced to such an extent that increased benefits were asked for from time to time, and then the additional benefits were paid to which the hon. member for Kensington referred. Sick benefits, maternity grants, etc., were added at the time— social benefits as the hon. member for Krugersdorp called them. I am not asking that those benefits should be withdrawn, but we are dealing with the factual position to-day and we have to take that into account. The factual position is that where increased benefits have been granted over the years, we have now reached the stage where the Fund is breaking down. The Opposition cannot argue that away. A position has developed where the Public Accounts Select Committee has issued a warning and has said, “Look, if the Fund is breaking down under normal working conditions, something must be done to meet the position when there is abnormal employment in the country.”

Do you think it will come?

It is quite possible that it will happen. You do not know what may happen in the future, Sir, and you have to make provision. That hon. member will be well advised if he made timeous provision in Port Elizabeth, otherwise the United Party will lose another seat there. A fund should be built up for the unknown future. The fund can be strengthened in various ways. Firstly, by asking for increased contributions. If the Minister were to suggest that the workers, the employers and the State should pay increased contributions, then the Opposition would have objected and said that we were placing additional burdens on the poor employees in these difficult times by asking increased contributions from them. Secondly, the suggestion of the hon. member for Kensington could be implemented, namely to increase the rate of interest and to ask for a contribution by the Government. But the hon. member was not very clear on that point at all. In the third place we can do what this Bill proposes to do, and that is to curtail the lavish way, as the hon. member for Krugersdorp has called it, or the liberal way as I have called it, in which benefits have been granted in the past. To put it bluntly, “to pull in your belt”. That is what this Bill envisages. That is all. Not one of the rights of the contributors is being taken away. Nothing is being taken away from the workers which belonged to them previously. I also wish to refer to what the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) has said. He said that unemployment insurance was a kind of insurance policy for workers and that any insurance company which paid benefits on such a lavish scale would not get any business. However, the hon. member had hold of the wrong end of the stick. We must distinguish between life insurance and accident insurance. If the hon. member insures his motor-car it is not with the intention of getting involved in an accident to-morrow or the day after in order to get the benefits. An unemployment insurance scheme is a national scheme and the contributions made by those who do not become unemployed have to be used to pay unemployment benefits to those who do become unemployed. They should pay their contributions in a spirit of gratitude because they are not unemployed. I want to put it this way, that when there is unemployment. and when there is a national scheme, the whole nation pays to alleviate the lot of the unfortunate section of the population. It is in this spirit that the Unemployment Insurance Fund has to be approached. It has to be done in a spirit of sacrifice on the part of those who are able to contribute. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) said that even permanent workers were to-day being asked to contribute to the fund. I have no fault to find with that. The contributions of those who find themselves in a fortunate position have to be used to ease the burden of the others. We may not play politics with the bread and butter of the poor and the unemployed and of the unfortunate man who is poverty-stricken. That is why I maintain that what is contemplated in this Bill is only the first step toward ensuring that justice is done to the workers of South Africa.

I hope the hon. member who has just sat down will forgive me if I do not follow the line he has taken on this subject. I should like to confine myself in this debate to one subject only and that is the position of the Coloured man. We are the only people who look after their interests; they would be lost if they were to depend on that side of the House. It is our duty to look after their interests and we will continue to do so.

I should like to raise with the hon. the Minister the position of the employees in the food and canning industry. I should like to point out that there is great disappointment indeed because the industry in which they are employed has been affected by the fact that there has been an extension of areas from time to time in which this industry has been excluded from the operation of this Act. This has placed a very heavy burden on the shoulders of those people who are employed in this industry and I hope the plea that I am about to make to the hon. the Minister will have some beneficial results.

I want to deal first of all with some of the points raised by the hon. the Minister when he introduced this Bill. I wish to point out to the Deputy Minister who is now in charge of this Bill that the Minister in introducing this Bill actually indicated that those people who found themselves in the position of the food and canning industry employees should be assisted. I want to read a few extracts from that speech. In col. 3030 of Hansard No. 9 the Minister said this—

I hope to show a little later that the people who are excluded are those who fall under this category of “temporary unemployment”. Of course, the Minister did indicate in his speech that there has been an increase in the amount of earnings with the result that the number of contributors has increased. It seems to me that the rich will benefit but that the poor are excluded to some extent. In col. 3031 the Minister also said this—

I want to repeat what the Minister said there, namely that those who will be affected will be contributors who are continually losing their employment. He went on to say this—

Those were very significant statements by the hon. the Minister when he introduced the Bill. I want to use these statements by the Minister to bring the position of those people to the notice of the hon. the Deputy Minister. As I have explained to the hon. the Deputy Minister, I am not standing here to-day in order to condemn the Government. On the contrary I am here to make a public appeal to the Government to reconsider its action in excluding this industry from the operation of the Act in certain parts of the country, whereas it is not excluded in other parts. For instance, Mr. Speaker, you will find that in Cape Town the industry is not excluded from the operation of this Act. For the information of the hon. the Deputy Minister I want to mention the places where the industry is not excluded. Those places are: Berg River Mouth, Cape Town, Doornbaai, Hout Bay, Hondeklip Bay, Johannesburg, Lamberts Bay, Somerset Strand, Malmesbury, Port Elizabeth, Port Nolloth, Saldanha Bay and St. Helena Bay. My information is that the people employed in the industry in these places which I have mentioned can contribute. But in Ashton, Ceres, Durban, East London, Grabouw, Groot Drakenstein, Kleinmond, Luderitz Bay, Montagu, Mossel Bay, Paarl, Robertson, Wellington, Wolseley and Worcester those people cannot contribute. It seems to be quite wrong that in certain parts of the Republic these people can contribute and enjoy the benefits of this fund but in other areas they are excluded from the operations of the Government’s Act.

I wish to deal with the question raised by the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) by way of interjection about seasonal workers. Unfortunately in those areas which are excluded from the operation of this Act, the people who are in permanent employment in that industry are also not allowed to contribute. I want to make it clear that I am not referring to the type of employee who is permanently employed by the Johannesburg Municipality for instance. What I am trying to convey is this, that there are people who are not seasonal workers who are excluded from the operation of this Act and cannot contribute merely because the whole industry is excluded. I think that is most unfair. It does not sound fair, anyway, that people who are in the same position as any other person in South Africa, who want to contribute and who may through no fault of their own fall out of employment temporarily, should not also benefit under this Act. I think people have a misconception about seasonal workers. My information is that these so-called seasonal workers work from December to the end of March continuously. During that time they are actually busy with the canning of fruit, particularly in the Western Province. From April to June they are employed once again on the canning of vegetables. There is a short break between these two periods. I understand that there is then another break from June till September. When the hon. the Minister talks about people having to be in employment for 13 weeks, all these people who are regarded by the Government as seasonal workers have in fact been in employment for 13 weeks and they therefore comply with the requirement laid down by the Minister. They have all worked for 13 weeks during the year. They do not expect to be paid unemployment benefits for all the time that they are out of work. They would, however, like to receive unemployment benefits for such period as will be covered by the amount of their contributions. They do not expect the Government to keep them. If they have contributed for 13 or 15 or 16 weeks and they are entitled to two or three weeks’ unemployment benefits, that is all they ask for. They are not asking the Government to keep them the whole year round from this Fund. They are not unreasonable at all. I think therefore that it is a misnomer to say that these people are seasonal workers. There are seasonal workers in Cape Town and in those other places which I have mentioned where the Act does not prevent them from receiving benefits. Why should they receive those benefits in some areas and not in other areas? They feel very very upset about it and they have asked me to make this strong appeal to the Government.

I wish to give the House some of the history of this Act. When the Act was introduced in 1946 all these people for whom I am now pleading were contributors. Gradually these people, for reasons best known to the Government, were excluded. One area which is excluded is Paarl. The unfortunate part is this—and I hope the Minister will give his attention to this—that while the Act permitted them to contribute they found themselves in this position that when their area was excluded from the operation of the Act they also lost all their contributions.

No; you do not put the position correctly. The position is exactly the same as it was at the time when the Bantu were excluded.

They lost their contributions. What happened to their contributions; did they get them back? I want the hon. member for Krugersdorp to understand one thing and that is that I am not criticizing the Government in this regard; I am making an appeal. I hope my appeal will not fall on deaf ears. I appeal to the Government to help these people who are employed in a very important industry in South Africa. Why it should be seasonal in this area only I do not understand. I should like to point out that the food and canning industry in South Africa is one of the most important industries in this country. It has got to be kept going and the supply of labour must be there at all times. I understand that in a place like Paarl district some 5,000 people are employed in this industry. Can you imagine, Sir, what will happen to the industry if these 5,000 people do not keep themselves available for the industry during the period when the fruit is not available, during the period between the canning of fruit and the canning of vegetables? If they all went into factories outside Paarl or other employment, can you imagine the dearth of unemployment in the industry? But these people are being penalized for keeping an industry going. Why should they be penalized? I would like the hon. the Minister to give very serious consideration to this matter. These people have now been appealing for years. I have their file here, but I do not want to weary the House by reading the amount of correspondence and the appeals made. I will conclude by emphasizing this fact: There are people in the industry who benefit from this Unemployment Insurance Act but only in certain areas. In other areas they do not benefit. I want the Government to realize—and I hope the Minister will take note of this—that if these people do not keep themselves available to the industry, the industry will be seriously handicapped. But they are prejudiced because the Government says they are seasonal workers; they cannot get those benefits. They are employed for 13 weeks every year. We should remember what the hon. Minister said when he introduced the Bill—

I am told that all these people will comply with that requirement, and yet they cannot receive benefits.

Their benefits will be very limited, do you not realize that?

I am glad of that interjection, Sir. They realize that. I repeat that they do not want it for the whole time that they are unemployed, but if they have contributed say, R10, and that entitles them to benefits from the Fund for two or three weeks, they say: Give that to us. They are not unreasonable. They are not demanding more than what they are really entitled to. I hope this appeal which I have made publicly will help the Minister to give me a favourable reply namely, that he will consider the application of this Fund to these people. I hope my appeal has not fallen on deaf ears.

For a change the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) was a bit constructive to-day, and, superficially viewed, he made a few suggestions which the hon. the Minister will certainly consider. Without the necessary knowledge of those specific matters, it would seem that he made a few good points.

Before I come to the attitude stated by hon. members on the other side, I should like to address a plea to the hon. the Minister. The fact that they have to look to the central office in Johannesburg for the benefits that they receive under the Unemployment Insurance Act is a great source of inconvenience and of dissatisfaction to the workers on the West Rand, on the East Rand and particularly in the Vereeniging-Vanderbijlpark complex. Representations were often made to the previous Minister, to the present Minister and to the hon. the Deputy Minister, asking whether an office for the Unemployment Insurance Fund cannot be established at Vereeniging for the Vereeniging-Sasolburg-Meyerton complex. When those people become unemployed, it entails an enormous amount of travelling to and fro and all the expenses connected with it if they have to go to Johannesburg to go and discuss their position and the question of benefits. They are put to very great expense and inconvenience. They are quite satisfied with the Fund and the way in which it works, but they feel that if they can get those facilities at Vereeniging for the Sasolburg-Vereeniging-Vanderbijlpark complex, it will be an enormous concession to them and that it will save them a great deal of inconvenience and expense.

This Bill which is being attacked by the United Party is nothing but an attempt to place the Unemployment Insurance Fund on a sound basis; it is intended to obviate the further breaking down of the Fund. Without bringing about any drastic changes, this Bill is an attempt to place the Fund on a sound footing and to put a stop to its further decline. The United Party have made use of this occasion to pose as the great friends of the workers and the great champions of the workers. Fortunately I was not here when the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) spoke. That was something that I was spared. But I understand that he was so close to tears about the lot of the workers that it was really pathetic, and that he almost moved the other members to tears also. He is the last person who should talk about the workers. The workers of Vereeniging have had more than enough of him. Then I come to the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher). He made such a great song here about, and expressed so much pity for, the poor people that anybody listening to him would have sworn that he was a very great friend of the workers. When are those members on the other side going to stop talking about the interests of the workers? They are the greatest enemies of the White workers of South Africa.

Now you are talking nonsense.

The hon. member can say that I am talking nonsense, but I shall prove that to him. The greatest protection that the White workers have is the colour bar, but that hon. member wants to abolish the colour bar, except in the mines where it does not suit him and his bosses to do so. He wants to abolish the colour bar and throw the White worker on to the open market in competition with Black workers. That is what he wants to do, and what would become of this Fund then? What would become of this Fund if he and his party associates and his friends in the Witwatersrand-Vereeniging complex engaged Black workers in ever-increasing numbers and threw the Whites on to the streets? He and his party are against the colour bar; they are against job reservation; they have no sympathy for the White worker. They have never shown any sympathy for the White worker. And that in fact is why the White workers rejected them. But now they come along here with this miserable attempt in connection with the Bill, which was introduced partly at their request. It was introduced at the unanimous request of the members of the Select Committee on Public Accounts, on which there are also members of that party, who said that the Fund was being stripped. They requested the Government to take certain steps to stabilize the Fund and to put a stop to this process of stripping it. Instead of welcoming the steps which are being taken in this Bill, and which represent steps of lesser importance, they try to exploit this situation by posing as the great friends of the workers.

We placed this Act on the Statute Book.

They placed this measure on the Statute Book, but having placed it on the Statute Book, they do not care one scrap what becomes of this Fund, now that they are in the Opposition. They are prepared to plead for all sorts of benefits, they are prepared to plead for smaller contributions; they have already suggested that the Fund should be converted into a pension fund. They are prepared to do anything in connection with this Fund as long as they think it will give them a few votes. They do not care if at the end of this process there is no longer a Fund. They are not only the enemies of the White workers but also the enemies of this Fund. Mention one constructive suggestion which has come from them to make this Fund stable and to put a stop to this process of stripping the Fund. That is why they have come forward with one suggestion only and that is that the Government should contribute more money. And then the hon. member for Kensington, with whom I shall deal in a moment, comes along and says that not only should the Government give more money but that the Government should pay a higher rate of interest on its own money. That is the only constructive argument that they have put forward. It is very easy for them to make such a suggestion because they are not responsible. They do not mind if this Fund is stripped. That is why they suggest that greater benefits should be paid and that the contributions should be reduced.

Mr. Speaker, what is the object of the Fund? This Fund has one object only, and that is to tide the unemployed worker, who temporarily becomes unemployed for some reason or other, over that temporary period. This is not a Fund to help the chronic sick. This is not a Fund to assist the work-shy man. And there is a tremendous amount of exploitation of the Fund by work-shy people. I do not say, as hon. members on the other side want to suggest, that the workers are exploiting this Fund on a large scale. But anyone who has anything to do with this Fund will know that there is a tremendous amount of exploitation of this Fund by the considerable numbers of work-shy people whom we find in South Africa, just as we find them in other countries. I have to deal with these people daily in Vereeniging. Not only in Vereeniging but everywhere one finds that there are people who want to use this Fund to live on the “dole”. They have no intention of working, and the little work that they do is only done in order to enable them to draw benefits again. The actual purpose of this Fund is to tide the genuine worker, who becomes unemployed for some reason or other, over his temporary period of unemployment. The hon. member for Rosettenville made a terrible song about people who are possibly without employment for a year or two or three years. But, Mr. Speaker, this Fund is not intended for people of that kind. It was not called into being for the chronic sick, because the chronic sick can look elsewhere for assistance. They should go to Social Welfare where they can get a sickness allowance. This Fund provides that the man must work 13 weeks in the year, and I say that any person who cannot work 13 weeks in the year is a chronic sick. However unfortunate the circumstances may be of the man who cannot work 13 weeks in the year—and I do not blame him for that because he may be sick—I say that this Fund was not called into being for that type of person. Provision is made for him through Social Welfare. He should approach Social Welfare for a sickness allowance. This Fund was not called into being for that purpose.

Now I come to the hon. member for Kensington. The hon. member read out a few extracts from the report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts. He says the Committee stated last year that the deficit in this Fund was R3,000,000. But that was the previous year. If he reads the evidence carefully, not only in the Auditor-General’s report, but the evidence of the Select Committee, he will see there that this year the deficit was not R3,000,000 but R5,800,000. It was because there was that deficit that the Select Committee on Public Accounts, including the United Party members on the Committee, unanimously asked that steps should be taken to put a stop to the stripping of this Fund. Well, there are quite a few ways in which we can put a stop to it. We could increase the contributions of the workers and of the employers, but do hon. members want that?

Yes.

Since when? The hon. member is the first person to put forward that plea. They have never put forward that plea before. The only proposal which has so far should make a greater contribution. What I hold against the hon. member for Kensington is that he quotes at length from the Report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts but he does not tell us that it was the unanimous request of that Committee that certain steps should be taken to make this Fund stable again and to put a stop to this process of stripping it. And the steps which are now being taken are actually steps of minor importance. They do not in any way affect the principle of the Fund in connection with people who are temporarily unemployed; they simply eliminate certain things which lend themselves to abuse. We do not say that the genuine worker misuses the Fund, but one finds large numbers of “sharpies” amongst the workers, just as we do amongst politicians and doctors, etc. One finds them everywhere.

Now I come to the point made by the hon. member for Kensington. Superficially viewed it would seem that he has a good point there. He says that the money of this Fund is invested by the Public Debt Commissioners at approximately 3¾ per cent, and then he says that the Fund’s income is derived from contributions, from interest and from the Government in the ratio of 4:4:1. In other words, the Government only contributes one-ninth to the Fund. But there are two things that he does not tell us. In the first place the Government contributes to the Fund in two ways. Initially it gave 50 per cent of the contributions and in terms of the Act to-day it is 25 per cent. But apart from that the Government still makes its contributions to its temporary workers, just as other employers do. The four-ninths derived from interest is interest on the Government’s money as well as interest on the other money. The hon. member says that this only earns 3¾ per cent, and he wants to know why the Public Debt Commissioners do not pay a higher rate of interest on those moneys. But let us see what the actual rate of interest is that the Government pays on that money. At the moment the Government is contributing 25 per cent to the Fund and to-day the Fund is earning 3.75 per cent interest, but the Government’s contribution is taken away—and actually the percentage contributed by the Government over the years has been more than 25 per cent because to begin with it was 50 per cent—if the Government’s money is taken away so that it does not have to lend that money to itself, then the rate of interest would be 5 per cent, and in the old days it was considerably higher in fact. But what the hon. member for Kensington now asks is that the Government should give a few million rand to the Fund, then take back the same money and pay a higher rate of interest on it. That is unreasonable, because the Government makes its contributions to its temporary workers in the usual way, just as other employers do. The hon. member then advocates that the money should be invested somewhere else. Is it to be invested in more speculative fields and not with the Public Debt Commissioners? I think that would be the height of irresponsibility. The Fund could naturally invest its money in shares to earn a higher rate of interest, but that would be very unsafe, and one cannot speculate with the contributions which have been made by the workers over the years. One must have the backing of the State behind such a Fund.

The hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) has asked why there should be any lack of confidence in this Fund and in the economic future of South Africa; according to him we should continue to give the existing benefits and let the Fund continue to be stripped for a while because one of these days there will no longer be unemployment at all because, he says, if we spend all this money on the Orange River scheme and on Defence, we shall have a period of full employment in the near future; why then should we be so pessimistic as to protect the Fund by putting a stop to these benefits? I agree with the hon. member. I have very little doubt. Actually there is not much unemployment in South Africa; the figure is only something like 2½ per cent, the lowest in the world, and in most countries an unemployment figure of 2½ per cent is regarded as full employment. But I am convinced that even that percentage will disappear with the introduction of the Orange River scheme, with the greater confidence in South Africa and with the money that is going to be spent on armaments. But all that will happen then is that the Fund will recover and become bigger and bigger. In the past we were under the impression that R120,000,000 would be sufficient, but we are now gradually coming to the conclusion that it will do no harm if this Fund can be built up to R200,000,000 and, as far as I am concerned, even higher to make provision in this uncertain world for any possible disruption in the future.

No, the Government has no choice in this matter. It has a responsibility towards the workers and towards the Fund and I feel therefore that we should congratulate the Minister of Labour on having taken these steps to put a stop to the stripping of this Fund and to place it on a sound financial basis.

I have seldom listened to a poorer speech from the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee). The hon. member comes from a workers’ constituency and from what he has said to-day on behalf of his constituents it is quite obvious that it is a long time since he was last in contact with them. While he was speaking the hon. member asked whether we on this side of the House were in favour of increasing the contribution rate, and by way of interjection I said yes. Now I want to amplify that by saying that the workers, the trade unions, all want increases in contributions rather than this Bill.

I have not had one single objection from my constituency to this Bill.

Because you are there so seldom.

No, that is nonsense.

I have had representations made to me, and I know that the Minister has had representations made to him by the official trade union movement that rather than introduce this Bill he should increase the contribution rate. But they make this important point, that it is no use increasing contributions after this Bill has been passed, and I quite agree with him. The present position of this Fund does not warrant this type of legislation introduced before the question of increased contributions by the State and by the employers and employees has been considered. I am absolutely amazed at the attitude adopted by the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) in regard to this Bill. He should know that it is almost a fundamental principle of any Government worth its salt to consult with the trade union movement on the funds that belong to the workers before introducing legislation of this type. The hon. member for Krugersdorp says the Unemployment Insurance Board agrees unanimously with all these proposals. But, Sir, did the hon. member tell this House that the representatives on that Board of the trade union movement are bound to secrecy? They have not discussed one of these items in this Bill with the respective unions. The trade union movement as such did not see this Bill; they did not know a thing about it, so how can the hon. member say that the workers are in favour of this Bill because their representatives on the Unemployment Insurance Board support it unanimously? I think that we should ask the Minister why did he not refer this Bill to the trade union movement before he brought it before us? It has been done in the past, and why could it not be done this time? Also, why has the Minister only taken a portion of the recommendations put forward by the Select Committee on Public Accounts in respect of this Fund and dealt with this aspect before he dealt with the other? Because by putting the cart before the horse he is going to run into considerable difficulties, when he comes next year with the suggestion that contributions by the State, employers and employees should be increased, and with this Bill then being in force, increased contributions for reduced benefits is going to be a very difficult proposition to sell to the workers. Therefore I say that if this Bill goes through, and I sincerely hope that even at this late hour, when the Minister or the Deputy Minister gets up to reply to the debate, he will tell us that he will rather withdraw the Bill than continue with it before he has had time to consider the second portion, i.e. the question of increasing the contributions by the State, the employers and the employees.

The two should go together.

Yes. Otherwise the Minister will be in this position next year that he approaches the workers and tells them that he intends to increase contributions and they will ask him whether he will withdraw this Bill and he will say no, and then he will be in real trouble. I think the Minister is in real trouble already by introducing the Bill with these provisions. I think it is unforgiveable for a Government, which claims to speak on behalf of the workers, that we should have workers’ representatives like the hon. members for Krugersdorp and Vereeniging who suggest that we should support this Bill because they are supporting it, when we know that the trade union movement as such has not been consulted. I think it is the height of impertinence. Yet this is supposed to be a Government which claims to speak on behalf of the workers.

That is just so much claptrap.

It is not my fault that the hon. member cannot understand what I am saying. I can only feel sorry for him. But I want to say this, that all the speakers on the Government side have referred to temporary workers. This Unemployment Insurance Fund was established to assist workers who are temporarily out of employment, but not one of them has attempted to define what “temporary” is. I ask the hon. member for Vereeniging: “If a man is out of employment for two years in his whole working life of 50 years, does he consider that to be a temporary period of unemployment?” Now there is no reply. According to the provisions of this Bill, if a man is out of employment for two years he loses considerable benefits, and it may be two years out of a lifetime’s work. Why should that man be penalized? He has considerable credits, but because of the provisions of this Bill he will get his first 26 weeks’ benefits, but he will not get a second 26 weeks, even though he may have considerable credits. I think it is most unreasonable and I want to ask the Minister to what extent has the second period of benefits in respect of a contributor been abused? How many contributors have enjoyed this second period of benefits? I want to put the position to the House quite clearly. If a contributor has considerable credits—let us say he has accumulated two years’ credits—and if he becomes unemployed and qualifies for unemployment benefits, and he enjoys the benefits for six months and remains unemployed during that whole period, and he remains unemployed during the next six months, then in terms of the Act as it is now his initial period of employment will qualify him for a second period of six months’ unemployment benefits. Why, under those conditions, should this amending Bill deprive him of that second period of benefits? I ask the Minister whether this particular aspect has been abused and, if so, to what extent? The Minister, when he introduced the Bill, spoke about abuses, but I think we are entitled to know whether this particular provision has led to abuse, because to me it is extremely harsh. I have had representations made to me in respect of this—and I am thinking now of one particular person who was employed by the Railways. He became employed by them after the age of 45 and therefore did not qualify for a pension. He was compelled in terms of the law to contribute towards this Fund, and when he was eventually retired, without a pension, he applied for benefits in terms of the Act as it now is, and received six months’ unemployment benefits. The Department of Labour was unable to find any suitable work for him, mainly because he had spent a lifetime working and was now well over 60 and could not easily be absorbed in the labour market. But in terms of the Act as it is now, after his six months’ benefits were paid out, he had a period in which he was in receipt of no benefits and he qualified for the second period of six months and he still has over two years’ credit to his account. In terms of this Bill, in any case like that in the future, the second six months’ benefits will not be paid, even though he has the credits. Sir, how can this be held up as a Bill to the benefit of the workers? I say that it is most unfortunate that there has not been a greater degree of discrimination shown by the Minister in introducing this type of amendment, because it will hit the innocent as well as the guilty. But how are we as an Opposition to judge what the position is if the Minister is not prepared to give us information in respect of the guilty, those who are abusing this Fund? Read through his speech and there is not one example of where an actual abuse is mentioned. The hon. member for Krugersdorp assumed that the Minister did not say that there were no abuses, but that is not so. The Minister did say there were abuses. He said that many members on both sides would know about these abuses from their own experience, but he did not specify anyone that would justify this type of Bill being introduced. Surely we as an Opposition are entitled to know that these abuses have cost, whether they are appreciable abuses, to make it necessary for the Minister to introduce this Bill, abuses which could not be dealt with in some other administrative way. The hon. member for Vereeniging asked why we made no constructive suggestions in regard to the difficulty in which the fund is. but how can we make constructive suggestions when we do not have the information the Minister has in respect of the abuses? That is the criticism I level at the Minister, that we should be given a White Paper detailing the abuses which make it imperative for this type of legislation to be introduced. I think the Minister should consider this matter very carefully, and that he should not proceed with this Bill. I think the Minister should refer this whole matter, if not to a Select Committee, then to the trade union movement, and ask them for their comments as to what should be done in respect of their funds, because it is their Fund. The hon. member for Kensington has made it quite clear that the Government is paying one-ninth towards this Fund.

Surely some of the interest is paid on the Government’s money also.

Sir, how can the hon. member claim that the interest paid on the contributions of the workers is money paid by the Government as a contribution? That is nonsense. Eight-ninths of this money is brought in by contributions from employers and employees.

And interest on it.

Yes, and the interest, but the money which was made available in the beginning had to be contributed by the employers and the employees, and the interest earned on their money has now built up, and altogether it has made this Fund what it is to-day, but it is not right for the hon. member to claim that the interest earned on this money is a contribution from the Government. That is absolute nonsense. The point is this, that in respect of other workers’ funds the pension funds like the Railways’ Pension Fund, the law lays down that there should be a fixed rate, a fixed percentage rate of contribution 4½ per cent in respect of the superannuation fund. What is wrong with that? Why cannot this Fund enjoy that type of fixed interest? To speak about this interest being a contribution by the Government is nonsense.

It is a contribution to the Government.

The Government gets the benefit of the money at this low rate of interest. I think that argument is not sound and my plea to the Government is to refer this whole matter back to the trade union movement, because I can see considerable difficulty if this Bill goes through and then the Minister comes forward next year with another Bill to increase contributions. It will be far better for the whole matter to be considered as one issue, as it should be, because it is one issue, the question of what should be the future position of contributors and the part that the Government should play in the fund.

I have dealt with the question of the Select Committee Report and in his opening remarks the Minister dealt with it also, and it is true that the Select Committee said that there were two ways in which this matter could be set right. I do not think the Minister in his wisdom has dealt with this as one problem. I think that is his cardinal mistake. But I want to move on to a further question, the maternity benefits.

The hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) dealt with this matter at length, and I think he is in a privileged position to do so, representing a constituency of workers and being a medical man as well. The point I want to make is in respect of the amendments proposed here. Why does the Government consider that it is necessary for every female worker who may have considerable credits as far as this fund is concerned to be compelled to work for at least six weeks during her state of pregnancy, to qualify for maternity benefits? I have not heard a reasonable case put up by any hon. member opposite as to why this should be so, why a married woman, or an unmarried one, for that matter, should have to work six weeks during her pregnancy before she can qualify. [Interjections.] The Act lays down the provisions for maternity benefits. If the Government feels that should be abolished, let them say so and face the workers.

I have said time and again that something else should be substituted for it.

The Government never takes any notice of that hon. member, let alone the Opposition. There can be no question of doubt that the introduction of the maternity benefits scheme was welcomed by all workers as being a necessity in the life of the workers.

Yes. in the absence of anything better.

What did the hon. member mean by that? Is he suggesting that all wages should be raised so that there will be no need for women to work at all?

No, if you listened to me you would not say that.

I have listened, but I do not know what the hon. member means. It is clear to me that the present Act provides for maternity benefits, and as long as we are in the Opposition we will do our best to see that those provisions remain because the workers want them to remain. But I leave it at that and I ask the Minister why he considers it necessary for this six weeks’ work to be done while a woman is pregnant before she can qualify for the benefits. Perhaps he will reply to it.

Now I want to come to the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) (Mr. van Rensburg). I am sorry he is not here now, but during his speech he had a lot to say about what I had said in a former debate. I want to quote what I said so that the House will be under no illusion about the way the U.P. feels in regard to the workers. We were dealing with the amendments to the Act in 1959, and this is what I said in Col. 8015 of Vol. 102 of Hansard—

Now this is what the hon. member did not quote—

Now, what was the issue here? We were dealing with schemes to combat unemployment, and the difference between this and that side of the House was who should finance these schemes. The Government wish to finance these schemes out of the funds of the Unemployment Insurance Fund, and we said they should be financed from the Consolidated Revenue Account. That was the difference— not on the merits of the schemes to be introduced to combat unemployment, but on the question of where the money should come from. And for my speech to be construed as one which indicates that I and the United Party were without sympathy with the wish and the desire to assist unemployed workers is a gross misrepresentation. I say that from what I have read it is quite clear that the issue was not whether the schemes should be introduced to combat unemployment, but whether or not they should be financed from this fund or from the Consolidated Revenue Account. I think the Minister can tell us, but I have no knowledge of any scheme being introduced in terms of that Amending Bill in 1959. Have there been any schemes introduced to combat unemployment? No, this fund has been called upon to finance the cost. I do not know of one, and that is my further reply to my hon. member for Bloemfontein (East). What was done by way of amendment in 1959, that particular portion of the scheme to combat unemployment, has not reduced unemployment by one little bit. As far as I know, not one scheme was introduced, and when we opposed that particular section of the Act we were protecting this Unemployment Insurance Fund, the fund of the workers. I say that we were completely justified in so doing in the light of what is happening to-day. Finally, I would ask the Government, in spite of the fact that year after year we have drawn his attention to the worsening position as far as the workers of South Africa and unemployment are concerned, what positive steps the Government has taken to reduce unemployment. It is quite clear from the reports which have been placed before this House, that the main reason why this Fund is in difficulty is the increase in unemployment. That is the main reason for it. Had there been no increase in unemployment we would not have had this Bill before us to-day. The fact that the unemployment figure has increased from 12,000 to 31,000, at the end of December of last year, is the main reason for the introduction of this Bill.

And what about the 40 per cent increase in benefits.

If there had been no increase in unemployment, the Fund could have continued to pay those benefits.

What about the fact that the benefits were increased?

Sir, actuaries are brought in to consider these matters before Bills are introduced into this House, and I assume that actuaries were brought in before it was decided upon to increase the benefits. But the point I want to make is that if the worsening of the financial position of this Fund is because of the increase in unemployment, then I think we are entitled to say to the Minister, “What are you doing about it?” Some hon. members have said that position is due to the Opposition. Sir, what nonsense? What has it to do with the Opposition that there is more unemployment? If we had defeated many candidates on the Government side, then I should say that is the reason why there is unemployment on a small scale in Government circles. But it is the responsibility of the Government to do what they can to prevent unemployment. And when we speak about an unemployment figure of 31,000 as at the end of December of last year, we must not be misled when that figure is reduced to a percentage, as is done by the Government side. They say that it only represents 2.8 per cent and that is the lowest unemployment figure in the world. Talk to an unemployed person and tell him that he has nothing to worry about; that he should be proud of the fact that he is one of those who make up an unemployment figure which is the lowest in the world and see what sort of answer you will get from him. Moreover, we must not forget that figure of 31,000 does not include Bantu workers in South Africa. They are not workers in the eyes of this Government. It is true that the vast majority of them have no way of contributing to this Fund, but they do destroy the argument that the unemployment figure in South Africa is only 2.8 per cent. If we were to add the 50,000 to 60,000 unemployed Bantu workers, then we would discover that our unemployment figure is not the lowest in the world. I am mentioning this because percentages can be very misleading and to emphasize the point, a figure of 31,000 unemployed in South Africa is a very high figure for us. If that problem were tackled there would be no need for this type of Bill to be introduced. May I finally appeal to the Minister to withdraw this Bill. I understand that it may not be promulgated for a while. I say to him: Withdraw it; refer the matter to the Trade Unions; get an expression of opinion from them as to what should be done to rectify this position before proceeding with the Bill. I think this an appeal that we should make, because if the Minister is not prepared to do that we will have no option but to vote against this Bill and to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn).

I agree with a great deal of what the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) has said, and I want to take the argument a little further in some respects. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) referred to the objection of the trade union movement to this Bill as a mere formality.

It is only supported by the clothing workers.

It is not only the clothing workers who are involved here. I do not know whether the hon. member for Krugersdorp has seen a telegram which was sent by the Trade Union Council of South Africa to the hon. the Minister on the subject of this Bill. In case he has not I would like to read it to him and to the House. This telegram was sent from the Trade Union Council of South Africa during their congress at East London recently, and it read as follows—

I understand that the hon. the Minister did in fact receive a deputation from the Trade Union Council. I believe it was at the beginning of last week, and if I am correct in this, I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will tell the House something about the representations that he had from the Trade Union Council, and what he intends to do about the representations that they made to him. Now, Sir, I want to point out to the hon. member for Krugersdorp and to the Government generally that the Trade Union Council consists of 50 unions and that it has 166,333 members, so I do not think the hon. member for Krugersdorp can dismiss them by saying (a) the objection was a formality and (b) that it was simply in agreement with the views expressed by the Garment Workers’ Union. Sir, the hon. the Minister has not consulted with the organized trade union movement on this Bill, and they object strongly to its provisions. Not only are their objections not a mere formality, but they have taken the trouble to prepare a very lengthy memorandum on the Bill which was submitted to the hon. the Minister of Labour, and with one small exception it objects to every single clause which is being introduced by this amending Bill.

The hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) and the hon. member for Krugersdorp and other hon. members have pointed out that the purpose of the Unemployment Insurance Fund is not to provide for the chronic sick and for old-age pensions, and generally speaking that the fund should be preserved from abuse. I think everybody will agree that where abuses are found they must certainly be eliminated. But as has been pointed out, both in this memorandum and by other speakers, the Government has produced very little evidence as to these abuses which it says represent one of the main causes for the depletion of this fund. Very little evidence has been produced, and I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister when he replies to this debate is going to give the House some statistics about these abuses which he says has reached such proportions that it is necessary to introduce such wide amending legislation.

That is one point that I want to make. The other point which was also mentioned by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana is this question of the unanimity of the Board. The hon. the Minister in introducing this Bill stated emphatically that the Board was unanimous in accepting the recommendations which are now being implemented in this Bill. Sir, that is not so at all. The members representing the Trade Union Council on that Board were bound, as has been pointed out, by a secrecy clause. They were unable to discuss this Bill with their own trade union members, and in fact they themselves objected strongly at the Conference to the Minister’s assertion that the Board was unanimous on this point. I want to make one further statement, and that is that the only woman representative on that Board, who does not happen to have a vote—she is there really as an observer—in fact objected strongly at the meeting of the Board to the changes which are being introduced as far as maternity benefits are concerned. It is quite misleading therefore and it is incorrect to tell the House that the amending Bill has received the unanimous approval of the Board. This in fact is not true.

It is not difficult to know why this Bill is being introduced. One has only to look at the figures of the rising unemployment on the one side and at the figures of the depletion of the Unemployment Insurance Fund on the other side to realize why this Bill is being introduced. At the end of 1956 there were something like 12,631 registered unemployed people in South Africa. At the end of January this year the figures of registered unemployed people had risen to well over 30,000, a very considerable increase in the number of unemployed. We know that according to Government figures the percentage is less than 3 per cent of employable persons, but as has been pointed out, percentages are misleading and indeed the total overall figure of unemployment in South Africa at the present stage is a great deal higher than the registered figure of something like 32,000, because as we all know African unemployment is not registered. It is estimated by a reliable authority that the figure for unemployment amongst Africans at the present stage has reached something like 100,000. Of course, this does not affect contributions from the fund, but nevertheless one must realize the close inter-relation between growing White unemployment and growing non-White unemployment, and it is absurd for us to think that we can simply push the African unemployed to one side, treat them as a separate part of our economy and expect no repercussions on the employed number of Whites in South Africa. The two are closely correlated, because the consumer demand engendered by employed Africans has its effect on the whole internal market in South Africa, and as the demand for products in the internal market goes down with the increasing number of African unemployed in South Africa, so does the demand for goods and services produced by White workers also go down and therefore there is increasing unemployment amongst Whites. It is stupid for us to blind ourselves to the inter-relation of these two forces. The hon. member for Vereeniging has not yet grasped the point that it is not the colour bar that protects the White worker in this country; there is only one thing that protects the White worker in this country, apart, I should hope, from his own efficiency and his own productivity and that is the expanding economy of South Africa. That is the only thing that can protect the White worker of South Africa. In the long run neither colour bars nor artificial protection will be any good at all to the White workers of South Africa because the economy is integrated and bad conditions for one large section, a section consisting of four-fifths of the population of this country, must inevitably have its repercussions on the remaining one-fifth, and the sooner the hon. member for Vereeniging realizes this elementary fact, the sooner will it be possible for us to increase benefits in South Africa, to assist workers and to go in for all the social welfare work and social welfare benefits that the hon. member for Krugersdorp is advocating instead of these benefits coming from the Unemployment Insurance Fund. It is no good saying that the money must come from somewhere else. “From social welfare, I suppose,” said the hon. the Minister, when he was asked where these benefits should come from when the chronic sick or the old people were under consideration. We will not be able to extend benefits to any of these people, and the unemployed amongst Whites must increase as the numbers of unemployed amongst the Blacks increase. A close inter-relationship between the employment of a large section of our population and the employment of Whites is surely an elementary fact which this House should have appreciated by now, but apparently that is not the case, and in every single debate one still has to argue this very ordinary and elementary point.

I mentioned that it was obvious to anybody who studied the figures both of rising unemployment in this country on the one hand and the depletion of the fund on the other, why it has been necessary for the Government to introduce this Bill. When I say “necessary” I do not mean to imply that I agree with the Government’s introduction of this Bill, but in its own light and by its own logic, or I should say illogic, of its reasoning, one can understand why the Government has to look for this way out instead of the more intelligent way out of expanding our economy and reducing the number of unemployed. We find in examining the figures of the Unemployment Fund that as the result of steadily increasing demands on the fund, the position has now been reached where the nominal size of the fund has dwindled by R7,500,000 since 1959. Of course, we will find that figure by which the fund has decreased is still higher when the 1961 figures become available. If one looks a little bit further back into the history of this, one will find that the decline of the fund actually started a good deal earlier. It started from about 1957 onwards, and if one examines the reports of the Public Debt Commissioner, together with the reports of the Auditor-General, one finds that from 1957, when the contributions less benefits paid and after investment income had been credited back to the fund, that whereas at that stage in 1957 there was to the credit of the fund the sum of R2,734,000, this sum dropped in 1958 to a mere R23,129, and in 1959 showed an actual debit of R2,999,374, and in 1960 a debit of R3,319,784. We see therefore that there has been a steady decline. Whereas in 1957 the position was still relatively buoyant and there was a net credit to the fund, after contributions had been received and when benefits had been paid, by the time the investment income was added back, the fund stood at quite a good figure, but since that time because of the demands made on the fund, the fund has now reached a debit figure of minus R3,000,000. One therefore appreciates the difficulty that the Government faces in this regard; and of course as the result of this the whole question of the investment of the fund itself has also been high-lighted, and as has been pointed out in this House the yield of the fund with the Public Debt Commissioners averages about 3.9 per cent. I think the hon. the Minister will grant that is the average yield. Sir, suggestions have been made that the fund should be invested at higher rates of interest, and I would say that this should be cautiously treated unless one is absolutely certain of the security of the investment and also, of course, unless one is able to invest in short-dated stocks. I do not see any point in a fund, whose main object should be to remain liquid so that it can meet the demands that are made on it, at short notice, being invested for the higher rate of interest in long-dated stocks. It is obviously irresponsible to suggest that. It is clearly necessary for a fund of this sort to remain invested in short-dated stocks, although I do not say that the existing investment is necessarily the best. But we cannot get any information from the Government on this matter. I asked the hon. the Minister of Finance to give us some details as to how the money is invested, and all I could get was an omnibus reply from him “In Government stock at ruling rates”. Well, that does not help very much. One would like to know exactly what Government stocks and one would like to know whether it would pay in fact in certain circumstances maybe even to take a capital loss, where it may be necessary, in order to re-invest in other stocks. But I do agree that it is necessary to have security before investing this very important fund and that one must remember that the most important demand in the case of a fund like this is to retain its liquidity. I think perhaps the Minister might look into the question of staggering the investments so that the stocks will fall due for maturity at different periods, which would help the fund too. I am wondering also whether it would not be a good idea, as was suggested in fact in an article in the Financial Mail, to have this matter submitted for independent and expert advice. I think the hon. the Minister might give that matter some consideration, that is, that the investment policy of the Public Debt Commissioners, as far as the Unemployment Insurance Fund is concerned, could well be reviewed from time to time by an independent panel of investment specialists. I put that to the hon. the Minister as a constructive suggestion.

Sir, what has been the Government’s reaction to this position of increasing unemployment on the one hand and the greater demands on the fund, which has led to a decline in the nominal amount held by the fund? As has been pointed out—and I do not intend to go into any detail on this because the position has already been explained by other members on this side—all the so-called sacrifices have been expected on the workers’ side. There was an item in a newspaper to the effect that the Government intended increasing contributions all round next year and that the hon. the Minister was considering the question of increasing the State’s contribution, which at present is 25 per cent of the joint contribution of employers and employees, and of course at the same time he would obviously increase the contributions both from employers and employees. Well, that is fine as far as it goes; it may be necessary to do that in a temporary difficulty. But the present Bill simply makes greater demands on the workers. It reduced benefits under the pretext of curing abuse. My point is that no statistical evidence has been produced by the hon. the Minister as to the extent of the abuse which he claims is the main reason for the introduction of this Bill. I think that the workers, particularly in view of their objection, are entitled to know what the Minister has in mind. Surely the workers who themselves have been contributing to this fund over so many years, would be just as interested in protecting expenditure from this fund and protecting it from abuses as the Government is, and I cannot imagine that if there have been large-scale abuses, the workers themselves would not have been the very first to accede with pleasure to the Minister’s suggestion; so in the absence of such proof one can only assume that these abuses are being played up out of all proportion to their true extent.

In four or five main directions the workers are being asked to make these sacrifices. Firstly there is the increase in the ratio from one to four to one to six weeks of work before the workers can claim benefits; then there are the changes as far as the groups are concerned. Last year there was a Bill before the House increasing the discretionary right of the claims officer as far as offers of “suitable work” are concerned. At that stage only groups 1, 2 and 3, were included. This amending Bill now extends it to groups 4 and 5. This is an objectionable feature of the Bill as well.

A lot has been said on maternity benefits and I can only reiterate the objections. It seems to me that it is absurd to insist on women working this additional time and to behave as if all women who are pregnant and who go back to work are doing it in order to swindle the fund out of benefits which should accrue to other workers. Sir, this is nonsense. I want to point out that very many women go back to work in order to earn sufficient money so that they can meet the additional expenses of their confinement, and it is a very hard burden indeed that the maternity benefits should now be reduced. The question of the additional burden falling on people who are due for retirement is also one which I think the Minister should reconsider very carefully indeed. Sir, these arepeople who have been paying into this fund for a very long time, and it is manifestly unfair that they should now be asked to give up some of the benefits which they have legitimately been expecting to acquire when they retire from full-time employment, and simply go in for part-time employment.

Short-time work has now been excluded altogether from benefits unless the employment is actually terminated. I think this is a very foolish measure because this is going to increase unemployment, and it is penalizing workers and employers in fact who have adopted this simply in order that they may retain skilled workers, so that they can recall them at a time when there might be a seasonal improvement in the trade. I think it is absurd to demand that their employment be terminated and that these skilled workers be dissipated over the entire labour field. Here too I think the hon. the Minister should reconsider this matter very carefully before he goes ahead with this Bill.

Generally speaking I think I can sum up my whole objection to this Bill in one sentence, and that is that the hon. the Minister is doing what the Government always does, that is, he is attacking the symptoms and not the disease itself. The disease is unemployment and the unemployment is caused, as has been said many a time, by the increasing insecurity in South Africa, due largely to the racial policy of this Government. The fact that investment funds are not forthcoming from overseas, the fact that the local investor is frightened to expand, these are the reasons why our economy, which should be booming and which should be working at full employment figures, is to-day suffering a decline, why unemployment is rising and why the fund is being hard pressed to meet the demands which are now being made upon it. The hon. the Minister would do well to withdraw this Bill before it passes its second reading and to submit it to a Select Committee where views can be heard on the whole question of the Unemployment Act, because I am not saying that this Act could not do with amendments in certain directions, but this sort of piecemeal attack on the Act is no solution. The whole matter needs review and the hon. the Minister should submit it to a Select Committee before the principle is accepted in this House so that the workers can give evidence, so that the employers can give evidence and so that generally speaking persons who are interested in the whole question of employment in South Africa and the labour field generally, can give the Government the benefit of their advice. But most of all, the Government should be tackling the actual disease and the way in which to do that, as I have stated originally, is to view the labour market in South Africa as a whole; to find out why there is increased unemployment, why the internal market is in fact decreasing and why our national income, which should be expanding at a very much higher rate than it is, has been virtually static over the last few years.Sir, one could expect this in a country with no resources; one could almost expect it in a fully developed country, but one certainly cannot and should not expect it in a country like South Africa which has magnificent economic resources and whose whole trouble lies in one factor, that there are artificial restrictions on the utilization of those resources, both material and human, and if those restrictions were removed then there would be no spectre of growing unemployment in South Africa and the hon. the Minister would not simply be tackling the symptoms of a very grave disease, instead of the disease itself.

In my reply I shall deal with certain points of criticism which were voiced to-day, and the hon. the Minister of Labour will in his reply deal with the preceding part of the discussion and the discussion which may still ensue.

A problem which the Government is experiencing in replying to the criticism of hon. members opposite is that the criticism concerned the interests of the workers but was not a plea for their interests. What I mean by that is that hon. members opposite still cannot realize that they have no contact at all with the workers and that the workers have no confidence in them, and that the pleas made here, these lachrymose pleas, do not have the approval of the workers or their support. We had to deal here with theorizing. with incitement and the kicking up of dust which did not touch the kernel of the problem in any way. A few speakers asked here this afternoon, inter alia the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) and the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw), by way of interjection, and the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) last week whether we had consulted the trade union movement in regard to the matter. They asked why we did not consult them. The fact that they asked such a question just proves their total ignorance in regard to the procedure followed and the steps taken before legislation of this nature is introduced. I want to reply to it specifically and to point out how the trade union movement was consulted and to what extent that movement co-operated, so that this false argument can be negatived once and for all, that we did not consult the trade union movement in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, when the report of the Auditor-General was submitted, in which he pointed out the increasing deficits in the fund, it was referred to the Unemployment Insurance Board. Now it is unnecessary for me to tell the House that the Unemployment Insurance Board consists of equal numbers of employers and employees. That Board then appointed a sub-committee to investigate the whole matter of the amendment of the Unemployment Insurance Act in the light of the criticism voiced. That sub-committee consisted of Mr. Norval, the commissioner who was appointed as Chairman, Mr. R. G. duPlessis, Mr. Worrol, Mr. L. J. van den Berg and Mr. H. F. Tyler, who is not unknown to hon. members opposite because he represents the Trade Union Council, and Mr. Rosenberg as Deputy Secretary. This sub-committee, on which the T.U.C. was represented, did not hold one meeting only but held 11 meetings to discuss this legislation before us to-day.It is nonsense to say that it was secret and that they could not get into touch with their trade union organizations. It is utter tripe to say something like that. They held 11 meetings and after each meeting they could communicate with their various trade union organizations if they wanted to do so, and they could consult with them. At those 11 meetings they considered how to deal with these abuses, and I now want to quote a few points from the report drafted by the sub-committee which it submitted to the Unemployment Insurance Board, which in turn submitted it to the Minister, in order to show what suggestions they made, and then this House and the country can judge to what extent we consulted the trade union movement.

In regard to maternity benefits, the matter in regard to which the Opposition joyfully shed so many crocodile tears, I want to say the following. Of course, the workers know the Opposition and they know exactly what those crocodile tears mean, because otherwise the Opposition would definitely have won in the workers’ constituencies in which garment workers live, such as Alberton, Germiston, Edenvale and Boksburg. Then the Opposition would not have done what it did last time, when it did not even have the courage to put up candidates there. Because the workers know them, they attach no value to this behaviour of the Opposition. As I said, on the subcommittee there are representatives of the workers, not political agents. What did they decide? They considered the question of maternity benefits and devoted attention to the abuses in that regard, and I want to give what they said in their own words—

They considered this matter very thoroughly, and in a later portion of the report they say that they also carefully considered whether this benefit the Government granted to married women should be withdrawn. They say, however, that they felt that perhaps it would not be fair to recommend the withdrawal of a privilege which has already been granted. And then the Unemployment Insurance Board, on which the workers are represented, said this—

What are those “other safeguards” to which they refer? This Committee on which the workers were so thoroughly represented, fully investigated the matter and made a suggestion, and their suggestion is precisely what is embodied in the Bill. If hon. members have the Bill before them they can refer to Clause 2 (e) and they will see to what extent it agrees with the recommendation of this Committee of the Insurance Board. Their recommendation read as follows—

This part of the Bill is therefore derived from the recommendation of this Unemployment Insurance Committee.

Was the recommendation unanimous?

I shall have something to say in a moment about the unanimity, and also in regard to the vacillation of the T.U.C. in this connection, but before I come to that I want to refer to the question of short time and say that this provision in the Bill in regard to short time is not something either which the Minister or I involved; it comes from this committee to which I have referred. They investigated the question of short time and say in their report that at the time they differed from the previous Minister of Labour in regard to this matter, viz. in regard to the benefits in respect of short time. They were never in favour of it, but they say that they have now seen it in operation, and they now feel that the time has arrived to recommend that the short-time concession should be withdrawn. That is precisely what this Bill does, except that we say that in times of need the Minister may in fact grant short-time benefits. The Committee therefore recommended precisely what is contained in Clause 3 (b).

Then I want to say something about the question of the thirteen weeks and the older people who are over 65 and who are now no longer fully entitled to the benefits. In this regard the Committee says that in most other countries people have to be continuous contributors to the fund for much longer than in South Africa in order to derive benefits. They mention the example of Canada, where they must have been contributors for 13 weeks during the past two years in order to qualify for benefits; in the case of Western Germany, 26 weeks in the last two years; Italy, 52 weeks in the last two years; Holland, 78 days in the last twelve months. In addition, they say that they regard it as quite reasonable that there should be a qualifying period of at least 13 weeks—

So even that recommendation emanates from this Committee which investigated the matter.

But to what extent were these recommendations unanimous? In the report submitted to the Minister it is clearly stated that the recommendations were unanimous. After the fact became known that it was unanimous, the T.U.C. objected and said it was not unanimous. They also had an interview with the Minister, to which I am sure the Minister will refer in his reply. But in regard to the unanimity I just want to say this: We have already become accustomed to it that the representatives of the T.U.C., when they appear before committees in regard to legislation, or before statutory bodies, they agree with certain things and that thereafter, if it suits them, they issue Press statements to repudiate it. I can mention two examples of that. When I myself was entrusted with the previous amending measure to increase the penalty period from six to 13 weeks (a year or so ago), we had precisely the same experience. At that time the representatives of the T.U.C. agreed in the Insurance Board, but thereafter they denied it publicly again. In this case we have precisely the same thing again. I have here the draft minutes of the Unemployment Insurance Board meetings, which indicate how unanimous or not the representatives of the T.U.C. were there. At the meeting of 17th January this year the representative of the T.U.C. expressed doubts as to the amendment, but his doubts were not in regard to the merits of the amendments which the Committee had drafted after eleven weeks. His doubt was that he wanted it to be taken as a whole together with other amendments. He was really opposed to the limiting of the number of amendments, and not to the content of the amendments. He expressed his doubts and asked that they be conveyed to the Minister. At the same meeting the other representatives then discussed the matter and eventually it was proposed that the remarks of Mr. Theiler and one other gentleman should be deleted and not submitted to the Minister. It was then resolved that this would not be transmitted, and then the draft minues further read—

That was on 17th January, according to the draft minutes. The official minutes read that it was proposed and seconded “that the Bill, as proposed, be accepted”. That was agreed to, and the T.U.C. representative was present at the meeting.

But that is not the last of these minutes yet. On 21 February another meeting of the Unemployment Insurance Board was held, at which Mr. Tyler was also present, and then the minutes of the previous board meeting were submitted, in which the Bill was unanimously approved as it is before the House now, and that reads as follows: “Minutes approved and signed by the Chairman”, with no reference to any difference of opinion. But then the T.U.C. representative again came and said that they differed about this and that, and they issued press statements which the hon. member for Houghton is only too eager to quote, because they get all their ideas which they express in this House from the T.U.C., and the impression is now created that this Government and the Minister did not play open cards with the trade union movement. I think that is a wrong and unfair representation of the facts.

May I put a question? It is not quite clear to me, but one of the members of the Board referred to a motion he introduced against the draft Bill, but that he was asked to withdraw it, and that he was informed that his objections would be reconsidered at a later stage. Can the hon. the Minister confirm the accuracy of that?

I have no knowledge of any such report or communication. It may be so. I can only refer you to what I have quoted from the official minutes, which were approved by him and which we regard as being authoritative. But the whole point is that the Government and the Department and the Ministers concerned, i.e. the present Minister and his predecessor, clearly consulted the trade union movement in the matter, as they have always done in the past. But now I should like to direct this friendly request and warning to the trade union people: If they want the Government at all times to attach value to their standpoint, they should not jump about like a cat on a hot tin roof; then they should adopt a standpoint after argument and be able thereafter to defend that standpoint in spite of criticism. They should not jump about every time, because then one does not know what value to attach to such standpoints.

The other matter which was also raised here this afternoon, in regard to the interest, which was mentioned by the hon. member for Kensington, I will leave to be dealt with by the hon. the Minister, but I should like to deal with one other aspect, and that is the aspect which runs like a rusty wire through the tearful speeches of hon. members opposite, namely that this measure is too harsh, that it is inhumane and that this Government is acting inhumanely in regard to the restrictions being introduced here. Mr. Speaker,that also smacks of ignorance or of malice, because if we think of the steps this Government has taken to meet workers by means of the extension of this Unemployment Fund, it is evidence only of the greatest measure of goodwill. In fact, if one considers that the sick benefits introduced by this Government resulted in more than R15,000,000 being paid out to people in the form of sick benefits which they would otherwise never have received, it passes my comprehension how this Government can be accused of being heartless towards people. When I remember that about R15,000,000 was also spent on maternity benefits, which was also a concession made by this side of the House, and that the death benefits amounted to about R2,000,000, I think it can only be said that there was the greatest measure of goodwill. But if one also looks at the actual benefits received by the workers, one realizes how conciliatory our attitude was. Take a worker in the highest class, Class 12. He draws six months’ benefits amounting to R364, and those benefits which he draws in six months are equivalent to his contributions over a period of 58 years. If we bear that in mind it will be appreciated how conciliatory we have been in this regard.

One final point in regard to this attitude of ours: It has always been the standpoint of the Government that we are the trustee of the Unemployment Insurance Fund and that we have to protect the interests of that fund. The Government cannot lend itself to petty politicking such as we have had from the United Party to-day. We have a responsibility towards the fund. Whereas the hon. member for Kensington with his mathematical calculations comes to the conclusion that the State contributes only one-ninth, the hard fact is that since 1946 the State has contributed more than R40,000,000 to this fund. But what I want to state is this, that we as the trustee have the duty to protect this fund for the workers, but we also have to protect it in such a way that we will always retain the support of the public in favour of this fund. Now I may say that from time to time there are municipalities which we would like to bring into the fund, but which object seriously, and then it is my duty and that of the Minister to weigh the objections raised by hon. members who sit here, the objections of Members of Parliament representing rural towns which we want to include in the fund. Then the objection is that neither the workers nor the employers want it. One sometimes gets that from the smaller rural towns. They ask why they should contribute, because they have no unemployment there. They also say that the fund will be abused, but in spite of the arguments we get week after week, we must decide to include those municipalities. Apart from that, hardly a fortnight passes or some pension fund which was exempted and where people who contributed to the pension fund and did not contribute to the Unemployment Insurance Fund, comes to our notice and the exemption has to be withdrawn. Then we have the same objections. They ask why they must contribute to the Unemployment Insurance Fund, because their people will not become unemployed. Then we must adopt the unpopular standpoint that this is a fund administered in the interest of the workers to provide for times of unemployment. Then we must tell them: At the moment perhaps you have no unemployment, but then those who still have employment to-day must contribute to the fund in order to assist those who are out of employment.

Public servants, too?

As you know, they are excluded.

Why?

The hon. member can discover that when the occasion offers. In view of that, the Government should take particular care to ensure that this fund is not regarded as a hobo fund. We have an extra responsibility towards the contributors to ensure that abuses are eliminated, thereby also retaining the public support for the fund. If it should appear that we do not mind how the fund is abused and how injudiciously money is spent, it will not strengthen our hands, and that will prevent the fund being built up to such an extent that it will be a safeguard for the workers. Therefore we must take steps not only to ensure that the request of the Unemployment Insurance Board is complied with, coming as it does from the responsible trade union movement, but we must also ensure that the status of the fund is maintained and raised.

In passing, just one final point. The hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) referred to the canning industry and the seasonal workers there and said that they do not receive fair treatment. That does not fall under this Bill, but I can give the hon. member the assurance that the matter is being considered at the moment by the Unemployment Insurance Board, and we hope in time to obtain a considered opinion as to whether we can in fact include under this fund that permanent type of worker in the canning industry.

May I just put a question to the hon. the Deputy Minister? Will he be so kind as to mention the specific abuses to which he refers?

At every meeting of the Unemployment Insurance Board it has to consider a number of applications from people who ask for extra benefits, or for the granting of benefits, and on the basis of their experience throughout the years they have told us that there are abuses. I am reminded of one now. Take the question of short time, which is now being withdrawn. One of the experiences of the Unemployment Insurance Board is that in a leather factory in the Eastern Cape, because their work diminished, they arranged their staff in such a way that one week one group of workers was allowed to work and the next week a different group of workers, so that those who did not work could receive the short-time benefits. As the Workmen’s Compensation Board quite rightly stated, that is an abuse of that concession, because in that way the fund subsidizes certain manufacturers either for under-employment or for unproductive methods of production. The State and the employers and the employees in that way subsidize an uneconomic undertaking. There are many such examples, and on that basis they recommended that attention should be devoted to that aspect. In regard to other abuses, if the hon. member is really interested, I will ask the Unemployment Insurance Board to supply him with a number of such examples.

It is a great pity that we could not have had the workers of South Africa here to-day to listen to the speeches of the hon. the Deputy Minister and the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg), and to a speech like the one made a few days ago by the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. G. L. H. van Niekerk). Then they would indeed have thrown up their hands in despair and said, “We have been left in the lurch by this Government”. What is significant in the reply of the hon. the Deputy Minister is the following, viz. that when we want to know more about the abuses which took place or are taking place in regard to the Unemployment Insurance Fund, he is prepared to go to the Unemployment Insurance Board to get examples. It surprises me that the hon. the Minister can say that. Why did he not get those facts and make sure of these abuses before coming to Parliament? The speech of the hon. the Deputy Minister was significant because he did not reply to important matters asked for by the workers. We made the statement that in fact there was no appreciable consultation with the trade union movement in South Africa. There was in fact consultation by the Unemployment Insurance Board on which certain workers’ associations are represented, but in such an important matter as this it is surely the duty of the Government not only to consult that Board but to consult the trade union movement as a whole to find out what the workers really think about the matter. There are thousands of workers affected by this Bill and their voice should have been heard.

We were disappointed to note from the speech of the hon. the Deputy Minister that no concrete steps were being proposed to combat the unemployment which is at the root of all this trouble. Here they come along with a little piece of legislative patchwork, for which the Minister himself cannot find justification enough, while unemployment is increasing, and the difficulty is becoming increasingly greater. The Minister remains quiet when he is asked for a comprehensive plan to save this fund. He did not say a word and did not give any reply in regard to the concrete suggestions made by this side of the House for strengthening that fund. It was suggested that it should be considered that the State, e.g., should increase its contributions, but we had no reply from the Minister. Why not? We hope we will still get a reply. There was not a word of criticism of the fantastic proposals of the hon. member for Krugersdorp, who said that expectant mothers should be excluded and that people who are sick in hospital should be excluded from the benefits of this fund, a suggestion that cries to high heaven, a scandalous suggestion!

You know that they are not excluded.

We know it was suggested that there should be something else in its place, but no concrete suggestion was made. It was emphasized that the expectant mother in South Africa and the sick people in the hospitals should be excluded from the benefits of the fund. We should like to know what the workers of South Africa will have to say about that.

The hon. the Minister said that this plea of the United Party does not enjoy the support of the workers, that we are out of contact with the workers and do not know what they think. Let me give the hon. the Minister the assurance that the United Party, the official Opposition in this House, is in fact in contact not only with the ordinary worker but also with responsible workers’ organizations, and that we consult them, whereas the hon. the Minister has neglected to do so. The hon. the Deputy Minister said that he in fact took steps in regard to consulting the trade union movement. Our point is that he did not directly consult the responsible trade union organizations in the country. He obtained information secondhand, by means of the Unemployment Insurance Board. He read out the minutes of that Board and we were told what that Board had decided. I wonder where the hon. the Deputy Minister gets the right to give all those details? Because the information we get is that there was a special request to the members of that Board to keep quiet and to keep as a secret everything concerning the proposed amendments—a request by the hon. the Deputy Minister, by the hon. the Minister and by the Government. They were asked to keep quiet and to say nothing about it. But here the Deputy Minister comes along and blurts out everything which was said at that meeting.

Who told you about it?

I should perhaps mention this also. The Deputy Minister said that we in the United Party are now shedding crocodile tears about the curtailment of maternity benefits by means of this Bill, and then he said: Why does the United Party not put up candidates in the workers’ constituencies? Then we can see how much support they have from the workers. A short time ago there was a by-election in the important workers’ constituency Durban (Umbilo), and where did the National Party come in that constituency? There was a by-election in another constituency consisting mainly of workers, in Green Point, and where were the National Party and the Deputy Minister with their policy in that by-election? Quite recently there was a by-election in the part of East London where the workers live, where the new hon. member achieved such a great victory. Where was the National Party in that by-election?

And what about Salt River?

Yes, Salt River. Where was the National Party in that important workers’ constituency? When it really comes to the workers of South Africa, they are afraid to put up candidates there. That constituency in East London is largely a workers’ area.

The hon. the Deputy Minister did, however, admit that at the meeting of the Unemployment Insurance Board on 17 January the representatives of the T.U.C. expressed doubts in regard to certain portions of the legislation. They said that if there had to be amendments to the principal Act, it must come as part of one big comprehensive plan. Now, that is precisely what we on this side say, and when the hon. the Deputy Minister makes that admission he dare not, at the same time, say that there were no doubts or objections from the trade unions, and that no doubts were even expressed at the meetings of that board. It now appears that the position is still worse, that it is still more disquieting, namely that the workers’ representatives on that Unemployment Insurance Board withdrew their objections on condition that something would be done in regard to this matter which I have just mentioned. In other words, they did not withdraw their objections because they were satisfied with the Bill. The Deputy Minister says we are wrong when we say that this Bill is harsh and heartless. Mr. Speaker, the word “Boer-hater” is parliamentary, and I wonder whether the word “worker-hater” will also be parliamentary. In that case I accuse hon. members opposite of being worker-haters.

The Deputy Minister says this measure is not too harsh. Ask the sick people in the hospitals. Ask the expectant mother. Ask those thousands and tens of thousands who will suffer under this Bill. They will tell the hon. the Minister whether the Bill is harsh or not. Ask the men who had to pay in so much in the past and who now see their benefits curtailed—they are the people who can give the reply. The hon. member boasts of how much was given in the past, but now it is being taken away. There is an old Dutch adage which says “eerst gegeven en weder genomen is erger als een dief gestolen”, or “first to give and then to take is worse than theft”.

The hon. the Deputy Minister says we are wrong when we say that at the moment the State contributes only one-ninth to the revenue of the fund. That statement was made by the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore), and the Deputy Minister says it is quite wrong. It is very easy for him to go through the accounts of the fund, and he will then find the following: Let me give him the figures for 1960. In that year the total revenue of the Unemployment Insurance Fund was R8.10 million. In the same year the contributions by the State were R1.2 million—one-ninth, as we said. Why then does the Deputy Minister criticize the hon. member for Kensington; where are his figures which can be compared with the figures of the Auditor-General? We should like to know where his figures come from.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the worker would have been deeply concerned if he had had to listen to the speech of the hon. member for Krugersdorp, who suggested that in future sick people should no longer receive benefits under this Act, and that they should now apply to the Department of Social Welfare; or that the women, who, in the past, received maternity benefits, should now apply to the Department of Social Welfare.

Where was that suggested?

They come along with vague suggestions before making concrete suggestions to give the worker alternative benefits.

The main object of this Bill is to save the Unemployment Insurance Fund from insolvency, and nobody will deny that it is necessary to do so. Such a fund becomes exhausted only when two things take place. The first is when actual abuses are committed in the administration of such a fund and in regard to the benefits they have. The second is where too much is paid out as compared with the income—when more is paid out than is received; when more is paid out as the result of some serious emergency, when there is unemployment on such a scale that the fund loses millions of rand year after year. I do not believe, Sir, that enough proof was given, at least this afternoon, of abuses in the administration or in regard to the benefits paid by the fund. During recent years the unemployment increased by thousands, people who received benefits from this fund. Only a slight percentage of them abused this fund. The rest were genuine cases of unemployment, and I challenge the Deputy Minister to deny that. Mr. Speaker, there is only one reason why this fund is in trouble to-day, and there is only one reason for tampering with this legislation to do patchwork when patchwork can no longer remedy the matter. That reason is that unemployment is getting out of hand in South Africa.

What is the percentage?

There we have the mocking words of the Chief Whip opposite. Let us look at the facts. In 1955 4,200 White workers were registered as being unemployed in the unemployment offices. In 1962 it was 16,000—it had quadrupled in seven years.

But give us the percentage.

I am coming to the percentage, and I should like to say something about it. There was an increase of 400 per cent within seven years. In regard to the total group, Coloureds, Whites and Asians, the increase between 1956 and 1962 was from 11,800 to 32,000. Does that not prove that unemployment in South Africa is getting out of hand?

Surely those are normal figures; you know that we cannot have 100 per cent employment.

Nobody asks for 100 per cent employment. What we do ask is that unemployment should not increase by 400 per cent in seven years. What is particularly disquieting is that this increase is progressing fast; the curve rises year after year. Between 1960 and 1962 alone—during the past two years— there was an increase from 26,000 to 32,000, an increase of practically 25 per cent in two years. Is that not disquieting?

Sir, there are many factors influencing this unemployment. Those factors have to be dealt with, as other hon. members have correctly stated. There is, e.g., a slump in the building industry. The year before last the number of building plans decreased from R124,000,000 to R80,000,000. The summonses for debt, affecting the workers, reached the highest level in our history, viz. 600,000 per annum. Workers are summonsed for debt, and then they are still deprived of certain of their benefits by means of this Bill. Insolvencies have never been as many as they are to-day. And what do we find? We get a speech like that of the hon. member for Boksburg about which I want to say a few words.

Let us first accept that the number of unemployed increased by thousands during the past few years. Let us further accept that if there were abuses, they were responsible for only a small proportion of the increased payments. Then I ask the hon. member for Boksburg what right he has to talk in this House about people who receive benefits from the Unemployment Insurance Fund as being loafers, drunks, hoboes and parasites. Those are the words, Sir, which are recorded in Hansard as having been used by the hon. member for Boksburg. How dare he say that? This quadrupling of the number of unemployed which has caused a decrease in the fund is due to loafers, hoboes and parasites? Never before in the history of South Africa has such language been used in regard to the workers.

Sir, there is however one sentence in the speech of the hon. member with which I agree.He said: If unemployment is the result of economic and political factors over which the Government has no control, then this draining of the fund is justified. I will not say that these are factors over which the Government has no control, but I admit that he is correct in saying that there are economic and political factors in this country responsible for the increasing unemployment. On this side of the House we asked that the money of the fund should be invested in such a way that the rate of interest would be higher than is the case now. If the interest rate on the investments of the fund were higher, this legislation would not be necessary to-day.

Who asked for that?

Let the hon. member listen to the words of the hon. member for Boksburg. He said this—

That is what we say also.

But then it is the hon. member for Boksburg who asked for it, and not you.

We asked for it, and the hon. member for Boksburg asked for it, but the person who said “no” was the Deputy Minister, and it is he who is the responsible person in this case.

We so often hear the story that in fact there is full employment in South Africa and that the unemployment figure is only 2.8 per cent. That is the figure mentioned. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Vryheid (Mr. D. J. Potgieter) and the hon. member for Brits (Mr. J. E. Potgieter) are actually becoming excited over that figure. If one looks at the actual payments made by the fund, one sees that the total payments are much higher than the actual number registered in the unemployment office. We must remember that in this country there are only eight unemployment offices where workers can register, and all unemployed workers simply do not go there to be registered. For example, the woman who was formerly employed and who gives up her work does not always go to the office to be registered. She simply knows that there is no longer any work for her. In her despair she stops trying to obtain work. She is unemployed, but unfortunately she does not figure in the number of unemployed given by the Government. Two years ago the Government said that all unemployed above 60 in the case of women and above 65 in the case of men should no longer be included in the unemployed figure. The Government is busy—I do not know whether “cooking” is parliamentary—changing the figures so as to give the country a picture which is quite false.

Let us rather see what was said by the Stellenbosch Economic Institute. This institute consists of prominent economists, and let us see what they found. They found, as has already been mentioned by the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje), that the figure of 2.8 per cent is quite unrealistic and that the real unemployment figure in our country is much higher. They mentioned the very points which we mentioned here. I should like the Minister, the Deputy Minister and the Government to study the report issued by Hupke and van den Berg, which was issued by the Economic Institute of Stellenbosch, and then the hon. members for Vryheid and Brits will be convinced that this 2.8 per cent they referred to gives a totally false picture of the actual unemployment in South Africa.

But, Sir, the hon. the Minister came here with a Bill and intimated that there had been a thorough investigation of all the circumstances.I even gained the impression that there had been a thorough actuarial investigation of the Unemployment Insurance Fund. Of course, Sir, one does not come to this House with such legislation unless one has firm ground under one’s feet and unless one has made a thorough study of such a fund. But now I just want to quote from the Third Report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts, the evidence the Committee had before it. It was issued in May 1961. In it the Secretary for Labour was asked—

The Secretary for Labour replied as follows—

And then the Secretary for Labour added this—

That is still the position to-day. There is no factual actuarial knowledge in regard to the actuarial basis of the fund. It seems to me that the Government simply, when it felt like doing so, played politics with this fund, and announced some increases before elections, and now it is again taking away the benefits after the election which were granted in the past.

We have shown how this fund to-day does not even have its book value. Its book value this year is R10,000,000 higher than its actual value. If that fund were to be liquidated today, the workers of South Africa would receive R10,000,000 less than they actually paid in and what came in as interest in the past. That is the valuation of the fund given by the Auditor-General, and surely the hon. the Minister will not quarrel with that. The book value is R126.3 million, but the market value is R115.7 million. Why? One reason for it, is of course because the rate of interest paid to the workers on their money is so much lower than what is paid in many other cases. The rate of interest is between 3 per cent and 4 per cent—I think on an average it is about 3½ per cent, whereas on a fund like the Superannuation Fund of the S.A. Railways 4½ per cent is paid. But the workers of South Africa, apart from the Railways, are paid a mere 3½ per cent on their funds.

Now you really do not know what you are talking about.

I regard this Bill as a poor measure. In the first place it is patchwork. The hon. the Minister himself does not know how great is the defect he has to remedy; he does not realize how big the hole is that he has to close. Now he comes along with patchwork. He hits the innocent worker harder than the guilty one. This Bill breaks faith with the contributors of the past. They contributed on the basis of one week’s benefits for four weeks’ hard work. Now they must work hard for six weeks before they can receive one week’s benefits. Hon. members talk about emergencies; have we not heard enough about emergencies during the past few years? Must we still be told about an emergency today? Do we exist on emergencies in this country of ours? The answer is to create work, to follow a sound policy. Therefore, Sir, I hope that all this big talk we hear in regard to the Orange River plan will be turned into deeds. I say that in the years ahead employment will be needed for tens of thousands of people. The sooner the Government turns its words into deeds, the better it will be for the country. Those who are chronically ill are hard hit. Short time is being excluded to a large extent. That, as we have shown, can lead to greater unemployment. In times when there is supposed to be full employment, as we had for a few years in the past, these benefits are paid out, but when there is unemployment on a large scale the benefits are curtailed. The Government is prepared to give the worker of South Africa an umbrella when the sun shines. but when it rains he is deprived of that umbrella. It is clear that patchwork is being done. I feel it is necessary that an investigation should be made by an independent committee of financial experts in regard to the fund and its operation. The Unemployment Insurance Board is doing good work; they deal with appeals and cases arising from the administration of the Act, but when it comes to recommending the practical steps which are necessary in this regard, then financial experts of the highest standing are required. That is why we accuse the Government of having failed to consult the workers and having failed to take the steps which are necesary on a broad basis to see to it that the future of the workers of South Africa is assured.

Next to the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) I think the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) has probably put up the worst performance in this debate which has been going on from time to time for quite a few days. There was a time when it was customary for aristocratic people not to weep at funerals themselves; they used to hire mourners. These two hon. members give me the impression that they are two hired mourners for people who, according to them, want to weep but are ashamed to do so. Listening to the arguments which have been advanced here by the hon. member for Orange Grove, one can only throw up one’s hands in despair and ask where he got hold of all those things. Because here we have a case of shameless political propaganda with regard to a measure for which he himself asked.

He is a political tick.

He is a member of the Select Committee which passed a resolution to the effect that this Fund should be strengthened. At that time he did not say that there was too much unemployment. No, he said that the normal unemployment which existed in South Africa (which was practically full employment) could not be carried by this Fund.

Order! What did the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) say?

I said that he was a political tick.

The hon. member must withdraw the word “tick”.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

I want to say this to the hon. member for Orange Grove that if it had depended on the United Party there would have been no unemployment insurance fund in South Africa. [Interjections.] Yes, Mr. Speaker, they did establish it in 1946 and they made a mess of it. You will recall, Sir, that the Act was passed here in 1946 and Dr. Colin Steyn then had to suspend the operation of the Act. Pressure was brought to bear on him by the workers and he caused an investigation to be instituted. The result of that investigation was that in 1949 the present Minister of Transport had to amend the working of the whole Act and put through a new measure to make unemployment insurance practicable.

Of all people the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) comes here this afternoon and tells us what a strong Fund the United Party had built up. I wonder if the hon. member knows that this Fund only stood at about £15,000,000 in 1948 and in 1949. When the Minister introduced these amendments it stood at £21,000,000, in other words, R42,000,000 as against something like R120,000,000 to-day. Where does he get hold of this story that the United Party left a very strong Fund for the National Party to carry on with? Here I have the speech of the then Minister of Labour. He stated clearly that it was impossible to administer the Act which they had passed in 1946. He had to revise the whole Act and to make it capable of implementation. That was done by the Minister in 1949. In 1952, when this Fund had become fairly strong already, the United Party came along and said: “Look, we do not need an unemployment insurance fund in South Africa. We want to convert it into a pension fund. We want to give financial assistance out of this fund to people who have never contributed to it.” As far as I recall they introduced a motion to that effect in this House. And then they are the people who come and tell us today that we should do this and that we should do that and that we should give additional benefits to the workers under this Fund. If it had depended on them and if they had governed the country there would no longer have been an unemployment insurance fund in South Africa.

When business was suspended I had pointed out that if the United Party had been in power there would no longer have been an unemployment insurance fund because they wanted to use the Fund for other purposes. I had pointed out that in 1949 the Fund stood at £21,000,000 and that by 1951 it had been built up to £43,000,000 under this Government. The United Party makes a great song about the fact that we are now trying to place this fund on a solvent basis, but I want to prove that if they had been in power there would no longer have been a fund. And let me say that the hon. member for Orange Grove, who spoke just before me, is one of the people who issued pamphlets describing how their labour charter would work, which would have swallowed the whole of this Fund, and as far as I know these pamphlets were distributed in every constituency during the 1953 election. The late Mr. Tighy dealt with this whole matter in this House in 1952 under the Labour Vote. He asked for the half-hour, and amongst other things he said—

All this sounds very fine, but they wanted to use the Fund to do what Mr. Tighy described here; and they made use of this throughout the country during the 1953 election. In my constituency they went so far as to go to the railwaymen, the permanent staff, who all had pensionable service, and to say to them, “When you go on pension, you will each receive a minimum of £16 per month under our labour charter, apart from your Railway pension”. That was extremely irresponsible on the part of the United Party, and to this day they have not yet renounced that policy.

What is wrong with that?

The hon. member says, “What is wrong with that?” There is everything wrong with it to want to use this money that was paid in by a specific group of people, for the benefit of people who have made no contribution to the fund. But that is what they want to do. The hon. member must not come and shed crocodile tears about a fund which they themselves wanted to wipe out. It is perfectly clear from their speeches in the course of this debate that they would still prefer to wipe out this fund as long as they can derive some political benefit from it. As far as I recall it was in the course of that debate in 1952 that Minister Schoeman said that he would feel safer if this fund, which Mr. Tighy said was already so big, stood at £100,000,000, instead of £43,000,000 which was the figure at that time, and I am inclined to agree with him.

The hon. member for Orange Grove has also done another thing here. He says that the United Party proposed that the State should increase its contribution to this fund. I want to ask him when they put forward that proposal? Was it in this debate?

We said that proposal must be considered.

But they said it for the first time in this debate. The Minister has not yet replied but already they are saying that he refuses to do so. [Interjections.] The Minister said that he would reply to this point. The hon. member for Orange Grove says that the United Party consults the workers. He says, “Go and ask the sick and the expectant mothers what they think of this terrible step that the Government is taking”. I want to ask him whether any bona fide worker who becomes ill loses his benefits under this fund. Let him tell us whether persons who are actually sick and who are bona fide workers will lose their benefits under this Bill. Not a single one. And what expectant mother who was in employment when she became pregnant is going to lose her benefits? Not a single one. And then they talk about abuses. Sir, there are many members who are afraid to say what is going on to-day; I am not afraid to do so. I have had cases in my constituency where people have asked me to find employment for their wives, and I have done so, and later on when you ask the husband how his wife is getting on in that job, he tells you that she is in the maternity home. It becomes perfectly clear then that woman was expecting a baby before she came to seek employment. There is not a single member in this House who can deny that is what is happening and that there are misuses taking place every day.

Why does the Minister not know about it?

The Minister is fully aware of it. I want to ask the hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) whether he would assist a woman to obtain employment so that she can draw benefits if he knows that she is pregnant. Judging by the way he talks he would gladly do so, because they want to destroy this fund just as they are trying to destroy everything in this country.

The hon. member for Orange Grove went on to say that there had been a big increase in unemployment from 12,000 to 31,000 and he mentioned the building industry in particular. I want to remind him that it was in fact one of his party associates, a prominent economist and financier, the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) who said that there was excessive building in South Africa, that there was excessive building activity, and that those funds should rather be invested in other avenues— and there is a good deal to be said for that. But let me say this to the hon. member that he cannot mention the name of one big city where there has not been excessive building as far as middle-class and higher-class residences and offices are concerned. We cannot allow people to build if those buildings are going to stand empty. That has always been the position in the building industry. I am closely associated with this type of business. For a certain period there is an excessive amount of building and then people discover that they have been erecting too many buildings; then there is a slack period until there is evidence again of a shortage of accommodation; they then start building again and soon there is excessive building once again. That is a natural cycle that we find in the building industry.

The hon. member for Orange Grove has also said that the interest on the Fund’s money should be increased. Again I want to ask the hon. member when they suggested that. They suggested it in the course of this debate.

No, we have been thinking about it for a long time.

And they suggested it after the hon. member for Boksburg had mentioned here that the rate of interest should be increased and that would add a considerable amount to the income of the fund. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) has said to-day that if that happens there will be a deficit of R1.4 million in the fund, but as usual the hon. member does not know what he is talking about. He says that this year the fund shows a deficit of R3,000,000. The deficit over the past year was R5.8 million; the hon. member can look at the report of the Select Committee on his table.

Here I have the report of the Auditor-General.

That is the previous year’s report. After the Auditor-General’s report, the report of the Select Committee came out, in which there is a record of the evidence of the Secretary for Labour. The Select Committee’s report covers the period up to 31 December 1961, whereas the report that he used goes as far as 31 December 1960. As far as this fund is concerned I want to say that it was only last year that the Government reviewed the question of investing at current rates of interest State pension funds which had always been invested at a fixed rate of interest, and of doing the same thing in the case of the other funds. We all feel in this House that this matter should receive serious consideration, but this is not a matter out of which one should try to score a political debating point. The United Party never gave this matter a thought until they heard that the Government had already done this in the case of the Public Service pension funds, but now they want us to believe that this is a new idea of theirs.

With regard to unemployment, I just want to point out to hon. members that of the 31,000 unemployed—the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) mentioned the figures the other day—there are only 8,700 women, and of them, 70 per cent are not bona fide work-seekers. There is only a small percentage of the female workers, 30 per cent or 2,400, who are bona fide unemployed. The hon. member for Orange Grove talked about an actuarial assessment and he made a great song about the fact that one had not been made recently.I wonder why the hon. member does not read the documents which are at his disposal and which he ought to read as a member of the Select Committee on Public Accounts, because then he would know what the position is. [Interjections.] The fact of the matter is that no actuary can actuarily assess a short-term fund and say precisely what the contributions ought to be. He can make an approximate estimate and say that if there is 2 per cent unemployment, the contribution should be so much, and if there is 4 per cent unemployment it should be so much. Such a calculation was made in 1951-2 and percentages were given there. Working on those percentages I think we are safe under all circumstances. If the unemployment figure is 10 per cent, such and such a percentage of the fund will be used every year.

Then the fund will be insolvent.

If there is 10 per cent unemployment then of course it will be insolvent but we only have 2.39 per cent unemployment, and in all industrial countries that is regarded as full employment—and South Africa is an industrial country, whether hon. members want to admit it or not. South Africa is the biggest industrial country on this Continent. Our unemployment figure of 2.39 per cent is even lower than the figure that is regarded as full employment, namely 2.5 per cent. I want to submit therefore that with an unemployment position which is normal, taken on the basis of full employment, this fund is not in a position to meet its ordinary current expenditure, and it was for that reason that the Select Committee said that this matter must be reviewed. In America they have an unemployment Act which provides that unemployment up to 6 per cent will be regarded as a normal phenomenon, and if it exceeds 6 per cent it will be regarded as abnormal, as serious unemployment; they then proclaim those parts of the country where the unemployment figure exceeds 6 per cent as areas in which there is serious unemployment and certain provisions of the Act then come into force. America is divided into 150 unemployment regions, and last year 76, or more than half of them, were proclaimed as regions in which there was serious unemployment exceeding 6 per cent. I mention this to show how healthy our position is by comparison. We use our funds so liberally to help people and the contributions to the fund are so small that even with this small amount of unemployment the fund cannot carry the burden. When one looks at the income of the fund to-day, it is perfectly clear that it cannot carry more than 1½ per cent unemployment without a capital loss.

The actuaries must work that out.

One does not need an actuary to work it out. An ordinary Std. II child can work it out for the hon. member if he cannot do it. It was in these circumstances that the Select Committee passed its resolution last year. I shall come to it in a moment. I just want to examine the position of the fund for a moment.

In 1961 the fund paid out to sick persons R3.3 million, to mothers R2.575 million and to dependants under the 1957 Act R637,000.

What does that prove?

This is expenditure on benefits other than purely unemployment benefits, and the total amount is a little more than R6,000,000. In 1957 the income of the fund dropped. The contributions to the fund were decreased by 25 per cent and, simultaneously, the benefits paid by the fund were considerably increased and new benefits were added. I think that is where the fault lies. The total income of the fund in 1961 was R11,199,000. Of that amount R4,875,000 was interest. In other words, the contributions to the fund only amounted to R6,324,000. As against this, there was an expenditure of more than R16,000,000. That is the position that we had to meet, and the hon. member for Orange Grove agreed that the position should be met, and that is why he voted for the resolution that we passed in the Select Committee. The hon. member agreed that the position of the fund must be rectified. He voted for that resolution. Here I just want to quote the evidence that was given on 19 March of this year before the Select Committee by the Secretary for Labour, in which he said—

He goes on to mention that the deficit in the fund for the year concerned was R5,810,000. Here we have what was recommended by the Unemployment Insurance Board to give effect to the resolution of the Select Committee that was accepted by the Government. But the United Party, which is the father of this Act and of the Unemployment Insurance Board, refuses to accept their recommendations because they want to exploit this matter for political purposes. The hon. member for Orange Grove is supposed to know much better than the Insurance Board what has to be done to rectify the position. He is supposed to be the expert, and he wants this problem to be solved in such a way that he can use it for political propaganda. But I say that what they are moving here is a motion of no confidence in the Insurance Board.

We always had direct consultations with the trade unions.

One half of the members of the Insurance Board consists of representatives of the trade unions, and it will not help the hon. member to come here with all sorts of excuses. The true position is that he, who wants to wipe out the fund, is moving a motion of no confidence in the Insurance Board simply in an attempt to gain political advantage.

Mr. Speaker, I was rather glad when the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) got up to take part in the debate, because I thought that he, with his wide and long experience, would make a contribution towards solving the problem of unemployment, but the hon. member failed to do so. I take it that he did not do so for good reasons and, therefore, I cannot blame him, but where I do blame him is that he certainly did not treat the case put by the United Party on its merits. I think the United Party’s case is clear. We say this Bill interferes with the rights and privileges of the workers, and the United Party does not stand alone in this attitude. The Minister knows that two deputations that I know of have seen him about this matter, workers’ deputations. The hon. member for Pretoria (Central), who said that we were playing at politics, surely does not suggest that we are playing at politics in this House, and that the people who went to see the Minister also played at politics. The Deputy Minister said, however, that the United Party’s case was a case which only they advocated. Surely he does not suggest that the workers who went to see the Minister were not also on our side. They feel exactly the way the United Party feels about the matter.

In that case they are all United Party supporters.

The hon. member says they are United Party supporters. The hon. member may be perfectly correct, but I have always had a great deal of respect for the intelligence of the workers. Hon. members tried to deal with the Bill from one angle only. They say everything is attributable to abuse, and all that the Minister wants to accomplish with the Bill is to put an end to those abuses. But surely hon. members know that the main object of this Bill is to stabilize this fund again. Do they allege that the stripping of the fund is only attributable to abuses? If it cannot be attributed to abuses alone, surely it seems as though the Bill is interfering with the benefits of workers, and that is exactly the point we are making. The Minister said clearly in his speech that there were very definite reasons why the fund had become weak, and he said clearly that one of those reasons was the fact that abuses had taken place. He said clearly, however, that the main reason was the increased unemployment, and that, to my mind, remains the crux of the matter.

When you consider this matter, Sir, hon. members have to admit two things. Firstly, they have to admit that unemployment is the root of the trouble and secondly, they have to admit that this Bill interferes with the benefits of the workers. In that case they should go further and tell us that they want to interfere with those benefits or that they do not want to do so. And if they do not want to do so, they ought to support the amendment of the United Party.

Another charge has been levelled against us and that is that we are really the enemies of the workers. Hon. members opposite level that charge against us while at the same time eulogizing the original Unemployment Insurance Act. Who introduced that Act? Surely hon. members know that it was the United Party and why should they have introduced that Act had they not thought that it would be in the interests of the workers? Hon. members may say that they have improved the Act. We do not dispute that. I admit that the Nationalist Party have improved the Act and I give them credit for that, but something which you cannot argue away, Sir, is the fact that the idea which underlies that Act is a sound one, the idea to promote the interests of the workers and the United Party gave shape to that idea.

Mr. Speaker, I think that the six clauses of this Bill have one main objective only. The Minister has said that and that is to place the fund in a sound financial position. There is no doubt about it that the fund should be kept sound. We do not differ there but where we do differ from hon. members opposite is in respect of the method to be employed to keep the Fund sound. I think the easiest way to strengthen the Fund once again is to increase the contributions to the Fund and the Minister himself has said that the Insurance Board had recommended, in the first place, that the contributions should be increased but the Minister said that he did not think that was practicable. Apart from saying that, he did not enlighten us any further. He did not tell us why he did not think it was practicable and I do not think it is unreasonable on my part to ask him this question: Why can that not be done at this stage, why must we wait? As things are at the moment, Sir, you can only come to one conclusion and that is that the Minister does not wish to place the burden of an increased contribution on the shoulders of the Government. If that is the reason the Minister ought to say it candidly to the House.

Various steps can be taken to strengthen the Fund, but what I find strange is that the first step which the Minister is taking is not taken at the expense of the Government or of the employers, but at the expense of the worker. He is the person who is called upon to make the first sacrifice, the person who is hardest hit when there is unemployment. We on this side of the House have stated very clearly that we were quite prepared to assist the Government to put an end to abuses in a proper manner, but that we thought it was unreasonable that the worker should be the first victim, the first one to suffer.

But you say no abuses are taking place, do you not?

We do not say that abuses do not take place but we do say that hon. members go out of their way to accentuate those abuses because they do not want to admit that this legislation is interfering with the rights of the worker. Which method is the Minister employing first? Firstly, the worker is told that he will have to contribute to the Fund for six weeks so as to enjoy benefits for one week. Apart from the fact that it will take the worker much longer in future to build up credit, I submit, with respect, that there is another side to the picture as well. I may be wrong, but I think that the greater the degree of unemployment, the greater are the chances of becoming unemployed and the more difficult it is to find employment and the quicker the worker should be able to build up his credit. Apparently the Minister does not believe that because he is reverting to the former basis of building up credit at the very time when it is difficult to find employment and at a time when the chances of becoming unemployed are very great. The Minister should have left the position as it was. In that event the worker would have been able to afford it.

I want to touch upon a second matter, because certain people have brought it specifically to our notice and that is the question of the maternity grants which women may lose. A great deal has been said about that in this House and various members have said that the Fund was not intended for that type of thing; they say that there ought to be other funds to provide maternity grants. Superficially that sounds logical, but the first point to remember is that these people are already enjoying those benefits, and even if they agreed that there should be another fund for that, I want to know from hon. members opposite why theydo not first establish such a fund before they deprive the women of those rights. I think that is the real point. Nobody will find fault with it if hon. members opposite said that they were going to take away the maternity grants but that they would establish another fund simultaneously under which the women could draw similar benefits. If they do that nobody will argue with them. They talk about funds which may be established, but while doing so they are really in the process of harming the female workers of South Africa. I think that the interference with the rights of workers is one of the most unreasonable aspects of this Bill, and hon. members opposite ought to admit that. Mr. Speaker, unemployment is a disease, a disease which to my mind hits the worker very hard, not only economically but also spiritually when the unemployment is on a sufficiently large scale. When this matter is discussed it is so easy to say that there is 2½ per cent or 3 per cent or 2 per cent unemployment but the crux of the matter is this: Is the worker, that worker who walks in the street without a job, assured that his interests are being taken care of? I represent a constituency where the unemployed person comes to me every day and I know that in spite of the fact that he draws benefits under the Fund he goes hungry. Reference has been made to the increased benefits which are being paid under this Fund. True those benefits have been increased, Sir, but do you think that increase has kept pace with the increase in the cost of living? Do you think that anybody can live decently, even temporarily on the benefits which he receives under the Fund? I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that if you approached the workers to-day and asked them whether they wanted their contributions to the Fund to be increased or whether their benefits should be curtailed, they would say that they would rather pay increased contributions and that they did not want their meagre benefits diminished. I think that is the basis on which the matter should be approached. It is not a matter of playing at politics. It seems to me as though hon. members opposite think they have a monopoly as far as sympathy for the workers is concerned. I think we are making a big mistake when we say that a particular party is the worker’s friend. It should not be necessary for the worker to have to depend on friendship. He is a full-fledged citizen of South Africa and as such it is the duty of this House to look after his interests just as the interests of any citizen of this country are being looked after. That is why I say Mr. Speaker, that it ought not to be necessary for any party to say that it is the worker’s friend. The worker is an important citizen of South Africa and we are making a big mistake in singling him out as a specific type of person who has to depend on friendship for certain benefits.

It is significant, Sir, that for the third or fourth time in this debate there has not been one Government member able or willing to stand up to defend his Government against the charges which have been made by this side of the House. One simple charge which has been made by this side of the House is that the Bill before the House is a Bill which will deprive the workers of South Africa of the benefits due to them in terms of the contributions they have made to the Unemployment Insurance Fund. Of the speakers who have spoken opposite not a single one has denied that fundamental issue. Not a single one has denied that this measure which we are discussing at the moment is a measure which will deprive the workers of South Africa of benefits to which they were previously entitled. The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) has juggled with figures, but while he was on his feet as their so-called financial expert, why did he not answer the charge of this side of the House that the Government should do something about the interest which it pays on the Unemployment Insurance Fund money. This Government is using that money, the money of the workers of South Africa. We said that if this Fund required money why did the Government not raise the rate of interest to a realistic level. Why did the chairman of the Select Committee on Public Accounts not deal with that issue?

He did.

That is an interesting fact. The hon. member sitting behind him must have heard him whispering to himself because I listened very carefully to the hon. member’s speech and he said nothing at all about the interest rate which the Government was paying on the money of South Africa’s workers. They are using that money; why cannot they pay a decent rate of interest on it? We have not had one single argument from a single member allegedly representing workers’ constituencies in this country, as to why it is necessary to take away these specific benefits. All we have had, in fact, Mr. Speaker, was the hon. the Deputy Minister calling the unemployed workers of South Africa hoboes. He said that it was his job to prevent this fund from becoming a “hobo” fund. He said, “Ons moet sorg dat dit nie ’n hobo-fonds word nie”. He said that this afternoon. Mr. Speaker, the implication of that statement is that the unemployed drawing benefits from that fund are hoboes. [Interjections.] It is not nonsense, Sir. If you say that this measure is to prevent the fund from becoming a hobo fund, you are saying that it is in the process of becoming a hobo fund. Let them squeal, Sir. They squeal now because of the irresponsible words which slipped out, words which really reflect what they think. When they are trying to defend their Minister when he is in an indefensible position and when the hon. the Deputy Minister himself implies that the unemployed of South Africa are hoboes, that is all very well. I promise the hon. member that when I go back to report to the unemployed in my constituency I will tell them that thisDeputy Minister has called them hoboes. [Interjections.] Yes, the unemployment office happens to be in my constituency in Durban, and unlike those hon. members I sometimes go and visit it. I see the queues and I talk to those people who are unemployed. I talk to those people who stand in the queue for hour after hour to draw their pittance, the pittance which those members want to take away from them. Hon. members opposite have not done what I have done; they have not talked to the unemployed to whom they refer as hoboes. I wish to place on record here in this House that those men are not hoboes. They are decent South African citizens, as decent as any member on that side of the House. Most of them, through no fault of their own, are not sitting in this House, but are unemployed. They claim their rights, the rights which they have earned with their own contributions which they have paid week after week, year in and year out, into the fund. They regard that fund as their insurance against misfortune. Here this Government comes and tampers with those rights and benefits, benefits which they have earned by their contributions. Yet, not a single hon. member opposite has got up to defend the workers and the unemployed in his own constituency. Instead they call them hoboes.

Why did Point elect a hobo to Parliament?

I will tell you, Sir, why Point elected me and if that hon. member calls me a hobo, I may tell him that I am proud to be one of …

What did the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) say?

I asked why Point had elected him to Parliament. I thought he had drawn benefits under the fund.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir.

I will tell the hon. member why I was elected. I was elected because I have an interest in the welfare of the workers in my constituency, which is more than he has. We have asked this Government to deny that rights are being taken from the unemployed. I want to make this charge, and I make it in all seriousness, that the Minister is creating in this country a new class of people, a class of people whom he is deliberately and consciously throwing to the mercy of charity in South Africa. He is creating a new class of people who are too young for old-age pension, who are too fit for disability grants, but who are perhaps too old in the eyes of potential employers. He is creating a class of people, Sir, for whom there is no recourse to any Government aid whatsoever. Through the foresight of the United Party, we have developed over the years security for the workers and their dependants in South Africa; we have disability grants, we have old-age pensions, we have workmen’s compensation and we have unemployment insurance. It is a field which covers the workers of South Africa against misfortune. Now the hon. the Minister is creating a gap, a gulf, between those benefits into which he is prepared to throw all those who cannot, either because of their age or because of sickness, qualify for State assistance. He is debarring the man of 55 or 58 or 59, who may not be as fit as he was, in terms of this amendment, from unemployment insurance benefits unless he has worked for a fixed period in any particular year. He is driving that man into the arms of charity. He is saying to him: “We, the Government, are not interested in your welfare. You are too young for old-age pension; you are too fit for disability grants. You cannot get a job for 13 weeks in one year and therefore you cannot draw unemployment insurance.” [Interjections.] The only unemployed things my hon. friend from the Bush-veld over there has, are goats and sheep. He is trying to poke his nose into a debate which affects the workers of the cities of South Africa. This legislation does not apply to his part of the world. I say, and the Minister cannot deny it, that he is creating a vacuum into which thousands of South African workers are going to fall. He is going to place a load upon the charities of South Africa to help those people in their difficulties. People will be thrown on to the streets because they cannot pay their rents. Yet they will not be able to go to the very fund to which they have contributed in order to claim the benefits which they have bought for up to 16 years by their recontributions. What sympathy do we get for the mothers of South Africa who are forced to work? [Interjections.] Yes, laugh! That is their concern, Mr. Speaker, for the working mothers of South Africa, the mothers who this Government has forced to go to work, because it could not raise the economic standards of our people sufficiently for the husband to earn enough to keep his family. This Government has forced those mothers to work. No mother wants to work. No mother of her own free will will desert her children to go to work. She goes to work, Sir, because she is forced to do so in order to supplement the family income, because she has got to do so in order to feed her children and clothe them. And what do we get? An hon. member over there interjected at the beginning of this debate and said. “Not cost of living; cost of high living”. The laughter which we get now is the concern which they have for the mother who is forced to work. The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) also only has goats in his constituency. He is disinterested in the people he has forced into unemployment. He should go to an urban constituency; he should listen to the tales—the genuine tales—of trouble which families have to face. Mothers are forced, because of desertion by their husbands or because of the illness of their husbands, to go out to workand to earn a living and to feed their children. And what sympathy do they get? Laughter and jeers and contempt from a Government in whose hands their welfare rests. The hon. the Deputy Minister said that these cuts in the benefits were necessary in order to eliminate abuse.

Is that true or not?

I will ask the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) in a moment whether that is true or not. Last year on 7 February that same Deputy Minister introduced an amendment to this same Act, an amending Bill to close the loopholes of abuse. He said—

He then went on to explain how that Bill was necessary to close the loopholes and to prevent the abuse which was taking place under the Unemployment Insurance Act. Towards the end of the speech he said—

I now want to ask the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark whether the hon. the Deputy Minister was talking tripe last year as usual? In other words was that one big bluff? Was that amendment which he introduced, in fact, not an amendment to prevent abuse?

What is the point?

My point is this: If there are still abuses, then that Bill which we attacked last year was not intended, and failed, to prevent abuse, in which case the Deputy Minister must admit failure. He must admit that he introduced an amending Bill to close the loon-holes and that he must come to us a year later and admit that he has failed to close the loopholes. What are the loopholes? The same loopholes which this Bill before us at the moment claims to be closing. Either the measure of last year failed or it was a bluff: it was not intended to close loopholes. It was intended to penalize contributors to the Unemployment Insurance Fund. It was one or the other. It must be one or the other. It was either meant to close the loopholes and it failed or it was not meant to close the loopholes and therefore we have this measure today before us.

Hon. members on that side of the House, speaking on the same debate last year—the hon. the Deputy Minister himself—dealt with the abuses and listed them for three and a half columns—the abuses which were taking place and which he wanted to prevent. Tonight he was challenged by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton), by the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) and others to mention the abuses and he could think of only one little abuse; one abuse with which he dealt last year and which he claimed last year would be prevented by his amending Bill. Then he said he would have to ask the Unemployment Insurance Board. They will tell us what the abuses are. The Minister is in charge of the Bill and he does not even know the abuses he claims he is preventing. He has to refer to his own board!

He said you could ask the Board to find out what they are.

It is the hon. the Deputy Minister’s job to know what they are. I do not think the hon. the Minister knows anything at all about the workings of this Act. He cannot be expected to. That was why he put the Deputy Minister in charge of this debate. But all the Deputy Minister did was to get himself deeper into the mess. We have had other interesting reactions. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) came off his perch to tell us that maternity grants should never have been granted under this Fund, because it was against the principle of unemployment insurance. I want to ask him and the Minister: Is a woman who is unemployed because of pregnancy, less unemployed than one who loses her job for another reason?

She is so important that she should be carried wholly by the State; as the State’s burden.

Let the hon. the Minister tell us then what provision the State is making for the person who is so important as the hon. member has just indicated. The United Party has pleaded for years for family benefits for the mothers of South Africa. We have pleaded for assistance to the mothers of this country but we have been scorned by this Government. That hon. member laughed with his colleagues. They called it the “konynbeleid”; they called it the “breeding policy”. I ask him now to join with us in pleading with the Government to establish those benefits. The hon. member has pleaded for benefits. I now ask the Government, before this Bill is passed, to announce the steps which they intend taking to help the working mothers who are having babies. I ask that, Mr. Speaker, because their own members demand it. Not only us, but their own members demand it. If they do not announce those steps we are entitled to say to the working mothers of South Africa that this Government is disinterested in their welfare and is disinterested as to what is going to happen to their contributions to that fund. The hon. member for Krugersdorp also excluded sickness as one of the benefits which should be paid from the unemployment insurance fund. He said that did not belong there. Again, Mr. Speaker, does he regard a person who, through illness, is unable to work as lessentitled to the protection of the State than the man who loses his job for another reason?

You are twisting my words.

I am not twisting his arguments. I am repeating what he said. He said that sickness benefits should not be paid out of the unemployment insurance fund. Am I right or am I wrong?

You are right and wrong.

The hon. member stated that he did not believe that sickness benefits properly belonged under unemployment insurance. Mr. Speaker, if he believes that, is he telling the workers of this country who become ill that he is not interested in their welfare; he would rather look after the hobo about whom the Deputy Minister talked. He would rather look after them than after the worker who falls ill.

That is a distortion of the worse degree.

That word is not parliamentary.

I am not interested. I take it from whence it comes, Kruger Park or elsewhere. I am not interested in what he is saying to try to get out of it. I am interested in the fact that this Bill is removing the security which the contributors to the unemployment insurance fund have. That is the point. There is only one issue. It removes security from the workers of South Africa. Unilaterally it takes protection away from them, from mothers, from people who are ill and from people who cannot get employment for 13 weeks out of 52. Therefore this Government is prepared to say to those people: “We are not interested in insuring you.” If the Government were interested it would place something in place of these benefits before it took them away. Until the Government puts something in the place of those benefits we will fight with every voice we have to tell the workers of South Africa what this Government thinks of their welfare and their security. We know we won’t change their minds in this House. That is impossible.

There is nothing to change.

I agree. I did not want to say it but it is quite true. It would be impossible. You cannot change what is not there. We cannot change their minds in this House. But we can tell the workers of South Africa. The workers will change their minds and many of those hon. members will have to join the unemployment insurance queue. Yes, Mr. Speaker, then they will sing a different tune. They will sing a different tune when they stand in the unemployment insurance queue, when they become the hoboes, as the Deputy Minister calls those who draw unemployment insurance. The hon. the Deputy Minister ended by referring to the generosity of the Government to the workers. Generosity! Is it generosity when you take benefits away from them? “Yes,” he said, “the delegates to the Unemployment Insurance Board agreed to this. They agreed unanimously”. I am sorry the Deputy Minister is not here at the moment. I want to ask the hon. the Minister who is present this: The hon. the Deputy Minister said that the delegates of the Trade Unions were not bound to secrecy in regard to their activities on the Unemployment Insurance Board and were free to consult with their trade unions. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether those delegates on the Unemployment Insurance Board are free agents and whether they were free to discuss what went on in regard to this Bill with their trade unions.

I would say “yes”.

Thank you. In that case, Sir, I am entitled to use in this House, the memorandum submitted by the trade unions, because it is no longer a secret document and the hon. the Minister himself has given me permission to use that document in regard to this measure. I want to ask him to deny that he received a document dated 30 March from the Trade Union Council and that in this document the following words appear—

Now, Mr. Speaker, here is a Trade Union Council, the biggest trade union organization, a free democratic organization, and in a memorandum to the Minister they claim that they were not consulted because their delegates were sworn to secrecy. And the Minister says they are not sworn to secrecy. The Deputy Minister quoted the minutes of one meeting. He himself admitted that there were 11 meetings of that committee. Why did he only quote from the minutes of one meeting? When he was challenged from this side of the House to go further he said “That is all I have in front of me”. When he was asked to quote certain other things which had taken place he said “I have only this particular page of the minutes with me”. He could not elaborate. He could not give the other details. What about the other ten meetings? I now want to go further and want to ask the hon. the Minister what promise was made to the trade union delegates at the meeting whose minutes were quoted here, in order to get them to withdraw their recorded opposition to this Bill? They recorded opposition to the Bill. It was placed on record, and on a proposal duly seconded, they withdrew those objections. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to tell us what happened at that meeting immediately prior to the withdrawal of their objections. What promise was made to them? [Interjections.] I am not the Minister. I have not got the minutes. I want to know from the hon. the Minister what bait was dangled in front of those delegates. I ask him to deny further that they were told: “Here is a fund which must be strengthened. You have to accept some measure of strengthening the fund financially.” They were not given the option of asking the Government to increase its contribution to the fund. They were not given the option of increasing the Government’s interest rates on the use of that money. They were not given any other option. They were told that out of the workers’ contributions and the benefits paid the fund has to be balanced. In other words, they were given Hobson’s choice. They were told “either you have to increase the contributions by members or you have to reduce the benefits.” There was no other alternative. If there were why has the Deputy Minister or the Minister or any Government member not given to this House the other alternatives put forward. They said the fund had to be strengthened and that was the best way to do it. But in point of fact they knew that the Unemployment Insurance Board had a simple choice between increasing contributions or reducing benefits. There was no other choice before the Board. I want to know what bait was dangled in front of them, what promises were made, in order to get them to withdraw their objection to this Bill.

Finally I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has given any undertaking that these recommendations to him, these objections to the Bill, would be considered by the Unemployment Insurance Board before this Bill became law and whether in fact, we are now having a sham debate. The Minister himself has given an undertaking that this matter will be reconsidered by the Unemployment Insurance Board. If it should come to him with an alternative proposal, he would have bound this House in principle in accepting the second reading knowing at the same time that he has promised reconsideration to the Trade Union Council. Is that how this House is treated Sir? Are we to continue with the debate when the Minister himself has referred the subject of this debate back to the Unemployment Insurance Board? It is a serious situation, Mr. Speaker. It is a serious situation when this House is treated with contempt. Hon. members laugh; we know they are not interested. I am asking the hon. the Minister now to tell us whether he is treating the Trade Union Council with contempt or is he treating this House with contempt? Because either he was serious when he said that these recommendations would be reconsidered, in which case he is treating the House with contempt, or he was not serious, in which case he in bluffing the Trade Union Council, he is bluffing the workers and he intends to go ahead irrespective of any reconsideration which may take place. But he must tell this House whom he is misleading in regard to reconsideration. He must tell us whether this debate is in fact the final decision on principle or whether there is still an opening for reconsideration. The hon. the Minister himself said there was no secrecy in this matter. Therefore I have every right to quote him what has happened and to ask him to tell this House about it. I ask him finally to tell this House by what right is he justified in depriving working mothers of rights, in forcing people to obtain employment or forfeiting their benefits no matter how long they have contributed and no matter what period is to their credit and in infringing those rights for which people have already contributed. Until the hon. the Minister can satisfy this House and the workers of South Africa, we on this side of the House are entitled to say that the Government is neglecting the interests of the workers and we will oppose this Bill when it comes to a decision.

I think I should deal at once with the remarks of the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) in regard to a deputation that came to see me. It is true that a deputation of the T.U.C. came to see me and another deputation from the garment workers also saw me about this Bill. They alleged that they had not been properly consulted. I pointed out to them that they had a representative on the Unemployment Insurance Board and that any decision taken by the Board had been taken with the approval of their representative. The representative himself was present at this interview with me, and it is true that he pointed out to me that any discussions which had taken place on the Board he had regarded as confidential. But I immediately put the point to him that if he was the representative of the trade union, then whatever was discussed in the Board, it was his duty to tell the body which had nominated him on that Board, and it appeared to me also that they may have been fully alive to the provisions contained in the Bill after the discussion I had with them.

They made two requests to me. The first was that I should withdraw this Bill to give them a further opportunity of going into the implications of the Bill, the second was, that if I could not withdraw the Bill I should send it to a Select Committee. I refused both requests. In the first instance I said that it was quite impossible for any responsible Minister to withdraw a Bill which was already halfway through its second reading and which represented government policy. Secondly I stated that I was not prepared to send it to a Select Committee, either before or after the second reading, because I was quite certain that a Select Committee could not give me any information additional to what I had already received. I was guided naturally by the investigation by the Unemployment Insurance Board. They had been considering this matter for a long period of time; they had consultations with the people who were concerned and interested in it; they had representatives, as I said just now, of the trade unions which were interested, and they had these long drawn-out investigations. As a result of those investigations the recommendation was made that an amending Bill should be introduced in terms which they propose. So that it seems to me that as far as the trade unions are concerned, they had ample opportunity of making their voice heard. But I did give this undertaking to them: I said that apparently there were two main points about which they were mainly concerned; the one was the question of maternity benefits and the other was the question of short time. Those were really the two features of the Bill which they were most concerned about. I said this to them: After listening to your representations, I am perfectly willing to refer those representations to the Unemployment Insurance Board to see what their reaction is, and in order to enable that to be done, I would in due course ask for a period of time between the second reading and the Committee Stage so that I would have an opportunity of hearing from the Unemployment Insurance Board as to what their reaction was to this difficulty. I pointed out at the same time that once the second reading had been taken, certain principles in the Bill could not be altered, but that in the Committee Stage questions of administration might be considered; there might be the question of giving the Minister a discretion in certain matters, and I said that I would be prepared to consider such proposals, but obviously in Committee of the Whole House the principles could not be altered. They understood that and accepted it. That is how the matter stands as far as the representations of these trade unions are concerned, and I ask hon. members whether that is fair or not.

No, most unfair.

I think that is a fair proposition, and they accepted it and they expressed the hope that there would be some alleviation in regard to some of the restrictions envisaged in the Bill.

Can we discuss the principle in Committee?

Once the principle has been accepted by this House at the second reading, the Committee of the Whole House cannot alter the principle, but then it is a question of the interpretation as to what are principles and as to what are questions of administration.

What is the principle in this Bill?

I think I have made it quite clear as to what happened when that deputation saw me and what my attitude was in the case, so that I am completely free now to take the second reading of this Bill. I will provide for time before the Committee Stage is taken, so that I can hear what the reaction of the Unemployment Insurance Board is. After all they are the experts and they must advise me in regard to these matters.

What promises were made?

I told the hon. member what promises I made.

What happened in the Board?

I don’t know. I was not present at the discussions in the Board.

Mr. Speaker, before I deal with certain points raised by hon. members, let me just say that I owe the House an apology for not being present this afternoon when certain speeches were made. I was unavoidably detained in the Other Place and I could not come here to listen to those speeches, but the Deputy Minister was here and he made a note of what was said.

At the outset I must express my disappointment at the irresponsible nature of the attack on this Bill by the Opposition. Of course I admit that an Opposition is entitled to be irresponsible, but I don’t think they should be recklessly irresponsible. I made it quite clear in my opening remarks when I introduced the second reading of this Bill that it was a serious attempt to comply with a recommendation of the Public Accounts Select Committee, and that it was a serious endeavour to try to put a stop to certain abuses which were partly responsible (only partly) for the unfavourable turn in the financial position of the Fund. Now certain hon. members have asked: What were these abuses? Well, if I have time I will give hon. members the details of a long list I have here. The list consists of almost ten foolscap pages. but let me get on to the more serious aspects of this Bill first. As I say, it was an endeavour to put a stop to certain abuses which had taken place and which were responsible partly for the unfavourable downward trend of the Insurance Fund and that these proposals have had the unanimous support of the Unemployment Insurance Board, on which the principal employers’ organizations and the trade unions were represented. I want to emphasize that.

What was the response of the Opposition? I say that they made a reprehensible attempt to make political capital out of the interests of the workers, sometimes carried to ridiculous extremes. We had the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) in what I would call his most mischievous mood. He was in his best melodramatic form. He appealed to his back-benchers for applause, but apparently they themselves had very little stomach for this type of attack on a Bill primarily designed to protect the interests of genuine workers.

Mr. Speaker, before I deal with the individual members of the Opposition (I am going to deal with some of them), I should like to refer to some of the mistaken ideas which critics of the Bill hold. First of all let me deal with the argument that was advanced by the hon. member for Yeoville particularly, that the Unemployment Insurance Act is in effect an insurance contract. I reject this proposition at once. There is no analogy between an Act of Parliament and a private contract.

The workers merely pay!

Every Act øf Parliament affects the daily life of one or other group of our citizens, and government would become impossible if the principle were to be accepted that an Act of Parliament which creates rights and privileges could never be amended. Mr. Speaker, it is fundamental to the principle of Parliamentary government that Parliament has an absolute right to amend the laws of the country as and when they consider it in the public interest to do so.

Let me deal with another misconception raised by hon. members in the Opposition, and that is that the Unemployment Insurance Fund only belongs to the workers and that they, and they only, have an absolute right to dispose of it. Even if this argument were correct, I have the approval of the workers’ representatives for the contents of the Bill through their representation on the Board. But leaving that argument aside, this has been a matter I find that has been raised before, and it was disposed of by my predecessor, the present Minister of the Interior, in a debate in this House on 27 June 1959. Senator de Klerk said this (Hansard, Col. 9351)—

Who gets the benefits?

The workers of course.

It is their money.

Yes, but it is not their fund. I am simply making the point that this is not a fund which belongs to the workers alone. It is a fund to which the employers and the state contribute very substantially. The position to-day is exactly the same, except that the figures quoted by Senator de Klerk have increased. Of course I readily admit that the workers have a very vital interest in the Fund, but I think I should put this matter in its true perspective. It is quite true that the sole object of the Fund is to help the workers.I admit that. But the Fund does not belong exclusively to the workers. The other contributors, that is the state and the employer, who together contribute the bulk of the Fund, also surely has a say and should have a very real say in the administration of the Fund.

I think I should also like to say a word about the relationship between contributions and benefits. One has heard a lot of loose talk about workers being entitled to withdraw their money out of the Fund. Let me assure the House that the amount a worker could withdraw if this request were acceded to, would be very small indeed. Take for instance Group 8, which is the wage group of R1,170 to R1,326 per annum. The worker’s rate of contribution is 8 cents per week or R4.16 per year. So if the worker contributes for ten years and is the allowed to take his contributions out, he will draw only R41.60.

Plus interest.

Actually when he is unemployed he draws this amount in just over four weeks at the rate of R9.80 per week, and if he is unemployed for any length of time, he draws many times his own contributions. Mr. Speaker, this Unemployment Fund is not a savings or an investment fund. It would be wrong for the worker to look for a financial return from his contributions to the Fund, and indeed I am certain that genuine workers appreciate that the man or woman who has never need to call on the Fund is extremely fortunate. These workers, we all know, are the backbone of our industrial development in this country; they gladly contribute to the Fund to assist those who are less fortunate than they are. The claim that “this is our fund, let me draw my money” does not come from the workers. It comes from a sense of political frustration on the part of Opposition politicians who cannot or will not realize that the workers of South Africa would prefer to be left alone to themselves to work out their own salvation.

A great deal was also made by Opposition members of the alleged effect of the Bill on those who are either too old or too sick to work. Mr. Speaker, however great one’s sympathy might be for those people who are ill and who are getting old, it is neither fair nor practical to expect the Unemployment Insurance Fund to carry that burden. It is not meant to do that. This Government has in my submission given ample proof of its desire to alleviate hardship, as witnessed by the increase in the old age pensions which were recently announced by my colleague, the Minister of Finance. I think I would be failing in my duty and the Unemployment Insurance Board would also be failing in its duty, a duty which they owe to the workers of South Africa, if we did not reject the conception of the Unemployment Insurance Fund as an old age relief fund or a sickness insurance fund or a charitable fund. It is none of these things. It is nothing more or less than a fund designed to help the workers over periods of temporary unemployment. Old age pensioners who have cased to work, married women who have left employment to become housewives and the chronic sick who can no longer work, in fact all those who have ceased to be workers, must be looked after by other organizations and not this Unemployment Insurance Fund. These people cannot be carried by the Unemployment Insurance Fund, and that was the basic principle behind the original Act of 1946, and the amendments now proposed are simply designed to correct some of the anomalies which if not corrected now, must lead to a serious depletion of the Fund at the expense of its ability to fulfil its primary purpose.

Now I come to the question I dealt with already, the deputations which interviewed me, and I want to repeat that I could not agree with the contention that the representatives of those unions, one or more, who sit on the Unemployment Insurance Board, should treat any matter which he hears there as confidential. I told the deputation that, because, as I have already said, the representative is there as the representative of that particular body and it is his duty to report back to that body what proposals are afoot. I want to say this that if the Unemployment Insurance Board is prepared to amend or alter any of their recommendations which are not against the principles of this Bill, and as long as they do not involve any departure of government policy, I do not feel that I should substitute for the Board’s proposals suggestions made by other bodies which have no statutory responsibility in this matter. But if the Board wishes to modify any of their recommendations, and it may well be that there are good reasons to do so, then I shall consider those proposals in the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant), and the hon. member for Orange Gove. These hon. members made great play with their talk of punishing the workers (these were the words they used) and they say: Why punish the innocent with the guilty? For myself and this side of the House, I repudiate any suggestion that there is any thought of punishment in this Bill. Neither the Government, nor the Nationalist Party initiated this measure. It came from the Unemployment Insurance Board. It was drawn up by the body which is responsible as a result of the inquiry by the Select Committee on Public Accounts.

Does the Government not accept responsibility?

It was drawn up by the body responsible for advising me on all matters connected with the administration of the Fund, and I don’t think it would be out of place for me to congratulate the Board on their sensible approach to a serious problem and on their firmness of purpose in dealing with this problem. It is a difficult problem. Unlike hon. members opposite, the Unemployment Insurance Board is a representative and responsible body, and of course it represents all the people who are concerned in the matter; it represents the employers, the workers and the State.

I think that a lot of the points raised by hon. members can be dealt with in Committee Stage as matters of detail.

I would like, however, to say a word or two about the reference to the difficulty experience by workers in their fifties who become unemployed. I think the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) raised that question as did also the hon. member for Durban-Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield). My department is only too well aware of the fact that men without specific qualifications, particularly our clerical workers, who lose their employment at any age after 55, find it most difficult to obtain employment. We know that. On the other hand, the Unemployment Insurance Fund cannot be used as a permanent means for subsistence for persons who are no longer in the labour market.

Why not? They have to live.

That is not the object of the Fund. The object of the Fund is to tide them over temporary unemployment. The provisions of the new paragraph (m) which are introduced by Clause 3 (b) are designed to prevent this happening. The effect of the paragraph is that a contributor who becomes and remains genuinely unemployed will draw benefits without question for a period of six months. Thereafter the Board can in terms of Section 39 (3) of the Act authorize the payment of further benefits for an unlimited period. So hon. members will see at once that the genuine work-seeker has nothing to fear from this new provision which does not interfere in any way with the Board’s powers to extend the initial period of six months during which benefits are payable. That period can be extended. Incidentally any contributor who draws unemployment benefits for 12 months gets far more out of the Fund than they ever paid into it, as hon. members appreciate. Take the contributor in Group 8 again who has contributed continuously since 1947 when the Unemployment Benefit Act came into operation. He contributes at the present rate 8 cents per week. In 20 years he contributes a total of R83.20. If unemployed for 12 months, he draws R519.60, more than six times what he has paid in. That is how it should be.

Your own argument was that this fund is not a savings institution.

I am trying to make the point what they draw out of the Fund if they were allowed to withdraw their contributions; it is nowhere in proportion to what they draw in unemployment insurance over a period of 12 months.

Several hon. members have raised the question of the investment of this Unemployment Insurance Fund. I believe this afternoon, when I was not here, the matter was raised by the hon. member for Kensington and the hon. member for Houghton, and they pleaded that this Unemployment Insurance Fund should be invested to better effect. I would like to give hon. members a statement showing how this fund is invested. This is a question, I understand, that has been raised for years, and I would like to have it on record now of what this investment really means. As hon. members know there is a provision in the Act which stipulates that surplus moneys shall be deposited with the public debt commissioners for investment, and some hon. members asked how they invest the money. The effect of this requirement is that such funds are normally used to purchase Government stock. The Fund at present holds stock to the value of R121,000,000. This amount has of course been accumulated over a period of some years. Interest rates were very unfavourable when the first Unemployment Benefit Fund was set up in 1937. Consequently the Fund at present holds an appreciable amount of stock at low rates of interest, and the following are examples of some of the Government stock at present held by the Fund, which may be of some interest to hon. members. I give the redemption dates first, then the nominal value and then the interest rate, and I give round figures:

1957-62: Stock of just over R2,000,000 at 2⅝per cent.

Long-term loans?

When was the money invested? It must be a long time ago?

May be in 1937.

That money could have been withdrawn in 1957.

1963-8: over R5,000,000 at 2 per cent; 1960-70: more than R6,000,000 at 3 per cent; 1959-69: more than R5.000,000 at 3 per cent; 1965-7: more than R8,000,000 at 3¼ per cent; 1963-6: more than R7,000,000 at 3¼ per cent; 1964-7: more than R7,000,000 at 4 per cent; 1957: more than R7,000,000 at 4¾ percent; and 1978: more than R6,000,000 at 5¼ per cent. Hon. members will, therefore, see that the average rate of interest is 3.813 per cent. This average rises every year as old sock at low rates of interest is redeemed and new stock purchased at the ruling higher rates of interest. It will be observed that the rate of interest on the stock which was last purchased is, accordingly, 5¼ per cent. It should also be pointed out that the Fund holds very little money on call. Most of the money was used years ago to purchase Government stock. This stock can be realized at par when it falls due for redemption, and is then re-invested in stock bearing higher rates of interest. Generally speaking, it would not be advantageous for the Fund to sell low-interest stock at a loss if a buyer could be found, in order to reinvest. This, however, is a matter on which the public debt commissioners are best able to advise. I, however, want to give an example of what they did recently. They recently sold 3½ per cent, stock for just over R3,000,000 which resulted in a book loss of R112,000. With the proceeds, however, they bought stock for more than R3,000,000 bearing interest at 51 per cent. Taking all factors into consideration, the public debt commissioners calculate that the end result will be a net gain to the Fund of a sum of R96,000 by 1 February 1965—apart from the advantage of having obtained a large holding of 51 per cent stock. It is, therefore, felt that on balance the present system of investing funds through the public debt commissioners, should not be disturbed and in saying this I bear in mind the point made by the hon. member for Houghton, namely that we have to be careful as to how we invest the moneys in this Fund. This should be done in gilt-edge. It is a very important Fund and we should therefore be very careful. The tendency seems to be that investment is made on short-term rather than on long-term stock because one never knows when there will be a call on the Fund.

Do I understand from the hon. the Minister’s remarks that the public debt commissioners sold stock below par?

Yes, they sold stock which was invested at 3½ per cent in order to re-invest it in stocks bearing an interest rate of 5⅞ per cent. As I pointed out, the Fund in the end will make a profit of R96,000.

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether if a capital loss is made, it is written off as a loss, and what the position is if stock is bought well below par? Is the defference in due course accounted for as profit?

I will give that information to hon. members when the House is in Committee on the Bill. That is a pertinent question and I will, therefore, obtain the information. The information I have given above, ought to satisfy hon. members that every care is being taken to invest moneys in this Fund to the best advantage.

I now come to the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant). He is not present tonight, but he informed me before hand that he would not be present. I think, however, that I should make some reference to some of the remarks he made when he participated in this debate. He is the man who claims to have fathered more than 22,000 babies during the past 12 months! He admitted, however, that he had some assistance from his colleagues! Not only did he say this, but he went on to say that they had maintained a consistent record in this regard over the past four years. Mr. Speaker, if any proof was needed for my allegation that the opposition to this Bill was rather artificial, the matter is clinched by the suggestion of the hon. member for Turffontein that South Africa did not need an immigration policy but that we only needed to increase the maternity benefits. That was his argument. But the hon. member conveniently overlooked the fact that maternity benefits are payable to all races either under the Unemployment Insurance Act or under the Factories, Machinery and Building Work Act. Well, quite a number of the babies for whom he claims political fatherhood, were non-Europeans! The whole tone of the references of that non. member to maternity allowances, was, I think, misplaced. Does he seriously suggest that working women have babies solely in order to be able to draw some money from the Unemployment Insurance Fund? I hope not, because such a suggestion would reveal an attitude of mind towards working mothers which, I am sure, will be repudiated by every member in this House. I can only reiterate that the whole object of this provision is to help working mothers who are temporarily unemployed during and after their pregnancy. Hon. members talk about not wanting our women to work. Are they prepared to go a step further and to prohibit married women from working? Why should they not be logical and suggest this? Hon. members know, as well as I do, that the working woman is making a valuable contribution to our economy and what is more, this can be said right throughout the civilized world. My attitude in this regard is a realistic one. We know that married women will go on working and we will ensure that the Fund, which is designed to help them, will not be used for other purposes.

Finally, Sir, the hon. member for Turffontein accused me of being inaccurate in regard to the year from which the Fund first showed a deficit. I told the House that the Fund had shown a deficit from 1959 onwards. The hon. member quoted the report of the Controller and Auditor-General as authority for a statement that a deficit had been reflected in this Fund since 1957. I wish to point out that when that hon. member purports to set himself up as a financial authority, he should at least make sure that he has studied his documents properly. I find that the relevant passage of the Controller and Auditor-General’s Report does not deal with the Fund’s income and expenditure account, but with the difference between the total contributions and the expenditure on benefits. That is something quite different from a deficit on the overall operation of the Fund.

There is a further point which is of interest and with which I wish to deal, namely the point raised by the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) in regard to the question of having an actuarial assessment of the Fund. The hon. member referred to the report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts in which the Secretary for Labour is reported as having been asked certain questions and to which that official replied to the effect that there was no provision in the Act for any actuarial investigation of the Fund and that in 1957 the actuaries gave the Department no actuarial advice regarding the Fund. That is quite correct. The hon. member for Orange Grove, however, showed that he did not fully appreciate the position when he suggested that an actuarial investigation of the Fund should be made. That, I think, is quite impossible. The Government actuaries have assured the Department time and again that it was not possible to base an actuarial report on unemployment insurance because future unemployment could not be actuarily calculated. That is, apparently, something quite outside any actuarial science. The only advice we have ever had from the actuaries was that they strongly recommended that we should build up a strong fund. This is what we have done.

This Bill has been very fully debated and I do not, therefore, think it is necessary for me to deal with any further points. Arguments from that side of the House were met by arguments from this side of the House and there is really nothing more for me to add. I, therefore, now move that the Bill be read a second time.

Question: That all the words after “That” proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion,

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—69: Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, S. P.; Cloete, J. H.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Wet, C.; Diederichs, N.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Frank, S.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Knobel, G. J.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Loots, J. J.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, A. I.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Nel, J. A. F.; Niemand, F. J.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

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

NOES—36: Basson, J. A. L.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Connan, J. M.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodd, P. R.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Raw, W. V.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Taurog, L. B.; Tucker, H.; van Niekerk, S. M;. Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

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

Question affirmed and the amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a second time.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This amending Bill contains two clauses, both of which have the same objective. Society observes this principle that when a person causes another person to suffer damage, the person who has caused the damage has to accept the responsibility for it. That is a basic principle. If I change the course of a stream of water on my property thereby causing damage to my neighbour, I am responsible for the damage which he suffers. If I dig a hole on my property which will cause the house of my neighbour to collapse I am responsible for the damage. That is a basic principle of our legal system which is recognized as such in Section 83 of the Post Office Act. It often happens that a city council lays out streets and roads and erven and the post office lays telephone wires and cables. If the same city council changes its roads, streets and erven with the result that the post office cables have to be relaid, it is only right that the urban authority should bear the costs. Strangely enough there is an exception to this rule in the case of provincial and divisional councils. If a provincial or divisional council changes a road, they may build it right across the telephone wires and cables of the post office and in that case the post office has to relay those wires at its own expense. That is the exception to the general rule, namely that the body responsible for the damage does not bear the costs but that the costs are borne by the body suffering the damage. That is in conflict with the general legal principle which forms the basis of our entire legal system. Some time ago it happened that the Government had to build a dam in a ravine and in that way obstructed the provincial council road which ran through that ravine. The provincial council concerned was obliged to build another road at a very high cost and it was obliged to bear that cost itself. This principle is not right; in other words it is not right that the body which causes the damage should not be responsible for it. The opposite is more reasonable, namely that the body which has caused the damage, should also be responsible for it. In the case of the dam to which I have referred, the provincial administration concerned was not only obliged to build another road, but it has to construct a high bridge as well. Consequently the provincial administration sustained severe losses. It was on that occasion that the provincial council came to a full realization of the injustice of this rule and approached the Government with the request that the Government should see to it that the ordinary legal principle should also be observed in those cases, namely that the body who has caused the damage should also bear the costs. The Government then decided that where it constructed a dam with the result that the course of a provincial road has to be altered, the Government should bear the costs of the new road. Furthermore it was decided that if the principle applied in respect of actions by the Government, it should also apply in respect of actions by the provincial councils and divisional councils; In other words, if a provincial council deviates a road with the result that the post office has to change its cables, the provincial council or the divisional council concerned, as the case may be, should carry the costs. That is after all the general principle which is basic to our legal system, namely that a person or body who causes the damage, should also accept responsibility for the costs of restoring that damage. So far Sections 83 and 108 of the Post Office Act have provided for an exception to this sensible principle, but the object of this amending Bill is to do away with this exception and to make the ordinary legal principle applicable. That is the only matter which this amending Bill deals with.

Basically this Bill contains much more than what the hon. the Minister told us it contained. Basically, it tries to do away with an entrenched custom and a well established privilege of provincial councils and in view of this, we, on this side of the House, cannot let it pass without subjecting it to the closest scrutiny. What is, in fact, happening here, Mr. Speaker? At present the position is that when a provincial or divisional council builds a road, or a school, or a hospital, it, more often than not, becomes necessary for some telephone lines to be removed in the process. They have to be removed to facilitate the provision of a worthy cause, such as roads, a sorely needed hospital or a much needed school. The position up to now has been that the provincial council or divisional council was not called upon to pay for such displacement of telephone wires or poles. On the contrary, the cost therefore was borne by the post office. It is not so that the post office did not obtain a quid pro quo, or no compensation for the cost it bore for the removal of the wiring in question. The position, after all, is that the new roads will be used by post office vans without it having to pay any contribution towards their upkeep. What is more, these roads provide an essential access to telegraph and telephone lines, an access which is needed when these lines have to be reached for repairs. Furthermore, the post office is often entitled to make use of servitudes attached to land used by provincial councils or the divisional council, in order to lay telephone lines of erect poles. Even when the building of a new school or hospital involves the rerouting of cables, the post office is often handsomely rewarded for that work by virtue of the new business which results therefrom.

I regard this Bill as being an unwarranted infringement upon the rights of the provinces. Parliament is jealous of its own rights and liberties; it should be equally jealous of the rights and liberties of lesser bodies, such as divisional and provincial councils especially in view of the fact that these bodies have no voice in this House. It is, therefore, our duty to act as guardian of their rights and privileges. We have to be their protectors. We shall not leave provincial and divisional councils naked and voiceless in the face of this attack. We particularly deplore the extensive powers which are being granted to the hon. the Minister in this amending Bill. The Minister is being given the supreme power to decide whether a provincial road or building makes the removal of a line or cable necessary. I realize that the original Post Office Act provided that—

Now, however, the powers of the Minister are being extended in that he will in future have the same power over provincial and divisional councils. This prompts me to put my first important question, namely to what extent were the divisional and provincial councils actually consulted in regard to this Bill? If consultation has, in fact, taken place, we should like to know with whom, when, where and how such consultation took place. Our information is that whatever consultation there has been, was of a very sketchy nature, and that provincial and divisional councils had, in fact, been presented with a fait accompli. It was not a question of telling them that they could take it or leave it, but of saying to them that they could take it, or else! Surely, Sir, in a matter such as this consultation is of the very essence, and it was essential that provincial and divisional councils should have been consulted at the very highest level.

Did the hon. member consult the provincial and divisional councils in order to oppose this Bill?

I am very happy to reply to that hon. member that we have people with whom we can consult, people with a knowledge of provincial matters. [Interjections]. Amongst them there are responsible provincial councillors, also members serving on the Divisional Council Congress of the Cape, people who in the past had served on executive committees of provincial councils. There are people, very responsible people in the provincial and divisional councils who are concerned about what is happening, and who are concerned about not having been properly consulted in this issue. If the Department of Bantu Administration and Development were to build a road through the Transkei to connect, say, Basutoland with the coast, involving the relaying of telephone lines and cables, the post office would, no doubt, pay the Transkeian Territorial Authority any cost involved in this relaying, but if the provincial council of the Cape, of the Transvaal, or Natal built a road, the provincial council concerned would have to pay.