I should like to make a short statement in consequence of what took place in the House yesterday during the debate on the motion for the second reading of the Population Registration Amendment Bill.

In the past the words “distort” or “twist”, “distorting” or “twisting” and “distorter” or “twister” have always been regarded as unparliamentary, and members using such expressions have been ordered to withdraw them.

The hon. the Minister of the Interior referred yesterday to a quotation by the hon. member for Turffontein from a previous speech of the hon. the Minister, and stated that he made it “in a… distorted form to create a different impression.…”

After consideration, I have decided that the expression “distorted form” or “twisted form” will also be regarded as unparliamentary in future.

In the course of the speech of the hon. the Minister of the Interior, the hon. member for Turffontein was challenged to ask for the appointment of a select committee to determine whether or not he had misrepresented a previous speech of the hon. the Minister by the quotations which he made in the House. I wish to point out that all the facts in connection with this matter are known to the House and are on record and, therefore, any hon. member can satisfy himself as to what the actual position is. As a matter of fact, hon. members have frequently contended in the past that their speeches have been quoted out of context by other hon. members, but no further steps were taken. Under the circumstances I cannot see what purpose will be served by the appointment of a select committee to inquire into this matter, but it is, of course, for the House itself to decide what action should be taken.

Mr. Speaker, in view of your statement and your ruling that the words “in a distorted form” will in future be regarded as unparliamentary, which words were withdrawn by the hon. the Minister, and because the House is in possession of all the relevant facts, I do not propose to take the action which I contemplated taking.

When the debate was adjourned, we were discussing Clause 3 and, at this stage, I wish to move an amendment to Clause 3—

The reason for moving this amendment I think will be quite clear to those who made a study of the Act and of the amendment proposed by the hon. the Minister. In the first place, I do not think that it was intended that a period of nine months’ continuous training, or even, for that matter, the secondary period of three weeks’ each, were intended to act as a disqualification in respect of contributors to the Unemployment Insurance Fund if they subsequently, at the completion of such training, found themselves unemployed. I do not think that was the intention. If that was the intention, it would be most unfortunate, but in terms of this amendment any period of service in the Defence Force will be disregarded for the purpose of claims in terms of the Act. Now it may sound a little complicated, but I think an example will show exactly what can happen if the clause is not amended at all. It can happen that a person who has turned 17 this year and registers in terms of the Act and who is balloted for, in terms of the relevant provisions may not be called upon to take part in the training until the latter part of next year. In other words, a period of one year and nine months from the date of registration he will not be called up, but during that period of one year and nine months the person concerned may be in employment, and he would have built up credits in terms of the Unemployment Insurance Act. But then immediately preceding the period, before going on the training schedule, he may become unemployed, and then, having completed the nine months in this Citizen Force, he returns to civilian life and is not immediately placed in employment. As the Act is now, that person could apply for benefits, but in terms of this amending Bill, because he was not in employment for the full 13 weeks during that period of one year, he will be disqualified when applying for benefits. If the Minister were to accept my amendment that could not happen. That period of time, the nine months or the subsequent period, will be disregarded for the purpose of determining whether or not the applicant had 13 weeks’ employment during the period of 12 months prior to the application. I think it is one of the provisions in respect of which this amendment seeks to lessen the effect of the Minister’s Bill, and I am hoping that the hon. the Minister will see his way clear to accept this amendment.

We find Clause 3, as it is, objectionable practically in every particular, and I want to deal with a point that I made in passing when we debated this question before, viz. the effect that particularly sub-paragraph (m) will have in respect of workers who have been in employment for a considerable number of years. I would say that, over a period of ten years, a contributor would be able to build up quite considerable credits, and over that period not being unemployed at all. Then, due to facts outside of his control (the unemployment position being as it is to-day as an illustration), that person becomes unemployed and does qualify and does receive benefits for the maximum of 26 weeks. For the next six months the Department of Labour is unable to obtain employment for him and, in terms of subparagraph (m), he then will not be able to get a subsequent period of benefits because he has not been in employment for 13 weeks during the preceding 12 months. It is true that the hon. the Minister has the power to review such a case, but it is a limited power. He can only exercise that power if, in the opinion of the Minister, there is considerable unemployment, and I think that if this new sub-clause (m) becomes a permanent part of the Act it may lead to the following situation: The degree of unemployment can be considerably reduced to a point where the hon. the Minister will not be able to claim that he is operating in respect of a particular applicant, because there is considerable unemployment in that particular trade or industry. Therefore I say to the hon. the Minister that it is quite possible, in terms of this amending Bill, for a person to have the necessary credits which entitles him, as the present Act reads, to more than one period of six months’ benefits, but because of the limitations placed in the Act by this amending Bill, he will not have the necessary qualifying period of 13 weeks in that particular second year. I say to the hon. the Minister: Is it reasonable for a contributor who has the necessary credits, who is unable to obtain employment, and where the Department has failed to get employment for him, is it fair that he should now be deprived of the credits which he has built up over a long period of years? This particular contributor may not be a sick person at all—the other clauses deal with the sick benefits; this is in respect of a person who is willing and able to work but cannot find employment, and because of that we find now that under the provisions which the hon. the Minister is introducing in this Bill, he will deprive him of a second period of unemployment benefits, even though he has the necessary credits. I think that this is a provision which cannot be supported. It surprises me that there are hon. members on the other side of the House who are prepared to support this provision knowing the hardships and the unfairness it imposes upon those contributors who have got the necessary credits, and who are unable to get employment. When we discussed this at an earlier stage, the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) said that I was misinterpreting the position, because I had mentioned a case of this sort in respect of an earlier clause. I did so deliberately to illustrate to the Committee exactly what the Committee is doing by way of this amending Bill, and I think that an opportunity now presents itself to the supporters of this Bill to get up and defend this provision. It is no use claiming as a defence that the Unemployment Insurance Board, by a majority decision, has supported this measure. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) was good enough to hand me a copy of this amendment this morning and I have had time to study it. I appreciate the reasons which the hon. member has advanced for this amendment, but I don’t think that this amendment will achieve what he has in mind. I should like to point out to the hon. member that a period of unemployment is only deemed to have commenced when the contributor applies for benefits under the Act. If this contributor to whom the hon. member refers applies for benefits after his return from military service, his unemployment commences then, when he makes his application, and it is quite purposeless, I think, to provide in the Act that he shall not be regarded as having been unemployed during the period in which, as the Act now stands, he is not regarded as being unemployed. In other words, the period of his military service of nine months is simply a suspension of his employment, it is not regarded as being a period of unemployment. As I say, I assume that what the hon. member is seeking to ensure is that this person will not be penalized, and that this contributor who is compelled to undergo military service for the period of nine months, under the Defence Act, will not be penalized by the fact that he does not contribute during that period of nine months to the Fund. The hon. member fears that if it is possible that he may fail to qualify for benefits on completion of his military service by reason of this new subparagraph (m).

As I have said, the case which the hon. member has made seems to me to be prima facie reasonable, but I think hon. members will realize that I will have to consult the authorities on the effect of such an amendment, and also whether such an amendment is indeed necessary as the Act now stands. I am prepared to consult the authorities. As a matter of fact, I have already done so. I have this morning put in train a request to the Unemployment Insurance Board to go into this question because I do regard it as important, and if it should be necessary to insert an amendment in respect of paragraph (m), I will undertake to do so in the Other Place. But it is a highly technical matter, and I want to be quite certain that an amendment is necessary.

The hon. member has returned now to the effect of the new paragraph (m) of Clause 3 (b). Mr. Chairman, may I point out to the Committee that under Section 39 (3) of the Act, the right to a benefit may be extended, and the effect therefore is that a genuine workseeker who remains unemployed can draw benefits for a continuous period of 12 months provided he has the necessary credits. I think hon. members will agree with me that he can hardly be regarded as being temporarily unemployed (that is after the period of 12 months), and to continue paying benefits would transform the Fund into a charitable institution. When a man has been continuously unemployed for 12 months, the presumption, I think, arises that he is no longer in the labour market, and in order to qualify for benefits in terms of this amendment, he must work in some capacity or other, not necessarily as a contributor, for a total of 13 weeks. I think that is quite reasonable. This period that he has to work need not be continuous. I submit that this is a reasonable requirement. I should like to give hon. members some examples of countries where a much more drastic provision applies, and I am referring to certain Western countries where similar legislation has been passed. I have taken these examples from a United States government publication called “Social Security Programmes Throughout the World”. It is dated 1961, and in each case the reference is to the qualifications before any unemployment benefits can be drawn. In Austria there must be 20 weeks’ coverage for the last 12 months. In Belgium 150 days for the last ten months; in Canada 30 weeks for the last two years; Denmark 26 weeks’ employment for the last 18 months: France 150 days’ paid employment for the last year; Greece 125 days’ insured employment for the last 12 months; Italy one year’s contributions for the last two years; Japan six months’ insurance for the last 12 months; the Netherlands, 78 days’ employment for the last 12 months; Norway, 30 weeks’ insurance for the last year, or 45 weeks’ insurance for the last three years; Sweden, 20 weeks’ employment for the last 12 months; Switzerland, 150 days’ employment for the last 365 days.

What does that justify?

It shows that in all these Western countries the position is very much more drastic than this amendment which is now proposed in this Bill.

May I put a question? In all these countries quoted by the hon. the Minister, do they have a system of building up credits?

Yes, the same system of building up credits.

I think I also ought to deal with the question raised by the hon. member in regard to the building up of credits. The case he makes is that a person should not be penalized if he has built up certain credits and is entitled to use those credits. I think it necessary to remind the Committee that during a period of only six months’ unemployment a worker may draw many times the amount of his contributions. I think the hon. member will concede that. The Fund therefore is not indebted to him. On the contrary, he benefits from contributions made by his fellow-workers and the employers and the State. I can see nothing wrong myself with the principle that there should be a minimum drain on the Fund. I would also like to give the Committee an example of amounts drawn by workers in all groups if they are continuously unemployed for six months and the equivalent period during which contributions would have to be paid to equal that amount. I exclude the contributions of employers and the State. I think these examples are quite illuminating. I am taking the Groups I to XI. In Group I a contributor’s six months’ benefits amount to R63.70 and the time which would be required to equal the worker’s contributions to that amount would be 122 years.

What does that show?

The hon. member’s argument was that if a man has built up credits, he is entitled to get those credits back.

In terms of the Act.

Yes, but I am giving these examples to show what time it will take him to build up the credits which actually he receives if he is six months unemployed. In Group I, unemployed for six months, it would take him 122 years to build up that amount he receives in benefits, viz. R63.70. In Group II: Six months’ benefits amounts to R91 and it would take a contributor 87 years to build up that amount of credit; Group III: R118; 76 years. I am showing this to meet the argument that if a man pays into the Fund, he is entitled to receive out of the Fund what he has paid into the Fund. In other words, it is not an insurance fund, but a benefit fund, according to that argument.

No, that is not the argument.

Group IV: R145; it would take him 70 years; Group V: R172; 66 years. It is not necessary to go through the whole list. In the last Group XII, the benefits in six months would be R364 and it would take him 58 years. It will therefore be seen that workers will have to contribute for a lifetime and in some cases longer before they can claim to have contributed more than the benefits to which they would become entitled during only six months’ unemployment. These are the figures which I think amply illustrate the case against the contention that this is a charitable fund, a benefit fund. It is in fact an insurance fund to which all workers contribute. If a man has contributed for a long period and he has not been in a position to draw benefits, his fellow-workers have been able to draw benefits. That is the whole principle of the Fund.

You are defeating your own argument.

I am simply saying what the principle of the Fund is. I regard (m) as the most important provision in the Bill and as I have said on so many occasions, these amendments have been drafted to eliminate abuses, and I quoted some of the abuses. I regard this clause as most important and therefore I am not prepared to accept any amendment to this clause.

I cannot understand the approach of the hon. the Minister in regard to this Bill. The hon. the Minister concluded his speech by saying that this is an insurance fund for the workers. So it is. But the Minister preceded that by saying that it is unreasonable that a man should get the benefits on the basis of his contributions because, if, for instance, in Group I he were to get benefits for six months, he would have to work 123 years to build up sufficient credits, etc. The hon. the Minister, by the same logic, wishing to argue now, can say that, because we oppose this clause, we must automatically support what the hon. the Minister says, viz. that workers should contribute to the fund at the same rate at which they are going to draw benefits from the fund. I don’t appreciate the hon. Minister’s logic at all. I cannot see what points he makes. If it is an insurance fund, the hon. the Minister can hardly argue that the 768,000 contributors to the fund must, if they wish to draw these benefits, contribute at the same rate a which they are going to get benefits.

But that is what you were saying. That was your opposition to the clause.

No, we have said that as long as credits are available in terms of the Act, members should be entitled to draw what they have been contributing in terms of the Act, on the basis of their credit. Surely the hon. the Minister must be aware that the contributions made by members on a sliding scale have been actuarially determined, and he cannot come along with such childish logic.

Why not claim a select committee?

As I have said on an earlier occasion, I have been driven to the conclusion that the hon. the Minister does not know his Bill, because the Minister started off a moment ago by saying that workers can get 12 months’ benefit. Since when? Surely the Minister knows that, in terms of the Act, workers are only entitled to 26 weeks’ benefits, and if they want the additional six months’ they have to apply to the Unemployment Insurance Board and, under certain conditions only, can an extension be granted.

Exactly.

But the hon. the Minister tends to create the impression that all the 94,000 people who have received benefits from the fund in a year were entitled to 12 months’ benefits.

I never said so. I said that benefits may be extended.

The Minister made the statement that workers get 12 months’ benefits.

Nonsense!

The hon. Minister knows that, in terms of the Act, a worker can only get 26 weeks’ benefits, and he has to wait for 26 weeks before he can again come and claim benefits, unless he gets special permission from the Unemployment Insurance Board.

That is what I said.

The Minister did not say that. Otherwise I would not raise the point. I now come to the other argument of the hon. the Minister. He quoted a long list of countries, ending with Canada, I think, and gave us the number of weeks which workers have to contribute in those countries before they can draw any unemployment insurance benefits from their respective funds. Does the Minister contend that, because of the advanced industrial legislation which has been operating in this country over so many years, legislation which benefits the workers, we must now curtail the benefits which the workers of this country have been receiving? That is a logical conclusion to come to. That is the justification for this legislation which the hon. the Minister offers. I submit to the hon. the Minister that, in spite of his argument as to what workers have to contribute in other countries before they are entitled to benefits, does not do away with the fact that what is being done here is to deprive workers of their own insurance to which they have contributed over a great many years. Nothing can argue that fact away. The Minister is breaking faith with 768,000 contributors to the fund by introducing this provision.

Your logic is sometimes so perverted.

The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg), who attempts to uphold that he represents a workers’ constituency, has not spoken on this measure yet; he has not as yet risen to his feet to defend the workers of South Africa. Is the hon. member going to return to Krugersdorp and tell the workers that, because the Government has been unable to find employment for some 32,000 to 33,000 workers, and because that fact is now draining the fund, and because of the short-sighted policies of the Government in the past in respect of this fund, that their benefits are to be reduced so as to prevent the fund from becoming weaker?

I am prepared to meet you anywhere in South Africa on this question.

The Minister has said that he hopes to effect a saving of some R2,000,000 in this regard. I hope that if the Minister is adamant on this issue, the workers of South Africa will appreciate the manner in which faith has been broken with them in respect of the contributions which they have made to the Unemployment Insurance Fund.

I now wish to deal with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton). I appreciate the attitude which the hon. the Minister has taken up in regard to this matter and that he is prepared to give it further thought. But I do want to point this out that, had it not been for paragraph (m), the amendment moved by my hon. friend would not have been necessary. I want to put it to the Minister that in the first instance it is not only a question of the nine months’ training, but the effect is going to be this: that it will affect those men when they are in full employment, when they have fully entered civil life. When they are then called upon to do their further periods of continuous training, they will be the men who are likely to be most affected. If the hon. the Minister will follow me in this argument, I think he will appreciate its significance. The Minister says that a contributor must be in employment for 13 weeks in the 52 weeks preceding the date on which he can draw benefits. Let us take a date to work from. Let us take 1 January 1962. Say the man is in employment for two and a half months, till, say, the middle of March. He is called upon to do a period of continuous training for three months or for three weeks, depending upon the hon. the Minister of Defence. When he returns from that period of service he is told by his former employer that there is no work for him and that he cannot be taken on again. He becomes unemployed. He seeks for work but for the whole of this current year he is out of work. In terms of this amendment that worker will be unable to draw any benefits from the fund to which he may have been contributing formerly for a few years.

You are completely wrong.

No, I am not wrong, because that is how it will work in practice. As a result of his military service he may perhaps not be able to work the 13 qualifying weeks within the 52 weeks during which he is out of work. That is the whole point. That is why the hon. member for Umhlatuzana has moved his amendment. The Minister has given no indication that he will take this matter further other than that he will refer it to the authorities. And I hope that when the Unemployment Insurance Board has weighed up this matter they will indicate to the Minister that before this Bill passes its final passage in the Other Place, he should introduce amendments to take care of that situation if he cannot accept the one which has been moved to-day.

In regard to paragraph (c) of this clause, we come up against another diminution of workers’ rights. The position formerly has been that if a worker in the Groups I to II is offered employment in occupations other than the occupations on which he was originally employed and possibly at a lower rate of pay, he must accept the employment which is offered to him by the Labour Bureau. He has no alternative, otherwise he will not qualify for any benefits. Let me add this, Mr. Chairman, the groups were not raised higher than Group IV because it was intended that artisans should not suffer under the same penalty. They have to get benefits for 13 weeks before the claims officer or the Department can offer them work of an alternative nature at possibly a lower rate of pay than they received before. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I think I can agree with the hon. the Minister on one point in this particular clause and that is that this is the most important clause in this Bill. One of the reasons why we on this side of the House are opposed to this clause is because it deprives the workers of their rights in regard to the benefits which they have hitherto enjoyed under this Act. The hon. the Minister gave us the number of years that it would take to build up the Fund to meet the amount that is paid out in the form of benefits. I think the hon. the Minister is trying to create an entirely wrong impression in debating this clause. As any person who carries insurance knows, his insurance cover is not based on the amount of premium which he pays, but on the contract which is arrived at. In terms of this Bill a contributor builds up his credits in terms of the Act, namely, one week for every four weeks’ contributions. It will be one week for every six weeks’ contributions in future. The worker quite rightly, therefore, expects to be covered in terms of that unemployment insurance. Paragraph (m) which provides that contributor must now be a contributor for another period of 13 weeks or otherwise employed, means that he can only receive those initial 26 weeks’ benefits provided he has sufficient credit to his name in the Fund. The one point which we have to bear in mind in considering this proviso is that the genuine workseeker is also going to suffer considerably. Perhaps there have been certain abuses in the past and that some steps must be taken to curb that expenditure due to those abuses. We on this side of the House have never condoned any abuses which have taken place under this Act. However, Sir, the danger is that the genuine work-seeker is going to suffer by the implementation of this provision. For instance, Sir, there are men who are genuinely endeavouring to obtain employment, men who have reached their late 40s, men who have substantial commitments to their families, but who are just unable to find employment. These people who have contributed to the Fund over a number of years will now find that at the end of 26 weeks they are unable to qualify for any other benefits until such time as they have contributed for a further period of 13 weeks. It is one of the most difficult predicaments for a man to find himself in, if at the end of that 26 weeks he still has not found employment. A large number of welfare organizations find this to be a very grave problem indeed. Even in terms of the existing Act a number of welfare organizations have found that they had to give assistance to those people during that period of unemployment. The provision which is made for poor relief by the Department of Social Welfare does not meet the demand which is made upon welfare societies and organizations to alleviate the hardships which are suffered by those families whose breadwinner is unemployed. In the last annual report of the Durban Child Welfare Society the question of unemployment and the question of alleviating the hardships which those people suffer, is dealt with. They say that is one of the main causes of concern in the activities of their society. This deals with people who have been drawing unemployment benefits. In some instances they do not qualify for poor relief if they are drawing benefits. The benefits are only sufficient for them to meet their commitments in regard to rent but are not sufficient to meet the demands for food and clothing. It is becoming an unbearable burden on the welfare societies to assist these people. The position will now be further aggravated by the fact that these people will not draw any benefits whatsoever if they do not manage to obtain some other form of employment and so contribute towards the Fund. The Minister’s answer to this matter is that they can be referred to the Board and that period can be extended up to 12 months. I will be grateful if the Minister will tell us where that is provided for in the principal Act. The Minister has referred to Section 39 (3) but no mention is made there as to the period of time. It merely states—

During the course of the discussion on this clause we have heard that it is for a period of 12 months. I will be grateful if the hon. the Minister could give us some indication as to what authority the Board has to extend it to 12 months. I feel that the worker is being deprived of those rights which he himself has believed he could enjoy in the event of his becoming unemployed. I think that such a far-reaching provision as that contained in paragraph (m) requires the earnest consideration of this Committee.

The other point is this. I should like the hon. the Minister to give this Committee some clarification on that section of the clause which says “unless he has been employed as a contributor or otherwise in employment”. I think some clarification is required on the words “or otherwise in employment”. A person may take some temporary employment where he is not contributing to the Fund at all. If a person is so employed for a period 13 weeks for the 52 weeks immediately preceding any other term of unemployment, will he qualify for a further period of benefits if he has sufficient credits standing to his name? That is one point which I think requires some clarification from the Minister.

We want to receive some safeguard and guarantee from the hon. the Minister in respect of the genuine workseeker who is unable to find employment. To discriminate against all persons as this clause does, means that the genuine workseeker will be at a distinct disadvantage.

Another point in respect of which I should like to have some clarification from the Minister is in connection with the older person, a person who due to his age is unable to find employment and who at the same time could qualify for the old-age pension or for some other social benefit. In terms of this provision such a person can draw benefits for 26 weeks and then apply for an old-age pension. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he can give us the assurance that his Department will see to it that such a person who is over the age of 60 in the case of women and over the age of 65 in the case of men, is advised timeously. In other words, at least two months before their 26 weeks’ benefits have expired so that they can make application to the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions and so that there will not be a gap between the period when they received benefits and the period when they receive other social benefits. In the time, due to that time gap, which was perhaps unavoidable due to departmental difficulties, those people have experienced a great deal of hardship because there was a period when they had no income whatsoever. I do ask the hon. the Minister to give some consideration to these people. In fact some aged people believe that the contributions which are due to them and which stand to their credit, should continue until such time as that credit has been exhausted. I realize, Sir, that the hon. the Minister will not allow such a set of circumstances to arise but I do hope that he will be able to satisfy us that those people will be timeously advised so that they can apply for other benefits. The provisions as contained in paragraph (m) of this clause mean that the person who is a genuine workseeker is at a disadvantage and I believe that this particular clause is one which should not receive the support of the Committee.

The hon. member who has just sat down, addressed himself to the hon. the Minister and for that reason I will not go into the matters which he touched upon. I too wish to say something about Clause 3 (b) in so far as it deals with the question of short-time. I notice that the hon. the Opposition are no longer saying anything about this.

We are still coming to it.

Oh, they are still coming to it. But they have already come to it. They have already made a hullabaloo about it and I want to say this that I really cannot understand why they made such a hullabaloo about this question of short-time. I do not know why they make such a fuss about the question which is raised in Clause 3 (b). They allege that this clause abolishes the scheme in respect of short-time which this Government introduced in 1959, and they object violently to that. If it is true that the entire scheme is being abolished, the hon. Opposition should not object to it. If that were the case they ought to thank the Minister. They ought to raise their hats high to the Minister of Labour because I think this is a concession as far as their standpoint is concerned. The truth of the matter is that they have never been in favour of this scheme in regard to short-time which the National Party Government introduced in 1959. On the contrary, they opposed it violently. They were bitterly opposed to it. They indicated that they wanted nothing to do with it although they are suddenly in favour of it to-day.

The hon. Opposition now tell us that they are going to vote against this clause because it does away with the principle in regard to short-time which was accepted in 1959. I ask you, Sir! Do these people forget what they said on this question of short-time in 1959? If their interpretation of the clause is correct, namely, that it means the abolition of the scheme in regard to short-time and that it means the employers and the employees were subsidized, then the hon. the Minister of Labour is now giving them what they asked for in 1959, namely, that the employers and the employees should not be subsidized from the Unemployment Insurance Fund. That was what they asked for. I want to put this pertinent question to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton): Does he not think he is morally bound to vote for this clause in regard to short-time? I am also going to put this question to the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw): Does he not think he is morally bound to vote for this clause in regard to short-time? I am putting it to them pertinently that they are morally bound to vote for this clause. The words which they themselves uttered in 1959 compel them to vote for it. In the first place I want to quote what the hon. member for Umhlatuzana said, as recorded in Hansard, Vol. 102, col. 8016—

Who said that?

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana. He went on to say—

Read further.

I will read further to the hon. member from col. 8019—

In other words, Mr. Chairman, he objected to employers being subsidized and now he is also objecting to employees being subsidized. I now wish to deal with the hon. member for Durban (Point). I also wish to refresh his memory by reading to him what he said in 1959 on that occasion as recorded in Hansard, Vol. 102, col. 8039—

He went on to say the following in col. 8041—

That was what they said in 1959. That was how they carried on on this question of short-time.To-day, however, they are objecting to this clause because, according to them, the scheme is being abolished. I say they ought to be grateful. We do not admit, however, Mr. Speaker, that the principle involved in this matter, is being abandoned. The principle is not being abandoned. It will only be applied differently. It follows automatically that if an employer decides to put his employees on short-time or to close his factory, the Unemployment Insurance Fund can be utilized to put them on a basis as though they were working full-time by implementing their wages from the Fund. That does not change the principle, it is only being applied differently. But the Minister must first decide whether circumstances justify that, that is to say whether a real emergency exists which makes it necessary to utilize the Unemployment Insurance Fund for that purpose. The Minister now has this discretionary power and that ought to satisfy the hon. member for Durban (Point) as well, because on a previous occasion he asked the Minister to assume responsibility for these schemes. I want to quote from the same Hansard, col. 8046, where the hon. member for Point said this—

You see, Mr. Chairman, the Minister is already assuming responsibility here and they are again objecting to it. [Time limit.]

I cannot be taken to task by the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. G. L. H. van Niekerk) about what I said in 1959—for the simple reason that I was not here in 1959! So I hope that I start with a clean sheet. I want to say to the hon. the Minister in regard to Clause 3 (b) (m) that, if taken in conjunction with 3 (c), it will undoubtedly impose a great deal of hardship, perhaps contrary to the intention of the hon. the Minister. I think we should examine the consequences of this unfortunate combination of sub-sections in this Bill before the impact becomes apparent to those who are affected by it. To argue that a man must take the work which is offered to him, whatever it may be and whenever it is offered to him, is not exactly a reasonable thing to expect the other man to have to do, any more than it is for oneself. There are many cases where a white-collar worker, for example, has made a career of a paricular type of work. It does not follow that only artisans, mechanics or professional men like engineers or lawyers make a career of a particular type of employment. There are people who fall between those categories, people who make a career of the particular work which they have either selected or into which they may have fallen quite accidentally, and from which they have managed to make a reasonable living for some years. I want to refer the Minister to a particular case, because it has been brought to my notice with the request that I should advise the individual concerned as to what the best course will be for him to follow. I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister will give me some advice which I can take back to the party concerned.

You are hopeful.

Yes, I am very hopeful. It is the case of a man who, after leaving school, took up employment with a very large firm of furniture distributors. He spent 17 years in the employment of that firm, having started at the very bottom, as it were, and worked his way up until he became one of the senior salesman. It was a very big firm which sold goods throughout the country on hire-purchase. This person attained a position in which he earned a substantial salary; he had a house, a motor-car, and a reasonable holiday period every year, and he was able to maintain a good standard of living. In the course of that employment. Sir, he was able to get married and he had a family, at the time when his difficulty arose, of three children. He came to me last year and said that because he had accepted an offer at a higher salary from a competitive firm, he had left his former employer—but after six months with the new firm, having got itself into certain financial difficulties (which in spite of all the prosperity around us, as far as this Chamber is concerned at any rate, still happens to many reputable companies), had to reduce its staff, and it worked out on the customary principle of “last in, first out”. To come to the point, Sir, this man was discharged. This man was discharged and found himself unemployed, and naturally he went back to his old firm and asked whether he could have back his old job, but they were in much the same position as their competitors, and could not take him on. So he started by joining the queue at the Labour Department Offices in Bree Street, every day. After four months, the only employment that this man could possibly have considered taking, which was offered to him, was the position of superintendent or caretaker of a block of flats, for which he was offered a salary of R60 a month and a free bachelor flat consisting of one room and an entrance hall for himself, his wife and three children. Of course, in the nature of things, he said that this was not the sort of job he could take, and he went back day after day—and still did not find employment. Now this has nothing to do with the case theoretically, but his wife has since died and he has many difficulties in regard to the upbringing of his children and the medical expenses arising out of his wife’s illness. After seven months, this man has still not been offered the sort of employment that he could reasonably be expected to take, by the Labour Department. I say it is not reasonable for the Minister to say that this man must take any work he is offered. The moment a man takes any sort of employment to keep body and soul together, he is well aware of the fact that he will not be able to work his way up again, and he is not likely to get the employment that he understands. We have heard it said over and over that a man spends the greater part of his life working, and therefore he should do something he enjoys doing and understands. Therefore, to say to a man who has specialized by virtue of his training over many years—the hon. member for Brits (Mr. J. E. Potgieter) is vastly amused by all this, and I am sad that he is, because when the shoe pinches the other fellow it can be vastly amusing to see how he struggles along. Here is the case of a man who cannot reasonably be expected to take up any employment offered, particularly if it is something of which he has no experience or which does not suit his earning capacity. To say that in the case of such a person, unless he has been employed as a contributor or otherwise for at least 13 weeks, he cannot draw benefits, is to exclude him immediately even from the benefit of being able to hang on for dear life, with the assistance of charitable organizations which make loans and present gifts and food parcels; while he hangs on in the hope that to-morrow or the day after there will be an opening for him where he can take up employment under conditions which are reasonable in regard to emolument, etc., at least in his opinion. This excludes, regardless of the argument about the Unemployment Insurance Fund having being set up for certain purposes, such a man; and with regard to the argument of the hon. member for Boksburg, whose opinion I respect, it does not meet the argument advanced by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) in moving his amendment. I think there is room here for a further consideration of the matter. This case of hardship. I assure the Minister, is not unique in Johannesburg. I can bring him dozens and scores of such cases, and I believe that the same position would probably be found in the larger urban centres. So, I can only say that I hope the Minister will give due consideration to the arguments advanced up to now and accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, which I support.

It was rather amusing to hear the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. G. L. H. van Niekerk) quoting members on this side to try to justify the removal of these privileges of contributors from the Unemployment Insurance Fund. Of course, where he went wrong was that he never understood the debate which took place in 1959, otherwise he would not have tried to make capital out of it, or he might have done it much more effectively, but he would not have quoted what we said in 1959 in support of the action now being taken in this clause. What we argued in 1959 was that where there are special circumstances the Consolidated Revenue Fund and not the Unemployment Insurance Fund should be responsible for looking after the interests of workers on short time. We did not argue against the protection of workers. We argued clearly and specifically that the Consolidated Revenue Fund should take care of people in the position dealt with at the time. That was turned down. The Government refused that, and so the Unemployment Insurance Fund became the only refuge for those people. Now the Minister wishes to take away that one source of insurance, but to put nothing in its place. If that hon. member would stand up now and plead that the Consolidated Revenue Fund should take care of that situation, we will back him, but his own Minister will not support him. All the hon. member for Boksburg was doing was to try to make a little cheap political capital. If he was really interested, why did he not point out the hardships which the rest of the clause will cause? But not a word of that. He only dealt with (m). Why did he not deal with the restriction of 13 weeks’ employment?

Because you ran away from it.

No, we are not running away from anything. There is case after case. I had one recently where a man was in hospital for seven months. For six months he drew benefits from the Fund. It took him another two or three months before he was able to get employment. If it had taken him another year to get employment, after being hospitalized, which made it more difficult for him, under this amendment he would have been precluded from any further benefits from the Fund until he again became employed for 13 weeks. In this case he managed to get employment because there were people who helped him, but there are hundreds who do not get employment. What I want to ask the Minister is this. He stated earlier this afternoon that if a person is unemployed for a year you can no longer consider that person as temporarily unemployed. Does he then repudiate the responsibility of his Department to provide employment for a person genuinely seeking but unable to find work? If a person is a genuine work-seeker and reports to the office regularly, and at the same time seeks work on his own behalf, and neither he himself—or more often, she herself—nor the Department can find work, the Minister says that person is no longer a temporarily unemployed person. If that is the definition, what are the Minister and the Government going to do for that class of person, and I say it is more often a woman than a man, because it is often the woman who has been widowed, who has been left to bring up children and who reaches the age of 45 or 50 and finds herself in competition with younger people who cannot find a job. These people are as unemployed as anyone else. The hon. the Minister washes his hands of them. He says he is not worried about them because they are not temporarily unemployed. What is the Minister going to do for those people in view of their exclusion from the benefits of the Fund to which they contributed? They contributed. That is another point the hon. member for Boksburg forgot about, that the people who are now being cut out from short time as well have come to accept that as part of their benefits, and something once given cannot be taken away again. “Iets gegeven en dan genomen is erger as een dief gestolen.” Once you have given a benefit and you take it away, you are doing harm to a person’s rights. Not to give him a benefit is a different matter, but once he has got a privilege, to take it away is an intrusion on his rights. The Minister is taking away existing privileges and he has not told the House nor the workers what he is putting in their place. What action is he, as the person responsible for employment in South Africa, taking to ensure that the people he is now excluding from benefits will not be thrown on to the streets and become dependent on charity? What steps is he taking, if he throws them on to charity, to see that there is some help for them? It is all very well to take away privileges and say it is necessary, but this Government has a responsibility to the contributors to this Fund, a responsibility which extends beyond academic argument. It has a responsibility to see to the welfare of those people, and I ask the Minister to tell the House what he is going to do about that class of person. He has not replied yet to our question: “What will he do for that class of person who will become helpless because they have reached an age where they cannot easily find work, but who have not yet reached the age where they can get their old age pension, that group from 50 to 65?”—not unemployable, not “won’t-works”, but people who want to work and who can work, but for whom work cannot be found. The Minister is excluding them by this amendment, after the initial 26 weeks, or in exceptional cases an extended time, and he is making no other provision for them.

A matter which is evidently not fully appreciated by the Opposition in regard to this limitation is the fact that although a limitation is being introduced here, as provided in (m). a person who is so deleteriously affected as was put by the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw), will in fact have the right in terms of Section 39 (3) to appeal to the Unemployment Insurance Board. If it appears that a person has used up his benefits, and he falls in this class where he no longer qualifies in terms of this clause, he can make representations firstly to his local Unemployment Committee, on which his trade union representative is represented, and in terms of Section 39 (3) that Committee can then submit a report to the Unemployment Insurance Board and the Board can then grant extended benefits to the person who is now affected by this new provision. But not only that.

But there must be special circumstances.

Yes, I quite concede that. These are not normal cases. Surely the hon. member did not mention normal cases; he mentioned extreme cases. We are not trying to apologize for not fighting for these people, because the benefits granted here were introduced by this Government and not by the United Party. Therefore, we have nothing to apologize about. It is because we, who introduced these benefits, now experience that there are abuses that restrictions are being imposed, and now we say that if these restrictions affect individuals as much as hon. members opposite say, then those persons have the right to be considered by the Insurance Board, and then their benefits can be extended. That is the reply to various pleas made here. But I want to emphasize that the workers’ organizations to a large extent support this restriction. I stated the other day, and I do not want to repeat it, that these are the original recommendations of the Unemployment Insurance Board. But what is important is that after all the fuss that was made, as the result of the agitation of hon. members opposite and the T.U.C., the Minister referred the whole matter back to the Unemployment Board, and at that meeting, when they again had to consider the whole matter, eight of the representatives voted for this clause, which they had originally approved of. Two members, the T.U.C. members, voted against it, because they said beforehand that they had now received a mandate from the T.U.C. to vote against every amendment. Now, what value can this Government attach to such arguments? But my point is that after this furore—and it was a big one, because restrictions are not popular and therefore it is easy for the Opposition to kick up a row, but if they take pleasure in it they must do so. But the true fact is that the workers’ representatives on the Board again soberly considered the matter, in the light of the agitation of the United Party and the T.U.C., and decided by eight votes to two that the restrictions as they are now are sound and essential.

You are now referring to the meeting of the Unemployment Board. Can you tell me whether all the eight people who voted in favour of it were the representatives of the employees and the employers?

The hon. member did not listen attentively. I said that what was significant was that when the matter was put to them again, with the exception of the two T.U.C. members who had a mandate to vote against everything, however good it might be, because it came from this Government, the trade union representatives voted in favour. Therefore there were eight votes in favour of this clause and only the two T.U.C. members voted against it. Therefore the Government is not afraid of going to the workers with this matter, because here we are doing something which was considered by them in the first place, and which was reconsidered by them in the light of all the agitation, and which they nevertheless regarded as essential. Therefore the Government feels that what it is doing here may perhaps be unpopular in certain circles, and it may afford the Opposition an opportunity to make a furore, but we are taking a responsible step for the protection of the fund, and therefore it is also in the interest of the bona fide workers.

In regard to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton), I want the Minister, when he considers this amendment, for the protection of the rights of the trainees who are called up for military service, to consider those who have to apply for unemployment insurance benefits while undergoing training. The hon. the Minister mentioned that unemployment would only count from the time when the applications are made, and therefore people who are undergoing the three months’ training will only virtually become unemployed at the end of that three months. Now it is possible, especially in the case of the young married trainee who is called up during his period of unemployment, that he may have to call upon the fund for assistance during his period of training, and therefore it will virtually make him an unemployed person from the time he makes his first application for help. That naturally would diminish the period that he would have to put to his credit. I would like the Minister to consider that point very carefully before he comes to a final decision about how best to help the military trainee.

Then the hon. the Minister explained to us in great detail, and gave examples, how other countries protect their funds, and he ended up by saying that this was not a benefit fund. Sir, this is an unemployment insurance fund. It is a collective effort by the workers, and when the worker contributes towards a fund he is not only contributing for his own sake but knows quite well that the fund will be used to help those unfortunate people who are out of work; and when people are out of work it is not measured immediately by the days or weeks they are out of work. How is one to determine beforehand how long a person will be out of work? How will this Minister determine this? Any of us here to-day may fall out of work and not find work again for the next two or three years. I think the Minister should be the last person to condemn those people who are out of work for a period longer than is here specified and to consider them as chronic unemployables.

Like Hymie Miller.

The position for young people is bad enough, but for those over 40 and going on to their 50s it becomes more difficult to find work, and they want to find work. These people whom we have heard so much about from the opposite side who abuse the fund are not so many, and it is quite a simple matter for the Labour Bureau to find out who those are who do not want to work. It is for those people that there should be special boards to investigate their cases, and not for the bona fide workers. He should not have to go before a board and testify to the fact that he is unemployed. The boot is on the other foot. It is the man who is suspected of abusing the fund who should be called to book and should be investigated, and the the bona fide workseeker. We all know that the bona fide workseeker is a man who goes to look for work on his own, and also goes to the Labour office to look for work, so there is no doubt about him. But the Minister by this clause is penalizing that bona fide worker and I say that it is unjust for us to put that man in the same position as the one who does not want to work.

We come to the position of those people who will be offered work after a period of unemployment and cannot take the work, even though they would like to. It is difficult for a person not used to doing manual work to do manual labour when he is in his 50s or 60s. What about the liftman who may be partially incapacitated and falls out of work and goes regularly to the unemployment office to look for work? He may be told that there is a job which entails manual labour. He may not be able to do it. Will he be penalized for it, or what provision has the Minister made to exclude him from the penalties that go with this amending clause? There is nothing to save these people. All that will happen is that the man will try to do the work, which he may or may not be able to do, and if he fails to do it he will have to become unemployed again, and this goes on until the impression is given to the Labour Bureau that he is a man who does not want to work, that he is a “won’t-work”. But he is not a “won’t-work’; he cannot work. It is a slur on these people when hon. members opposite refer to these people, even jokingly, as “hoboes”. These people will require every bit of assistance that it is possible to give, and I can tell the Minister that the Unemployment Fund is not sufficient to keep these people going; to keep a family. Far from it. These people still have to find ways and means of augmenting their income. The wives go out to work. They do part-time work. I know of cases where the wives do night-work as waitresses to earn a few shillings. They become caretakers of cloakrooms. They do all kinds of work just to get in a few more shillings every day to implement the money that comes from the fund. It is not a great gift that we give them, although these people are all grateful for what they do get. So I say to the Minister that whatever he does he should not penalize the people who are entitled to get money from the fund, but if he is going to penalize anyone, penalize those who are abusing the fund. Find out who they are. Find out who the “won’t-works” are and who the swindlers are and penalize them and bring them to book, and let them be interrogated by the Labour Department, but not the genuine work-seeker.

In view of what the Minister has said about the amendment I moved earlier on, I think it would perhaps be unwise for me to leave the amendment before the Committee. I will withdraw the amendment and accept the assurance given by the Minister that he will get legal opinion and also advice from the Board, to investigate the real difficulty that this clause possesses in respect of those undergoing military service.

First of all, I want to reply to the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. G. L. H. van Niekerk) and refer him to that same Hansard from which he quoted, and he will discover that the whole of our objections to the utilization of this fund for the purpose of combating unemployment was that we said that the fund to be used for that purpose should not be the Unemployment Insurance Fund, but rather the Consolidated Revenue Fund. That was the basis of our whole attack on the principle of introducing schemes to combat unemployment. The Deputy Minister has entered this debate and tried to justify sub-paragraph (m) by quoting Section 39 (3). It is as well that we should know what we are talking about. Section 39 (3) says this—

That means that the application that has been made is in respect of an applicant who has already had benefits for 26 weeks and he wants an extension of the 26 weeks in that year. That is not what we are dealing with. I think the Deputy Minister will appreciate that is not the problem that (m) presents to this Committee. We are dealing with the problem of the man who wants to get benefits in a second period after he has had the first six months in one year; there is a delay of six months and then he applies for the second period of six months. We are not dealing with the case that the Minister has quoted here. That is entirely erroneous and misleading to this Committee.

But do you not appreciate the possibility of the extension?

The possibility of an extension on an application for additional benefits over and above 26 weeks in one year is not the issue here. We are not interfering with that. We are dealing with the question of an application for a second period of six months’ benefits with a six months’ break in between. That is the case that we are dealing with, and that application does not fall within the terms of sub-section (3), because in terms of the present Act the applicant has not got to go to the board; he is entitled to that second period; he has not got to get the Board’s consent or anybody else’s consent; he is entitled to it, and it is because he is entitled to it that we are objecting to sub-paragraph (m), which takes away that right. Now we come to the other question, and this is important too. Section 39 (2)bis says that the benefits which may be paid to a contributor shall not exceed one week’s benefits for each completed four weeks of employment as a contributor. Here we have the case where there is a limitation placed upon the benefits which a contributor may get; he cannot get benefits if he has not got credits; therefore we say to the Minister that the importance of (m) does not lie in the fact that the applicant is applying for something to which he is not entitled. He is applying for benefits in view of the fact that he has the necessary credits to entitle him to consideration in terms of Section 39 (2)bis.

I next want to take the point that the Minister has raised in connection with the benefits received in comparison with the contributions paid. Let us take the extreme example to see how dangerous it is to import a provision of this sort into the Bill. The Minister has said that it is possible for a person to gain considerably more in benefits which he will receive in six months than he has paid into the Fund. This amendment is not going to stop that. Let me take an extreme case, the case of a contributor who has the necessary credits, and I must emphasize that all along the line—a contributor who has the necessary credits. If in any one year he worked for 13 weeks in terms of this amendment he will be entitled to six months’ benefits. If he only worked for 12 weeks in the year he will not be entitled to those benefits. You will see how ridiculous the position becomes. A man who works for 13 weeks over a period of years will get six months’ benefits provided as long as he has those credits, but the individual who only works for 12 weeks will get precisely nothing, even although he has the credits. I say that once you depart from the principle that as long as a person has credits he should get benefits, you run into these ridiculous anomalies, and I say to the Minister that we are now departing from a reasonable proposition and adopting one which is most unreasonable. The reasonable proposition is that as long as a man has credits he should be entitled to benefits. But it is unreasonable when you say to one man, “You can have six months’ benefits because you worked for 13 weeks in that particular year,” while saying to the other man, “You cannot have benefits because you have only worked 12 weeks,” when they both have the necessary credits. In opposing (m) we do so because it is depriving contributors, who have the necessary credits, of benefits. That is the basis of our argument, and for the Deputy Minister to talk about the provisions of Section 39 (3) is misleading.

Is the extension misleading?

The extension is not in respect of the person who wants to get benefits over and above the six months’ benefits that he has had in the preceding year. The case that the Minister has made out is that consideration can be extended to an applicant who has had six months’ benefits in a year and who wants further benefits over and above the six months’ benefits in that same year. [Time limit.]

With leave of the Committee, the amendment proposed by Mr. Eaton was withdrawn.

It does not seem to me as if the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) and the hon. member who has just sat down know precisely what they are pleading for.

We plead for the workers.

The question I want to put to them is this: How long do they want these benefits to continue? The benefits to which an unemployed worker is entitled surely must be limited to a certain period.

Until his credit is exhausted.

When his credit is exhausted an extension of benefits can be granted only with the approval of the Board and the Minister. But it takes a comparatively long time to exhaust the credit, and if a person has exhausted all his credit and has still not obtained work then hon. members should not come and tell me that the Fund must just continue granting him benefits indefinitely. Is that what they are pleading for?

As long as he is legally and honestly unemployed.

By that the hon. member means, I suppose, that the man applies for work and cannot obtain employment, but supposing he remains unemployed for five years?

And if he still has credit?

To what extent do hon. members opposite want him to have credit?

Until he has exhausted the amount of his contributions.

In other words, the benefits then remain limited. When his credits are exhausted, you cannot expect the Fund to provide for him further. But the point I want to emphasize is that when the man has exhausted his credits and during that time he has not been able to find employment, there is some or other serious reason for it. There can be many reasons for it. The reason may perhaps be that this man has become physically incapacitated, because even though he is 50 or 60 years old, if he could still do a day’s work when he was last dismissed, in other words, if his employer had nothing against him, he would again find work. But if that person happens to be one of those who because of age or physical incapacity, or for some other reason, can no longer find work, it is obvious that the Fund cannot continue for an unlimited period paying benefits to him. Then it is no longer the function of the Fund to care for that man and his family. Then he must be cared for by other bodies; it then becomes the function of the Department of Labour to find sheltered employment for him. But one cannot expect that person under those circumstances continuously to receive benefits from the Fund. But supposing, Mr. Chairman, one accedes to the request of those hon. members, surely one would be playing into the hands of a type of person who perhaps does not exist to-day, the type who will simply remain unemployed as long as he can, as long as he is allowed to remain unemployed.

But it is just to prevent that position that we make these proposals. There is every protection under the Act.

That is just the protection that hon. members now want to destroy. This is nothing else but a protective measure. Sir, the complaint which hon. members over there have looks like a genuine complaint, but it is an imaginary one. The percentage of people who will not be able to find employment again in that period is so small that hon. members cannot make out a case that a great injustice is being committed against the workers here. I repeat that whilst it is such a small number, and whilst that number will increase if one grants the protection now asked for by hon. members opposite, one will find that there will be a number of people who will always just be on the que vive to exploit the Fund in a dishonest manner. That is what will happen then.

That is impossible.

Then it will become impossible; it is not possible to-day, but then we will make it possible for a certain section of people who are clever enough to exploit the Fund.

How many would do it?

I cannot say how many will do it; that is a stupid question. Sir, if a person cannot find work again in that period then he is either physically unfit or he was a very bad worker, or else there is no more work of the type he did. There can be dozens of reasons for it if he cannot obtain employment again in that period, and then one cannot expect it to be the function of the Fund to keep those people alive. My hon. friends should not now run away from their previous proposals. In 1959 they objected to the partial payment of benefits to people on short time.

Not to the principle.

Of course they objected to it in principle. Now they come along with the story that they thought this should be the function of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, of the State. Why do they not call the thing by its right name?

They wanted Father Christmas to do it.

Why do they then say that there ought to be a social welfare fund for that object? Thereby they admit that it is a man who can no longer find work.

Order! The hon. member is deviating too far from the clause now. He must come back to the clause.

Sir, that has been the argument of hon. members opposite all the time and I am just replying to it. No, I am afraid that if hon. members opposite compare their arguments to-day with the attitude they adopted previously in regard to the same measure, they will realize how inconsequential they are, and now they are ashamed when the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. G. L. H. van Niekerk) quotes to them what their previous standpoint was on precisely the same matter.

What was your standpoint?

The then Minister introduced a temporary measure in order, as he said, to make a concession, to pay partial benefits to people on short-time. That was the principle.

Order! That is not relevant now.

But that was the whole argument here.

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

The whole argument amounts to this, that hon. members over there do not know where to set the limits for the payment of benefits. They are not prepared to accept that responsibility.

I think that the explanation given here by the Deputy Minister ought to be accepted, and that the Opposition no longer needs to quibble about this matter, because the longer they quibble about it the more they land in a maze.

I would just like to reply to one or two points made by the hon. members for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) and Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton), in regard to the interpretation of Section 39 (3). The hon. member for Umbilo raised the question that the proviso does not specify the period of the extension which can be granted. That is correct. There is no period specified, but it is a period, of course, which is completely in the discretion of the Board, and in practice the period has been and still is from three to six months.

That is on application.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana makes the point, in interpreting this proviso, that sub-paragraph (m) takes away any benefit that might accrue to a contributor, to which he may have been entitled by virtue of this proviso. As I read the proviso, I would say that it applies to any application for any benefit; in other words, it is wide enough to include any application that a contributor may make by virtue of subparagraph (m). May I just read it—

In other words, my interpretation of this proviso is that there is a complete and full discretion vested in the board. It seems to me that there is this full discretion vested in the board. When applications for an extension of benefits are made to the claims officers and they are not granted, then this appeal goes to the board and the board has a complete and absolute discretion to grant an extension and to grant further benefits which, as I have stated, will be for a period from three to six months.

Irrespective of credits?

That is my interpretation of the proviso. I do not think the hon. member need be afraid of the restrictive provisions, as he sees it, in this proviso.

The hon. member for Umbilo also raised a question which I think I should answer in regard to the meaning in sub-paragraph (m) of the words, “or otherwise in employment”. Sub-paragraph (m) reads—

The hon. member raises the question as to what the sub-paragraph means by “or otherwise in employment These words were added to cover the case where a contributor takes employment in an area which is exempted from the Act, or where he takes employment with a firm which has a pension fund which is also exempted. That is the reason for those words.

Then the hon. member for Umbilo also asked what provision exists for the old-age pensioner who has built up credits. My reply there is that provided the old-age pensioners are capable of and available for work, as required by the Act, they must register for employment and apply for benefits. As the hon. member knows there is no means test and subject to the above requirements they will be entitled to benefits. The Act itself does not at present prescribe any age limit, and any person who has contributed to the Fund and who is capable of and available for work of any nature may receive benefits, even though on account of his age he can hardly be recognized as being in the labour market. He himself may not seriously be contemplating taking employment. As the result of this the Fund is called upon to pay benefits to old-age pensioners and others who are unlikely ever to work again. That is the reason why this provision has been inserted.

The hon. members for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) and Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) raised the question of the suitability of employment which is offered to a person who is unemployed. I think the hon. member for Rosettenville quoted a case of a liftman who becomes unemployed and who makes application and is offered some work of a physical kind which he obviously cannot perform. I would like to point out to these hon. members that a contributor is entitled to refuse an offer of employment if it is not suitable work as defined. If the hon. member will look at the Act, he will see that suitable work is defined. If suitable work is not offered to him he is entitled to refuse it. In the case of the contributor in Groups I to III inclusive, suitable work is any work which the contributor is physically capable of performing and which will not cause undue hardship and for which the wage payable is not less than the benefits. In the case of the other groups it reads—

But you are amending that.

The intention of this section is to protect the artisans. It has, however, been found that a large number of factory workers fall outside the first three groups, and there is the tendency for many of them to take advantage of the provision and to refuse offers of reasonable alternative work, and in order to combat this mischief, it is proposed to amend the existing section by reducing the period from 13 to six weeks in the case of contributors in Groups IV and V. In the case of Groups VI to XII, employees often have good reason for not changing from one industry to another because of the various privileges they enjoy such as sick benefits, holidays and provident funds. The hon. member will see therefore that the question of suitable work is clearly defined in the Act, and obviously if a person is not capable of performing the work which is offered, due to some physical or other defect, he is not forced to accept that work. I think that meets the case made by the hon. members for Hospital and Rosettenville.

I wish that I was in a position to agree with the Minister’s interpretation of Section 39 (3). Because it is so important, I think we should get complete clarity on this issue. Section 39 (3) refers to an application in respect of which the applicant has asked for benefits in excess of the 26 weeks’ benefits which he has just enjoyed. It clearly states that no benefit shall be paid to a contributor for more than 26 weeks in any financial year or in any period of 52 consecutive weeks, and then follows the proviso. The proviso says—

It is the words “in terms of this sub-section” which present the difficulty, because, in terms of this sub-section, the applicant is restricted in his claim in the way that, if he puts in a claim for something outside of this sub-section, which would be the case if he submitted a claim because of the restrictive effects of the new sub-paragraph (m), the claims officer would rule him out; he would say: “No, you cannot put in a claim in respect of the new (m); the claim is restricted by the wording of Section 39 (3), which says that no benefit shall be paid to a contributor for more than 26 weeks in any financial year, or in any period of 52 consecutive weeks”. I think the Minister will agree that the words “this sub-section” refer to the portion of the clause which I have just read out; it cannot have any other meaning, and, that being the case, I think that the Minister is not right in saying that an application for extended benefits, as the result of the prohibition of this new sub-paragraph (m), will succeed. I think it must fail, because that particular application asks for benefits not in respect of one year, but in respect of a second year. That is the point, and that is our whole argument. But I will go further in support of my argument and refer the Minister to Section 39 (3)bis. I will agree with the hon. the Minister that the case that he has made out will apply if the conditions as set out in 39bis (a) apply. Here it says—

Now the Minister claims that there can be a consideration by the Board in respect of applications in terms of (m). That would be right if he were to give such instructions in terms of 39bis, when it can be claimed that there is excessive unemployment in a particular industry. Only in that case it could apply. Our case to the Minister is that, because he is changing the emphasis from “credits” to a qualifying period of 13 weeks in a year, he is destroying the basis of the provision. That is our case to the Minister.

This is what the workers’ representatives themselves have advocated.

I admit that. I am glad that this interjection has come from the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Deputy Minister has repeatedly said that this amending Bill has been brought forward as a result of recommendations of the Board.

That is the hard fact.

I would say that the correct fact is that a majority of members of the Board were in favour, but the point I want to make is that, immediately when the Minister introduced this Bill, the responsibility of the Board disappeared, and it then became a Bill introduced by this Government, and the Minister must accept full responsibility for it. They cannot hide behind the Board. The Government are now putting forward amendments to the Act which destroy the basis on which benefits were paid in terms of the present Act. Benefits were paid provided an applicant had credits, and now the emphasis is on “provided the applicant has had 13 weeks’ employment in a particular year”.

Because it is an insurance fund.

Because it is an insurance fund under which the beneficiaries were led to expect that, providing they had the credits, they would get certain benefits. Now the Minister comes along and says: “No, even if you have certain credits, that is not enough, you must have been in employment for 13 weeks in the year preceding the period of unemployment.” That is our disagreement with the Minister. We say that this is an abuse, because the original Act, the Act as it is now, laid emphasis on the question of having credits. Section 39 (2)bis makes that abundantly clear where it says—

That is the basis. As long as they have got those credits, and they are built up over the years, they are entitled in terms of the present Act to certain benefits, and the benefits they are entitled to are 26 weeks of unemployment benefits in a year. And then again in a subsequent year, and there can be no argument that the interpretation which the hon. the Minister and the Deputy Minister have put on 39 (3) does not apply in respect of (m).

But the main point is that it can be extended.

But the Bill does not extend it; that is our whole difficulty. If we are going to amend this Bill again to say that an application for a further six months’ benefit can be the subject of review by the Board, that is a different thing. But that is not the Bill as it is now. The powers that the Board has to review a case, it has only in respect of a person who has already had 26 weeks’ benefits and wants an extension in the same year.

And he can get it.

He cannot get it if the application is based on 39 (3). He has already had 26 weeks, and now he applies for a further period, and the Board can consider that. But we are referring to the man who has had 26 weeks. He has been unemployed for a further 26 weeks, and he now applies for an extended period, and that cannot be referred to the Board now, because it is not in terms of this particular sub-section (3), because sub-section (3) says: “An extension of the period of 26 weeks in a year.” That year has passed. He has had the benefits for that year, and if he applies for further benefits in that year, the Board can deal with that. But we are dealing with the case where the person has had 26 weeks in the year. He does not apply for extra benefits in addition to the 26 weeks in that particular year, but he wishes to apply in respect of a subsequent year, where, during the interval, he has not got the qualifying 13 weeks of employment. There is no provision for the Board to deal with that case. Only the Minister can deal with it if in a particular industry, in terms of 39bis, there is exceptional unemployment. Then it comes in, otherwise not. We ought to get complete clarity on this point, because it is very important. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) said this afternoon that he wants me to get up to defend-this matter that we are now paying benefits to the workers only in any year in which the worker has worked for 13 weeks. I say that this provision is drastic, but I am quite prepared to say that I am convinced that the Department and its officials will apply this provision, as they did in the past, with the necessary cautiousness and good spirit towards the workers. Hon. members cannot prove the contrary here. We know that the officials of the Department in the past applied this Act with the greatest care and goodwill towards the workers. In other words, if one takes into consideration that this provision which is now being inserted will affect only exceptional cases, then one gets the right perspective. I accept that the hon. the Minister’s statement is correct in regard to Section 39 (3), viz that the Unemployment Insurance Board on the recommendation of the local committee can extend the period, even when it comes to the second period and the applicant has not obtained work yet, and I accept that in such cases the Board can grant it, so that benefits may be paid for further periods.

As long as the applicant has credit.

Of course, as long as there is credit. One cannot pay benefits to a contributor who has no credits. That was so under the old Act also. Therefore I must say that I feel that hon. members opposite are simply dragging in the exceptional cases as the basis for their objection to this clause. I am convinced that this party and the Government and the Minister, as they did in the past, will apply this Act with the greatest care. The members opposite regard themselves as the alternative Government and they are evidently afraid of what will happen when they come into power and have their own Minister of Labour. Of course, they will never get into power, but evidently they are afraid of themselves. I am convinced that the other provisions of the Act will also be applied with the greatest sympathy. We know how sympathetic the Government was during the recent period of unemployment and how it tried to cope with those problems in various ways, and I do not think the objections of those hon. members are valid. They are thinking only of exceptional cases. Only when there is large-scale unemployment will it happen that people will be unemployed for longer than a year if they are actually bona fide work-seekers and are still available to the labour market. Otherwise an emergency may arise, and for that the Act makes provision. I am quite satisfied in my mind in regard to this matter. The same care and goodwill will be applied as in the past in regard to this Act, and then the workers cannot suffer hardship. I am convinced that the workers are sufficiently protected by the Insurance Board on which they themselves are represented. I simply cannot believe that the Unemployment Insurance Board will not act carefully when applying this provision. Of course, as the hon. the Minister has said, the people who are chronically ill or who are no longer in the labour market, and who therefore are not bona fide workers, cannot expect benefits from this fund.

I have been trying to understand the hon. Minister’s interpretation that this provision includes a discretionary right as far as the 13 weeks’ employment is concerned. Does not this new sub-section cut out the discretionary right if the worker has not been in employment for his 13 weeks?

It does cut it out.

That is what I am trying to find out. It seems to me that we can perhaps come to some happy mean of agreement about this question. I can quite understand the difficulties as far as the utilization of the Unemployment Fund for purposes other than for which it was originally intended are concerned. I realize the difficulty of using this Fund as a sort of additional old age pension fund and as additional assistance for people who are incapacitated. Obviously the Fund could not exist very long if it were used for these purposes. But at the same time it is no good the hon. the Minister saying that something else must be done for these people, “by Social Welfare, I suppose,” and particularly is it no good the hon. the Minister using such expressions when up to now the workers have been contributing towards this fund on the definite understanding that they will be able to get certain benefits from it. I think that a very relevant point has been made by he hon. member for Umhlatuzana to the effect that people paid into the Fund under certain conditions and that they are surely entitled to benefits under those conditions. I want to read to the hon. the Minister a letter that I have received from a woman, and I cannot believe in any way that she is an exceptional case; I think she must represent quite a substantial proportion of workers who are reaching retirement age, but who are not old in terms of old-age pensions, and who are certainly not people who are unemployable, as the hon. member there called it, because these are people who have been in employment for many years and whose main object is to continue to maintain themselves at a decent standard of living. She writes to me as follows—

I want to stop here for a moment, because the hon. member who has just sat down mentioned that such cases of people being unemployed for a year or more are very exceptional, and that could only happen in an emergency, or where the person concerned is no longer capable of being re-employed. But that is not so in these cases. There may be a recession, which would not be an emergency, and people who are quite able to be re-employed, will find themselves in difficulty, particularly if they have reached the retirement age which as far as women are concerned, is certainly not a very great age. So these are not unusual cases and they will not only occur in times of emergency. The writer of this letter goes on to say that she understands that the amending Bill is being designed to give relief in respect of temporary unemployment only, but she asks “What about the people too old to get jobs?” She says that she does not mean the people falling in the old-age pension category, but people simply too old to find employment because of the competition of younger people who come into the labour market, people with small pensions and nothing else. These people are the ones who have paid into the Funds since its inception, and as she says “have never asked for any benefits”. That is a very important phrase. These are not people who are relying on the community to see to their welfare. These are not people who sit down and demand that the community looks after them. These are people who have paid into the Fund since its inception and have never demanded any benefits. They are going to be the ones to suffer most by the amendments.

She continues—

These are the people whom I think deserve special consideration from the hon. the Minister. I appreciate the difficulties and I realize that the Unemployment Insurance Fund is not an old-age pension fund, that it is not a social welfare fund. But nevertheless these people who have been paying into the Funds under certain conditions, and who have always expected to derive certain benefits from the Fund and who have never until they are compulsorily retired asked for benefits, should receive consideration. They are going to suffer most. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister has interpreted this clause to mean that the Board has a discretionary right to waive the 13 weeks of employment in the preceding 52 weeks. If that is so, then I can only say that I hope that the Board will use its discretionary right to the greatest possible advantage for these people who have paid into the Fund since its inception, who have never drawn any benefits and who now find themselves cut off from the benefits at a time that they are most in need of such benefits. Some sort of happy mean certainly could be reached by this Committee, either by extending the discretionary right, or perhaps even by setting some age limit, but some other way than ruling out all these people who have contributed for all these years and now find themselves in this difficulty on compulsory retirement.

Sir, we know that when you come with specific cases, as the hon. member for Houghton (Mr. Suzman) has done, there is a variety of specific cases which you can mention. I think I should also mention a specific case just to show how misleading it can be if you allow your judgment to be influenced by such cases. One of the cases which appeared before the Unemployment Board was that of an exteacher who had taught, and then retired and received a pension. He then accepted a temporary position as a teacher on the Rand and taught there for a few years and contributed to the Unemployment Fund. When he reached the age of 66 a few years later he no longer wished to remain on the Rand; he resigned and went to Parys on the Vaal River. He arrived there and immediately said that he wanted benefits under the Unemployment Fund because he had contributed to it. He was told to prove in the first instance that he had registered and that he was available for work and that no suitable employment could be found for him. He registered and a month later he wrote to the former Minister of Labour and told him that he was at Parys, that he had registered for work, that he could not obtain employment there in his particular class of occupation, namely, that of a teacher, and he asked the Minister please to forward him his money; he would like to have the full amount immediately as he did not want to keep on going to the office. Against the case mentioned by the hon. member numbers of cases can be mentioned similar to the one I have just mentioned, and unfortunately the Unemployment Board has to deal with many such cases. That is the problem, therefore, that in spite of the sympathy which you have for these unfortunate cases, for these hard cases, it is our duty as Trustees to administer this Fund in such a way that it will continue to exist. If we have to continue on the basis that it is a welfare fund which the United Party wants us to do, in order to make political capital out of it, in what position will we find ourselves? Had they had a sense of responsibility they would never have asked us to do that. We have to decide to-day whether we want to continue to administer the Fund on the basis that it is a welfare fund but if we do continue on that basis the contributions paid by the workers and the employers will have to be increased. We have been told that the workers do not mind paying more. But that is not correct. Their representatives on this very Unemployment Board have said that they were against an increase in the contributions. They asked why the contributions of the bona fide workers should be increased in order to turn this fund into a welfare fund, seeing that it was meant to be an insurance fund? If we were to accede to the pleas and requests to introduce welfare services, either the contributions of the workers and of the employers will have to be increased, something which they do not want at all, or we will have to abolish the maternity grants, the sick benefits and the death benefits which have so far amounted to R32,000,000. The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) looks very surprised. I will specify the amounts to him. Since we have been paying maternity grants, an amount of R15,000,000 has already been paid out in that respect, and an amount of R15,000,000 has been paid out in death benefits and since death benefits for dependants have been introduced, an amount of R2,000,000 has been paid out. A total of R32,000,000 has, therefore, been paid out under the measures, call them welfare services if you want to, which the present Government has introduced. If we have to continue with these services on the same basis, with all the abuses which have taken place, we will either have to increase the contributions, or if we do not wish to do that and do not wish to eliminate the abuses either, we will have to do something which is the last thing this Government wishes to do and that is we will have to abolish maternity grants, death benefits and sick benefits. In that case I think we shall be committing a social disservice. If you have to choose between these three, let us call them uncomfortable ways, the soundest way to follow is rather to curtail those abuses. I wish to repeat what the workers have said on their own board. I know the Opposition does not like me to remind them of this so often because they only look to the T.U.C. and whatever the T.U.C. says is Gospel to them and more than that they apparently cannot assimilate. However, I wish to remind them again what the Board as a whole said when it considered this entire question of abuses.

Which meeting?

This is a summary of the minutes of the 11 meetings. This is the conclusion to which the 11 meetings came after their deliberations and the representatives of the T.U.C. were also present and a recommendation was drafted unanimously.

[Inaudible.]

It seems to me that the hon. member does not want to know the facts. He prefers moving about in the darkness and in the dust. I am giving the facts and I hope the rest of his party will appreciate that. When the Unemployment Board considered this aspect they pointed out that there were people, old-age pensioners, who were to-day drawing benefits, as in the case of the ex-teacher which I have mentioned, the man who wrote and said that he was in the pensioners’ paradise and the Minister must forward the full amount due to him. The Unemployment Board considered that case and said that the class of person who no longer “seriously contemplated employment” was drawing benefits under the Fund. They considered the matter and came to the following conclusion—

This was what the Board itself said, what the workers themselves said and in this respect the Government will rather listen to the responsible opinion of the workers and their representatives than to the political agents sitting in the benches opposite.

When we discussed this matter in the course of this whole debate on this clause the hon. the Deputy Minister continually referred to reports and minutes of the Unemployment Insurance Board. All his arguments in support of this Bill are based on the report of the Unemployment Insurance Board. I think it is greatly unfair of the hon. the Minister to quote here to the House a summary of the findings of the Unemployment Insurance Board when the Act requires that report must be tabled in this House for the benefit of all members, so that when we discuss matters of this nature all the relevant information is before us. But the only report that we have of the Unemployment Insurance Board is the report of the Board for 1960 and the observations made by the Secretary for Labour in respect of the discussions of the Unemployment Insurance Board in the Report of 1961.

I referred to a summary of the minutes at the conclusion of 11 meetings.

The Minister says that he refers to minutes.

On a point of order, is the hon. member there entitled to say “hy verdraai feite”?

I said “hy moet nie feite nekomdraai nie”.

That amounts to the same thing.

I can naturally appreciate that the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. van Staden) is present during this debate and was absent during a former debate. However, we leave the matter there. One naturally appreciates his attempt to participate in this debate and his naural hesitancy about other matters. I come back to this point, Sir. The Minister interjects and says they are the minutes, or a summary of the minutes. In the past the reports of the Board have always contained a summary of their findings and their conclusions. Those were made available to us. We have been able to discuss these matters objectively because we have had those reports. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) admitted today that this would have a drastic effect on the benefits which are payable to workers. The Minister gets up and says it is not really so drastic because the workers’ representatives have accepted this. What the Minister does not tell us is that the workers’ representatives were compelled to accept these provisions by a compromise. They were compelled to accept these provisions in preference to the possibility of an increase in the contributions. Why doesn’t the Minister tell the House and the country that? We have had previous experience of this sort of thing in the past, Sir, where the Government introduced provisions of this nature and where the Government forced the workers’ representatives to come to a compromise in order that the workers may get a little. There will now be a diminution of the privileges which they can enjoy as beneficiaries under the Fund and the workers’ representatives have had to compromise in order that a further load will not be placed on the workers. Why doesn’t the Minister tell the House and the country that? Why does the Minister riot come openly and say that? He shields behind the fact that all the workers’ representatives have accepted this. Why does the Minister not give the facts to the House? The facts are that at the one meeting where this compromise was reached at the workers’ representatives accepted the Government’s proposals but at the second meeting, after the second-reading debate, when the Minister referred these matters to them, the workers’ representatives objected to them.

They accepted it eight to two.

It is no good the hon. the Deputy Minister getting uncomfortable and interjecting. The Minister has had ample opportunity of taking part in this debate. When we come to the fundamental privileges which any one of the 768,000 contributors will derive from the Fund, it is no good the Minister referring time and time again—I think he has done so on six occasions—to the report of the Unemployment Insurance Board. He has never given us the whole story in respect of that matter. There is another aspect in regard to Section 39 (3). The hon. the Minister says that this is really not a hardship which is being inflicted upon the workers because the board will always have the power, irrespective of the period laid down of 13 weeks, to extend the period over which benefits will be paid and dispense with the qualification that a contributor must work for 13 weeks in 52. I have studied this section very well. The only discretionary power which I can find here is in the proviso to Section 39. It is clear that the Board has one discretionary power only and that is that it may extend the period during which benefits are paid to a contributor or it can extend the period where the contributor will receive half the benefits which he would normally have received in other circumstances. In terms of this section the discretionary power is clearly only in one respect and that is in respect of the amount of benefits that may be paid to the employee. The Act is clear in respect of the qualifications which a contributor must have attained before he can receive benefits from the Fund. If we have now reached the position where we say that irrespective of the credits a contributor may have, the Board has the discretionary power as to how to apply this measure, we are making an utter farce of the whole Act. When we think of it that during the last year 94,000 contributors to the Fund received benefits, and that in future, on the Minister’s argument, the Board will have the discretionary right and will have to deal with every application on its merits, the administration of the Fund will become utterly impossible. I think the hon. Deputy Minister recognizes that.

The committee scrutinizes each application. They have the power of recommendation.

The Deputy Minister says they have the power of recommendation. Naturally they have. The hon. the Deputy Minister has an intimate knowledge of the workings of this Act. The Deputy Minister must know that in the case of every application the necessary file is opened and referred to the Committee and a lengthy process is involved. If the same administrative process which applies to applications to-day, has to be extended thousandfold the Minister will have to increase the staff in the labour office at Johannesburg alone a hundredfold in order to cope with the situation. If it is true what the hon. the Minister has said that the Board has a discretionary power and that they can waive this 13 week period… [Time limit.]

When the clock twisted the neck of my first turn to speak, as the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. van Staden) put it, I was pointing out that the attitude which the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) and the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) adopted in 1959 differed from the attitude which they are adopting to-day in connection with short-time benefits. They tried to run away from it, Mr. Chairman, by saying that they were not against short-time benefits in 1959. They were only against those benefits being paid out of the Unemployment Insurance Fund. They said they had asked that those benefits should be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, in other words, they had to be paid out of the funds of the taxpayers. Mr. Chairman, I say they are trying to run away from this matter, but I will not allow them to get away from it as easily as that. Because that was not really what they ment. They were not sympathetically disposed towards the workers—the hon. member for Durban (Point) in any case was not very sympathetically disposed towards the workers, because listen to what he said. I want to repeat what I said in the course of my first speech. The hon. member for Durban (Point) said this—

Apparently he now wants the Consolidated Revenue Fund to subsidize people to loaf. He went on to say this—

He now wants them to take this holiday at the cost of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the State. You see, Mr. Chairman, it is very clear from this sort of thing that if he saw fit to talk about those people the way he did it did not enter his mind to pay short-time benefits to these people. I want to quote what he said further. He said this—

But they want the Consolidated Revenue Fund to do that. Mr. Chairman, I am under the impression that the entire opposition of the hon. the Opposition to this measure, against all these measures, is artificial. They are merely kicking up dust.

May I ask a question?

No, Mr. Chairman, there is no time for that; the debate has to be closed. I say they are only kicking up dust. I maintain that they are opposing this measure artificially. They do not care what happens to the Unemployment Insurance Fund. They were prepared to give the Fund away…

Where?

They were prepared to give the Fund away, as the hon. member who has just interrupted me, was prepared to give it away, in the first place as a pension fund and again last year as a honeymoon fund—yes, it had to be distributed as a marriage fund. That was what they suggested how the Fund should be exploited. I say their opposition is artificial. They do not care how the Fund is spent. They want to give it away, as I have said; the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) wanted to give it away. They also wanted to give it away as a welfare fund; they also wanted to give it away as another old age pension fund; they wanted to give it away as a charity fund; they wanted to give it away as anything. I will tell you, Mr. Chairman, why they want to be so reckless with this Fund. Their whole motive is clear. They want this Fund to become completely drained so that when abnormal times arrive, when the workers really need the Fund, there will not be any money in the Fund, so that they can tell the workers that it was the National Government who is responsible for it that there is no money in the Fund. That is all they want and that is why I do not take their objections seriously. If you weigh their words of 1959 against the attitude which they are adopting in this House to-day, you find all the proof you need, Sir, that you should not take them seriously.

Sir, we do not seem to be getting any further with our arguments as far as the Government members are concerned and particularly as far as the Minister is concerned. I feel that in view of what the hon. the Minister and the Deputy Minister have said in respect of 39 (3), we would be much more satisfied if the Minister would indicate quite clearly now that in respect of paragraph (m) he is prepared to introduce an amendment in the Other Place to Clause 2—unfortunately we cannot go back to Clause 2 where such an amendment could be introduced—to make quite sure that the qualification of 13 weeks will not bar an applicant from appealing for further benefits. If the Minister is prepared to introduce an amendment to that effect we will be able to report some progress in this particular debate. But if he is not, then we are in difficulty not only in respect of this clause but in Clause 5 as well. I do not intend going on to Clause 5 at this stage, Sir. I think it is unsatisfactory that there should be this uncertainty in respect of this most important interpretation which the Minister and the Deputy Minister have put on Section 39 (3). I think it is vital and important that there be no uncertainty at all in the law. For that reason I appeal to the Minister to indicate that if his interpretation of 39 (3) is correct, he will not do anything as far as this amendment is concerned, but if he is satisfied after further consultation with his legal advisers that his interpretation is not correct, he will introduce an amendment in the Other Place to give effect to what he believes is the position to-day.

I am not prepared to do that.

You see, Mr. Chairman; does the hon. the Minister admit now that his interpretation is not correct?

I have given you my interpretation.

If you find it is incorrect will you introduce an amendment in the Other Place?

Sir, this debate can go on for hours. We can ask some legal experts to come into the debate to amplify the position. I am not a legal man. I am trying to deal with this Bill on the basis of what I read. If I can be corrected, well and good. But in terms of Section 39 (3) it is quite clear that 3 (m) is excluded. And if 3 (m) is excluded then the proviso to Clause 5 is also in doubt. Why has the proviso to Clause 5 been put in if the Minister’s interpretation is correct? I do not know. That is why I say, Mr. Chairman, that we must be absolutely sure as to what the position is here before we depart from this clause. If the Minister is right we will be quite happy to accept the position. If he is wrong we must have the assurance that he will do something to give effect to what he believes is the position to-day.

That is tedious repetition.

You see, Sir, it becomes tedious when the Minister does not place arguments before us. The Minister has had ample opportunity to demonstrate how the qualification of 13 weeks can be nullified by the Board. That is what we are asking him to do. I am prepared to sit down if the Minister will get up and explain how the qualifying period of 13 weeks can be nullified by the Board.

I do not think the Minister can remain silent on an important matter such as this. The Minister has made a statement. He said that his interpretation was that the Board had a discretionary power in respect of the 13-week period which he now wants to introduce in terms of paragraph (m) of this clause. The Minister says that in any specific case the Board can waive those 13 weeks so that if a contributor has, let us say, a further 26 weeks’ credit he can enjoy that credit on an exemption granted by the Board, even though he may not have worked 13 weeks in the 52 weeks preceding the date of his application for benefits. Is that correct?

That is my interpretation.

That is the Minister’s interpretation. When we on this side of the House read Section 39 (3) we do not get that impression; that is not our interpretation. The Minister tells us that he has had sound legal advice on this point. But this point which we are discussing has only just arisen and I think that the Minister has only now given this point specific consideration. My hon. friend, the member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) has only just drawn his attention to it. Does the hon. the Deputy Minister agree with the Minister?

Is this your latest effort at kicking up dust?

It is no good the hon. Deputy Minister using expressions like “stofopskoppery” and so on.

[Inaudible.]

If what the hon. the Minister says is correct the position will be this: Let us get down to the basic facts. A man who had been a contributor for 10 years, in terms of the Act as it stands to-day, had credits for 130 weeks. That is correct. He is entitled to enjoy those credits at 26 week inter-he can go back to the Board on 1 January and draw benefits for 26 weeks if he becomes unemployed. If he fails to get employment after the lapse of a further period of 26 weeks, he can go back to the board on 1 January again and obtain benefits for a further period of 26 weeks. But the Minister says in this sub-section that he will not be able to do that unless he has worked for 13 weeks in the 52 weeks preceding it. The Minister is now trying to exonerate the situation by saying that in terms of Section 39 (3) the Board will have a discretionary right, not only to extend the period of benefits, but to do away with the qualifying period of 13 weeks. If the applicant has only worked for two weeks then the Board can say he can obtain benefits for a further period of 26 weeks. That, Sir, is not our interpretation. But if it is a correct interpretation I can only say that it will be utterly impossible to apply. Because if you think about it that 94,000 applications were made last year for benefits under this Fund alone and that of those 94,000 a large percentage must have enjoyed benefits for a longer period than 26 weeks, how on earth will it be possible for the Board to cope with the situation. It will be an impossibility, Mr. Chairman. In terms of the Act every application has to be considered on its merits. There must be proof that the applicant has looked for employment and other things have to be proved before he receives his benefits. The Board has to satisfy itself on many aspects in respect of every one of those applications. I say, Sir, that an impossible situation will arise. We on this side of the House are not at all satisfied that the Minister’s interpretation is correct. I am going to ask the Minister a straightforward question across the floor of the House: If he finds that his interpretation of Section 39 (3) is incorrect, if he is advised by his law advisers that he has a misunderstanding of the situation—which is a possibility—will the Minister tell us now that he is prepared to come with an amending Bill during this Session to set the position as he has stated?

Sir, my reply is this. As regards paragraph (m) as it stands, that must be included in the Bill. I am not prepared to amend paragraph (m) in any way whatsoever.

May I just say this, Sir. What the Minister wishes to obtain by paragraph 3 (m) as it stands, is a limiting effect on applications for benefits in excess of 26 weeks, in the period of a second year. The Minister’s interpretation is that if any applicant finds that he does not qualify in terms of paragraph 3 (m) because he has not worked for 13 weeks in 52 weeks, he can go to the Board and the Board can grant him additional benefits at its discretion. That is the interpretation the Minister places of Section 39 (3). All we ask is that if that is the legal position we will be very happy, it will be a tremendous advantage, but if it is not we ask the Minister to undertake to introduce an amendment in the Other Place to give effect to what he believes can be done by the Board. That is all we ask. I think that is reasonable.

Sir, I must make the position quite clear. Even assuming that my interpretation is not correct I am still insisting on paragraph (m), because the intention obviously, right through the second readinug and now in this Committee Stage, has been and is that (m) is essential to protect the Fund from claims which we say are not reasonable claims. So assuming that my interpretation is not correct, as I have said, I am still not prepared to accept any amendment to sub-paragraph (m) either here or in the Other Place. I want that to be clearly understood.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to take the hon. the Minister one stage further. I want to point out to the Minister that the justification for the proposed amendment has been the argument that the Board has this discretion to waive the qualifying period. That was the argument advanced by the Deputy Minister. And that has been the argument advanced by the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt), by the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) and by the hon. the Minister himself. Now the Minister tells us that he is going to insist on (m) whether his interpretation is right or wrong. I want to ask the Minister this: If he finds that his interpretation is wrong is he prepared in the Other Place to give effect to the amendment so that his interpretation will be as he has stated and that the Board will have that discretionary right to waive this 13 week period?

I will consider it.

We are beginning to make progress, Sir.

Subject to what I have said.

Yes. I accept that the Minister insists on paragraph (m). Subject to the other arguments which have been put and subject to his insistence on (m), the Minister says he will consider it. May I now take that one a little stage further. Will the Minister consider it before this Bill passes its final stages in the Other Place?

I will consider it.

Clause, as printed, put and the Committee divided:

AYES—89: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G.F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Cloete, J. H.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Diederichs, N.; Dönges, T. E.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Frank, S.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E. H.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N.F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van der Spuy, J. P.; 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 Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.Tellers: W. H. Faurie and J. J. Fouché.

NOES—47: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bowker, T. B.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Durrant, R. B.; Eaton, N. G.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hopewell, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Russell, J. H.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, H. G.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and T. G. Hughes.

Clause, as printed, accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 5,

I move the amendment standing in my name—

The proviso makes it impossible for any contributors to the Fund to get benefits in excess of 26 weeks in any one year. The arguments which were used in respect of the previous clause apply also in respect of this proviso and there is no point in repeating those arguments. But the Minister will appreciate the undertaking which he gave in respect of the interpretation of Section 39 (3), will apply here as well, because the proviso will have no effect if the Board has the right to extend benefits in excess of 26 weeks, whether it is in respect of one year or in respect of a subsequent year. The Board will override this proviso. That is why we attach so much importance to the Minister’s interpretation of what the Board could or could not do in respect of (3) (m). Therefore, in deleting the proviso we are being logical and consequent to our opposition to (3) (m) and what we believe to be the restricting effect of (3) (m), and our belief that the Board has no power to disregard the qualifying period of 13 weeks. We say that if the Minister is right in his interpretation, the proviso is hardly necessary and I move the deletion of the proviso and leave it to the Minister to explain why he feels the proviso should be retained.

Surely the Minister will give some reaction?

I can only repeat the same arguments that I have used before.

We should like to know whether the Minister has taken legal advice about this matter as well, but he cannot expect us to put our case and to get no response whatever, and I hope the Minister will extend us the courtesy of replying.

I understood the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) to say that the same arguments used on the previous clause were also relevant to this proviso. If I might just repeat very briefly the object of this proviso, it is this. It is to prevent, as I stated on a number of occasions, a number of contributors who are in receipt of benefits at the time the amending Act comes into operation—that is the main clause before we come to the proviso—from being suddenly and adversely affected by the restrictive provisions of the Bill. There is no argument about that. According to the proviso, the contributor shall be entitled to benefits for a maximum period of 26 weeks, but if for any reason he ceases to be entitled to benefits after the amending Act comes into operation, his future applications will be subject to the restrictions which are contained in the proviso. But that does not imply that he will in future necessarily be limited to 26 weeks’ benefit in terms of Section 39 (3), as upon application the Unemployment Insurance Board can waive the restrictions and grant benefits for as long as it likes, depending on the circumstances of each case. That is the effect of the proviso. But I agree with the hon. member that if the question of the discretion of the Board does not apply to the previous sub-paragraph (m), then consideration will have to be given to the effect of this proviso. I think the two matters are interdependent, but it is a matter which I said I will consider.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 6,

I wish to move as an amendment—

I think the Minister will appreciate the reasons for this amendment. The Committee may not be aware of further provisions in the principal Act, and I think that to make the reasons for moving the amendment quite clear I should quote the provisions of Section 42 (2), which says that if the Secretary of the Board at any time after consultation with the Board and the actuary is of opinion that the assets of the Fund are insufficient or are not increasing to the extent deemed sufficient to meet applications for benefits which may reasonably be expected in a period of severe unemployment, he shall report to the Minister accordingly and thereupon the Governor-General may by proclamation in the Gazette prescribe an increase in the rate of contributions, provided that no such proclamation shall prescribe a reduction of the rates of benefit below the rate prescribed by Section 39, and no proclamation shall be issued unless both Houses of Parliament have by resolution approved thereof. That means that if the reasons for the introduction of this Bill as given by the Minister are correct, the Secretary should have asked him to introduce a resolution to increase the contributions. I do not know if the Secretary has, but the point is that the Minister can by resolution passed by both Houses increase the contributions to the Fund, and if that happens, and secondly, if the Minister is able to reduce the high figure of unemployment in the country appreciably during the next year, and thirdly, that the decisions taken in terms of this Bill are applied, the collective effect of all these matters may be that the Fund will no longer be in deficit. Now if all these things were to happen, surely the need for this Bill will disappear, and the purpose of the amendment is that if all these things do happen, if there is a reduction in unemployment and a decrease in benefits and if the restrictive provisions of this Bill all bring about the desired effect, the Minister will be bound, unless this amendment is accepted, by the provisions of this Bill for quite a long time to come; and we say that if this amendment is accepted, within a year of the Bill being proclaimed the Minister will be in a position to reconsider the position. I do not think this is an unreasonable request to put to the Minister. We are in effect saying to the Minister: Have confidence in the ability of the Government and everyone else to reduce unemployment; consider the requests made to you by the trade unions to increase contributions so that the present benefits can be restored. In view of these facts it appears to me that the Minister has to make out a case for the retention of these restricting clauses for all time, because if our amendment is not accepted that is what it means, and I hope that in the light of the information I have given the Committee, the Committee will support my amendment.

During the second reading the whole House, I felt, was under the impression that the only reasons for introducing this Bill was, firstly, because of the rise in unemployment, and secondly the abuse by certain people of the fund, and thirdly by the Government and the employers not contributing on the same level as they did before. I think I made it quite clear and that the whole House agreed that we here were not pessimistic enough to feel that the unemployment position would not be relieved within the next year or so. It was the feeling that the present number of 30,000 unemployed was the high-level mark, and that we hoped that from now onwards that figure would fall. If the Minister feels that unemployment will still increase, he must tell the House, but if he feels it will decrease, or even stay at the same level, then he cannot for all time bind the workers to these restrictions he is imposing by this Bill. Secondly, I think that we are all agreed that the abuses which were mentioned have been exaggerated. I for one do not believe that the people who have abused this fund have done it in such a manner and in such large numbers that it has been the cause of the reduction in the total amount in the fund at the moment. Thirdly, I said in the second reading that the contributions were three-fold, by the State, the employers and the employees, and that it was unfair to expect only the employee to be the sufferer when the fund is in trouble. It is for the State immediately to take steps, and I understood the Minister to say that he would, as soon as possible, contribute towards the fund as he did previously. If he does this the employers must play their part as well. If all three members of this partnership play their part, I do not think it is necessary for us to bind ourselves for all time by the restrictions of this Bill. I repeat that firstly the abuses have been exaggerated and do not play any great part in the reduction of the Fund; secondly, that unemployment will in all probability fall and not rise, and thirdly, that all three partners to the fund will contribute as they did before. If that happens, these restrictions should automatically fall away. I have no hesitation in supporting the amendment, and I hope that the Minister will see it as we do, as a temporary measure only and one that can from time to time be reintroduced if necessary.

I rise to support the amendment, because I feel that it can be termed a test of the stewardship of the Government in regard to this fund. In the second reading the Minister gave us as his main reason for the introduction of these amendments that it was a measure which curtailed the outflow from the Fund because of the financial position in which it finds itself at present, and he gave us the figures for the last few years to show how it had diminished. The Minister has indicated that these various amendments are steps taken to reduce the outflow. He has also stated that he anticipates that next year there may be an increase in the contributions to the Fund. Now, if you look at the position of the unemployment figures at present, the increase which has taken place over the last three months, it is clear that the Fund will still decrease. I therefore put it to the Minister that it can hardly be expected that year after year he must come with further restrictions to stop the outflow. He could hardly subscribe to such a principle. Therefore, I think it is only fair to accept this amendment where we ask that the Act will apply for one year so that the position can be reviewed in 12 months’ time, and if the Minister finds that the position has improved he need not proceed with the restrictions and the workers can continue to enjoy the benefits they now enjoy. I hope the Minister will accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I regret that I cannot accept the amendment. The provisions of the Bill are not only intended as purely financial measures, but they are also intended to be permanent in preventing abuses, so that the steps I envisage in this Bill to prevent malpractices and abuses are intended to be permanent. It is quite true that during the second reading I stated that the Government has deferred the question of increased contributions this year and that one of the reasons was that we wanted to see what the effect would be on the fund after the new provisions come into operation. I think hon. members must be raeasonable, and it should be obvious that you cannot decide within 12 months whether these provisions have the effect which we think they may have. I should say that it will take at least two years or more for the effect of these provisions to be clearly seen by the Government and all the other contributors to the Fund. It seems to me that it is quite wrong, when any legislation is passed, to say that legislation must only be for a certain time.

There are plenty of precedents, like the War Measures Act and the Canning Act.

This is not a war measure.

But it is an emergency measure. It is intended to be permanent as far as certain provisions are concerned. At a later stage, next year or the year after, when we have seen what the effects of the provisions are, and we feel they have resulted in a narrowing of the gap between income and expenditure, naturally the whole case will be reviewed. The Government will at some future date have to consider the question of increased contributions. That will be time enough, when that legislation comes before the House, to consider whether in view of the position of the Fund at that date it is possible to relax some of these restrictions. For that reason I am sorry I cannot accept the amendment.

I purposely read out the provisions of Clause 42 of the Act because it would enable the Minister to give effect to a request from the Secretary for increased contributions.

Order! That cannot be discussed.

The Minister has said that at some time he may introduce legislation to increase contributions, but if he does it by way of legislation that is one thing, but if he introduces a resolution we cannot discuss anything but that resolution.

No, it will be done by legislation.

That makes it clear. We were concerned, in case the Minister introduced a resolution, that it would prohibit us from discussing anything else but that resolution.

I can give the hon. member the assurance that it will not be done by way of resolution.

Yes, but that does not mean that we are not still in favour of restrictions being placed on the life of this Bill. There are so many objectionable features that we cannot accept. We have voted against them and now as a final protest it is necessary for us to try to shorten the period during which these restrictions can apply, and that is the purpose of this amendment. I am sorry the Minister cannot accept it. The good provisions in this Bill are far outweighed by the bad provisions and therefore I am sorry that the Minister cannot accept the amendment, and we shall call for a division.

I want to take up the Minister on one point. He admitted that in the second reading he said he would possibly take steps in a year’s time to increase the contribution.

Order! Increased contributions are not under discussion now.

The other point the Minister dealt with is the abuses being the reason for his taking these steps, and he quoted figures about savings which can be effected in regard to abuses. Now the Minister says that is one of the main reasons. He said that the abuses amount to R2.7 million a year.

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

I am submitting reasons why this Bill should have a life of only one year.

The hon. member must confine himself to the clause.

I say it is a dreadful admission to make in regard to the stewardship of the Fund, that the abuses amount to more than R2,000,000 a year.

After discussion, the amendment was put and the Committee divided:

AYES—49: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bloomberg, A.; Bowker, T. B.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Durrant, R. B.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hopewell, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Russell, J. H.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, H. G.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and N. G. Eaton.

NOES—88: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Cloete, J. H.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Diederichs, N.; Dönges, T. E.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Frank, S.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; Van den Berg, G. P.; Van den Berg, M. J.; Van den Heever, D. J. G.; Van der Ahee, H. H.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Spuy, J. P.; 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 Wyk, H. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

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

Clause, as printed, put and the Committee divided:

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

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

NOES—48: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bowker, T. B.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; De Kock, H. C.; Durrant, R. B.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hopewell, A.; Hourquebie, R. G.L.; Hughes, T. G.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Russell, J. H.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, H. G.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and N. G. Eaton.

Clause, as printed, accordingly agreed to.

Title of the Bill having been agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

I put the amendments. Any objection? No objection. Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, we have not seen the amendments.

I called for objections but there was no response.

Mr. Speaker, there was a voice here saying, “Object.”

No.

I think in the interests of Parliament we should see these amendments before we agree to them.

I am informed that the Bill has been printed.

On a point of order, Sir, when you asked whether there was any objection I shouted out, “beswaar.”

You are fibbing.

Mr. Speaker, when you called for objection hon. members of the Opposition were conversing and they raised no objection whatsoever.

I have no desire to hold up the business of the House, but, as I have said, we have not seen these amendments.

Order! I will put the question again: Is there any objection?

Yes.

Amendments to be considered on 3 May.

I move—

To add at the end of the Clause “unless it is proved that the admission is not based on fact.”.

When the hon. the Minister introduced this Bill, my hon. Leader asked him a question, and the question was whether or not those persons who had already been classified under the principal Act would be re-classified in terms of the new definition, and the Minister said: “No.” In other words, he has given us the assurance that persons already classified will not be re-classified in terms of the new definition involving descent, involving their ancestry. Sir, while I accept the hon. the Minister’s assurance so far as he is concerned, we appreciate that the hon. the Minister will not always be the Minister of the Interior; but there will be other Ministers whose assurances we do not have, and we feel that there must be protection for those persons who are already classified, those thousands of borderline cases who at last have certainty so far as their classification is concerned, and for that reason I move—

To add the following proviso at the end of the clause:

I am sure that the hon. the Minister will see fit to accept this in view of the assurance which he has given to this House. This amendment meets the difficulty which the hon. the Minister seemed to have with the old Act when he spoke on the Bill at the second reading, namely that there are certain people who want to be re-classified, and in terms of the amendment which I have moved they can be re-classified if they so wish, but only if they wish to be re-classified. But there is another very good reason why this amendment, I submit, should be accepted by the hon. the Minister, and that is that if it is not accepted, the tragedy which will be visited upon families who are already classified under the old definition will be such as I think no civilized community, no Christian community, would ever permit. I say that because if this amendment is not put into this clause, it will affect those persons who are already married. It will affect already existing family units. Sir, I think that is very important, because under the Mixed Marriages Act the test is very much the same as the test under this Act, and under the new definition it would be possible, were this amendment not accepted, for persons already married to be re-classified according to a different test. To have one member of the family, the husband or the wife, re-classified so that one would be European and one would be nonEuropean. I am sure that the hon. the Minister would not like that to happen. I am sure he would not like to see already existing homes broken up because of the application of this definition. Although the hon. the Minister will not do it, he will be followed by other Ministers, and the effect of this power if exercised upon those persons already classified would be horrible. In view of the Minister’s assurance I hope that he will accept this amendment and at this stage I do not propose to say anymore.

I think the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) is a very good amendment in so far as it will set at rest the fears of those persons who were borderline cases and who were classified in one population group under the Population Registration Act, and who fear that because of the activities of informers, not necessarily a witch-hunt on behalf of the Department, but informers who have some evil intentions towards them, and who might request the director to re-classify them in terms of some specified knowledge that they have of the descent of these people. I would therefore support that amendment. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will not reconsider the amendment he himself is moving, that is to say, the proviso which reads,” unless it is proved that the admission is not based on facts I ask the hon. the Minister to reconsider it because of the reason that he gave us in the second reading debate for the introduction of this proviso. He told us that this was specifically aimed at Mrs. Singh who he thought would be seeking to be re-classified as an Indian in order that she might live with her Indian husband. I think that this proviso puts us in a very bad light indeed. There are very few women who would voluntarily have themselves classified out of the European group, not because it is a disgrace to be a member of the Coloured group or the Indian group or the African group, but simply because of the legal disabilities that classification as a member of those groups carries with it in South Africa. It is not a case of being ashamed of one’s origin or attempting to get away from one’s racial grouping, but in this country being classified as anything other than European carries with it very decided legal disabilities, disabilities as regards the franchise, disabilities as regards earning one’s living, living in selective areas and so on, and I would say that it would require someone of almost heroic proportions voluntarily to submit to reclassification. The fact is that we believe that one woman is attempting to have herself so reclassified. I put it to the hon. the Minister in all humanity that this is something with which we should not interfere, that it is a most unusual case, and that it reflects no credit whatsoever on South Africa, on the Government or on the Minister himself to attempt to stop this woman from living with her husband to whom she is lawfully married, and from coming back to live in South Africa, which is the country of their choice. I ask the Minister in all humanity to re-consider his decision and to withdraw this proviso.

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

Evening Sitting.

There is one aspect of this Bill which has been worrying me for some time and which I would like to put to the hon. the Minister, and I would like him, if possible to give me the picture and tell me if I am right or if I am wrong. This is in regard to Clause 1 and the classification of families. We have here this last proviso “but does not include any person who admits that he is by descent a Native or a Coloured person”, to which the hon. the Minister has moved an amendment to say “unless it is proved that his admission is not based on facts”. Now, in terms of the principal Act, people under 16 years of age can be classified. In other words, “families” can be classified. The point that worries me is a point which has regard to the classification of families, together with the children of under 16 years of age. Under this new definition, and this last portion of the clause in particular, it would appear to me that where a man and wife have to take their children to be classified, especially under the extra Clause 4 (but I am not particularly concerned about that) they have to be classified and those children can be of very tender years, and yet they can be taken along and when they have no knowledge of what is happening, can be classified by an admission, possibly of their parents, and classified in for instance the Coloured group. What I want to know is this: The hon. the Minister has admitted, and stated quite clearly in his second reading speech, that once they are classified by admission under that section, it is going to be almost impossible to be reclassified. What is going to happen to these children when at the age of 16 or at some stage of their life they decide that they have not been classified in the group in which perhaps they are then moving? They may have been accepted as White, as has been indicated in the remarks of an eminent Judge in regard to a case of classifying a family, with which he was dealing, where one of the Board members themselves said that the features and characteristics of race and colour don’t seem to crystallize until round about the age of 14. So you see, Sir, that these children can have by an admission of their parents been classified as Coloured under this section, but when they reach the age of 14, they may come to the conclusion that they should not be in that group at all. The Board itself, or one of its members has said that at that age their facial characteristics, etc., settle down and are formed. If they then decide that they should not be in that group at all, then it would seem to me from what the Minister has said and from the reading of this clause, that those children are going to be debarred for all time from having their classification reviewed. I think this is a very serious matter because if ever the angle of humanity comes into it, I think this is the case where it really does. I would like the hon. the Minister please to tell me as soon as possible in this debate exactly what the position is going to be and how this clause is going to affect those children. I am not appealing so much for people who can go and argue their own cause, but I appeal for people who do not understand, and I have seen those people (I am talking with some knowledge) at the office of the Population Register in my own city, together with their children, in many cases a number of children, who obviously don’t know what is happening to them. Under this clause as I read it, all of those children without any knowledge to themselves of what is happening, can be classified into a group which in later years they might feel they don’t belong to, and I cannot see how they can possibly ask for a reclassification or a reconsideration of their case.

Order! The hon. member is now discussing race classification in general.

With respect, Sir, I am discussing this particular portion of Clause 1, “but does not include any person who admits that he is by descent a Native or a Coloured person.” In other words, the admission can be made, as I see it, on behalf of children less than 16 years of age, by their parents or guardians. I would like the hon. the Minister please as soon as he can to clarify the position because that may alter my attitude to this clause considerably.

I rise to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban-North (Mr. M. L. Mitchell). He gave as principal reasons for moving that amendment the fact that this hon. Minister may be replaced by another person holding that office, and while one accepts the assurance that he has given that he will not initiate any reclassification as a result of the definition having been amended, somebody else may occupy that office. There is the additional reason given by the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) who made the point that for some malicious or improper motive a third party may wish a reclassification to take place. But Section 5 (3) of the Act is capable of the interpretation that there is a duty on the official concerned, the official holding the office of Secretary. Should facts come to his notice, not by reason of any malicious motive, but merely by accident or some bona fide report being submitted, he must take knowledge of the fact that a certain person may no longer be properly classified, and there will be a duty on him to make a reclassification. I suggest to the hon. the Minister that is an added reason why the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban-North should be accepted.

In addition to that, I should like to move a further amendment to Clause 1, as follows—

The effect of that amendment is this: There are two categories of persons we are here dealing with, the category dealt with by the hon. member for Durban-North, viz, those who have already been classified, and then there is the additional category of those persons who have sent in their applications for reclassification some months before this Bill was introduced, but who have not yet been classified. Those people made their application for classification at a time when the previous definition was the law, and it is only fair and right, I suggest, that those people be classified in terms of the provisions of the law as it stood at the time that they made their application. It is no fault of theirs that these classifications were not made prior to this amendment coming in. I do not know how large the number concerned is, but my information is that it is quite a large number and many of these applications have for months been in the hands of the department but have not been classified during that time. This further amendment to Clause 1 is designed to safeguard the rights of those people so that they will be classified in accordance with the law as it stood and as they understood it at the time when their applications were made.

I want to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban (North). It seems to me that on this amendment both sides of the House are in complete agreement. We have heard the assurance by the hon. the Minister that no persons will be reclassified except on their own request. I accept completely the assurance of the hon. the Minister that this will be done. I perhaps differ from some of my colleagues on this side of the House by going so far as to say that I accept that this assurance will be carried out by the hon. Minister’s successor, if there should be a successor, because I cannot believe that in a responsible government the change of a Minister would mean that such an assurance would disappear. But, Mr. Chairman, I think it goes far deeper than the question of an assurance. This is the highest legislative body of the Republic of South Africa. Our task is to legislate and surely legislation means that the desire of the House should be placed on the Statute Book, and that you cannot have half the desire of the House placed on the Statute Book and the rest of the desire of the House given as an assurance by the Minister. It seems to me quite wrong in principle and in practice that the wishes of the House should be dealt with in any other way than by findding its place on the Statute Book. If that is the case, we destroy to a large extent, in my submission, the purpose of Parliament. We know very well that the courts find difficulty enough in interpreting what we place on the Statute Book, but what is going to be the position if they have got to interpret an inintention which is partly on the Statute Book and partly consists of an assurance?

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

The amendment has asked that certain things should be placed on the Statute Book and that is what we are asking for, and I am trying to give the reasons why we want these things placed on the Statute Book. Mr. Chairman, another situation might arise if this amendment is not placed on the Statute Book. You may have a situation when certain other actions are taken when the assurances of the hon. the Minister cannot be led as evidence; because legally they don’t exist. I trust that under the circumstances the hon. the Minister will accept this amendment.

Two amendments have been moved. The first amendment came from the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell). In my second reading speech, as well as in my reply to the second reading debate, I pointed out very definitely that reclassification should stand unhampered. The reason for that is very, very clear, and I am not going to reiterate what I have already said. I cannot accept this amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban (North) for the reason that it is contrary to the basic principle of classification, namely that of general acceptance in that it excludes the right, the existing right on the part of the public to object to a classification. It excludes the right of any person to come forward and object to a classification. I said very clearly that in the past 12 years we have not had a single case of that sort, but still it remains a right of the public to object whenever they see fit to do so.

The second amendment moved by the hon. member for Zululand consists of a further proviso which I unluckily cannot accept either. My reason again is very clear, namely that it has the effect to create a variable basis of classification as between persons whose applications have been received at the commencement of the amending Act and future applicants. Once the new definition is accepted, classification of outstanding cases on the previous basis cannot be justified. I think that is very clear. I must point out that even in my second reading speech I gave the warning that no further classification would be made until such time as this Bill becomes law. Mr. Chairman, it is also very important that when this new Bill becomes law, the old definition falls away, and then there will be no old definition according to which anybody could be classified. I think that is very simple reasoning, and for those reasons the amendment is unacceptable.

The hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis) put a question about children under 16 years of age. All children are classified according to acceptance and appearance, and all that the parents do is to act for the children up to the age of 21 years. If at any time their parents may prove their acceptance as Whites, they can claim a White classification, or as in the instance mentioned by the hon. member, they can aim classification as Coloureds. Children are therefore classified on the evidence given by their parents. After the age of 21, the child can himself ask at any time for a reclassification.

At the age of 18 or 21?

At the age of 21, and if he can prove acceptance for another classification, it is very simple to have him classified as such.

I cannot follow the hon. the Minister’s reasoning at all in rejecting both these amendments. He stated in rejecting the first amendment that in the first 12 years of the Population Registration Act, there has not been a single case from the public regarding existing classifications, and yet he gave as reason for not accepting the amendment of the hon. member for Durban (North) that amendment would debar the public from raising such objections. The hon. the Minister said that if the amendment is accepted, members of the public would not be able to object to a classification.

You debar them from making an objection.

Yes, but one of the Minister’s strongest arguments was that in fact nobody had ever objected during the past 12 years. Let me put it this way: Although members of the public may not have objected during the first 12 years, the Minister is now making it much easier for them to object from now on, because the whole definition is changed, and whereas it might be very difficult for members of the public to come along and say “This person has been accepted as White because he is generally accepted as a White person,” now anybody can come along and say “This person has been accepted as White, but I find now that in his descent there is a Coloured forebear”. That makes it of course very much easier for the public to come along and object. The hon. Minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot on the one hand say that the public do not object, and then on the other hand say that he must maintain the possibility for the public to object, and at the same time make it easier for the public to do so. I think that is very unsound reasoning. The second reason the hon. the Minister gave for not accepting the amendment moved by the hon. member for Zululand, was also very unsound. He said that if he accepted that amendment, it would mean differentiation between the people who have already applied up to now and those people who are to apply in future to be classified. But surely the Minister’s amendment is making a vast difference between the people who have already been classified up to now and all future classifications. There is already that big differentiation. Anybody who was classified before the change in definition falls into one group and all the people who are to be classified in future fall into another group.

I want to come back to another important point, and that is the whole question of people who might have applied before this Bill will actually be promulgated as an Act. Sir, I have again to return to this unfortunate Song family, which has been the whole basis for this amending legislation, and I want to read to the House a statement from Mr. Song. He thought that in terms of his application that he had also applied for his family to be classified as White, and I hope this letter will convince the hon. the Minister and other members on the Government side that this was not an organized undermining of South Africa’s traditional way of life. Mr. Song is an individual who applied to be reclassified, not as a result of some dark political plot to undermine the whole of the established way of life, but simply as an individual who had felt that he had always lived as a White person, had always been accepted as a White person and wished therefore to have himself and his family so classified. And this is what he says—

I want to interject here that in fact he made a mistake. The application went in his name only, but he thought it had gone in the name of himself and his family. He then goes on to say—

He has incidentally two daughters and two sons, a wife and a daughter-in-law. He says—

Do you want to tell us that when Mr. Song applied, he did not discuss all these implications with his legal adviser?

Mr. Song was under the impression that the application was going in the name of himself and his family. There were no political implications whatsoever.

When was he married?

Mr. Song was married many years ago. He has a daughter of 32 and another daughter of 23, a son of 22 and another son of 11 years old. There are no political implications in this case. It is, a case of an ordinary human desire to live as they have always lived and to be classified as such, and if the hon. member’s amendment is not accepted, it means that there is now under the new definition no hope for the rest of the Song family. I hope the hon. the Minister will use his compassion and allow the position of this man to be reviewed in the light of the facts which I have revealed. Sir, there is no undermining plot involved, I assure the hon. the Minister. To me it is the most inhumane thing that matters are not viewed in their correct light, but that always some dark political implication is read into every case. I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister will, as I say, use his compassion and ask the Board to use its compassion in reviewing this case.

The hon. the Minister intimated that his only objection to the amendment which I moved was that it would prohibit the right of other persons to object, a right contained in the principal Act, against the classification of persons already classified. Now I would ask the hon. the Minister whether he would be prepared to accept an addition to the amendment already moved as follows—

If the hon. the Minister will accept that it would meet the objection which he raises to my amendment, and it would then entrench the position of these people and would make it certain for these persons who are already classified as to what their future status and the status of their families is going to be. I hope the hon. the Minister will indicate to us immediately what his attitude towards this further amendment will be, because it now meets the objection that he has raised and I am certain that the hon. the Minister can have no further objection. The Bill will then contain the positive statutory expression of the hon. Minister’s intentions so far as the administration of this Act is concerned. I hope the hon. the Minister will give some indication whether he will accept that now. Then we can perhaps save an awful lot of time and know exactly on what lines we are going to debate in this Committee the implications of this clause.

Will you give me a copy of your amendment?

I wish to move an amendment to Clause 1 in the following terms—

The last portion of Clause 1 will then read as follows—

The difficulty which I see is likely to arise under this clause, this definition clause, will not be met by the amendment which the hon. the Minister himself moved, and my amendment therefore must be considered as part from that portion which the hon. the Minister has moved to amend. Looking at the practical application of this new definition, it does become important to have clarity as to the procedure which is to be followed by those who are responsible for the administration of the Act. As I said during the second reading, a new rule of procedure has been introduced by which evidence of some admission by a person whose race classification is at issue can be used as evidence and can become conclusive evidence as to that person’s membership of a particular racial group. I submit that my amendment will bring that desirable measure of clarity as to the procedure to be followed in terms of this definition of Clause 1 of the Bill. It will do so in two ways, first by qualifying the word “admits” and secondly, by specifying the form in which the evidence is to be recorded. The hon. the Minister will remember that those are two of the aspects which I stressed during the second reading debate, and specifically asked that he should give consideration to. There should be some qualification of the word “admits” and a specification as to the form in which this evidence of admission should be recorded. The safeguards I include in this amendment are essential and that for two reasons. The first of these is that the staff is entitled to be guided in regard to the manner in which these provisions of the law are to be invoked. Without words having the effect of those I have proposed, the officials, who will be administering the Act, are going to find it extremely difficult to know precisely in what way the relevant provisions should be applied. The second reason for these safeguards is that it will leave the individual whose race classification is under consideration under no doubt of the way in which he should set about making an admission. There is a third aspect which my amendment is designed to cover and that is to make it quite clear that any admission made will then be only for the purpose of the classification under this Act. Coming to the amendment which the hon. the Minister himself has moved, I must say that I find difficulty in ascertaining how it is going to be applied in practice. The wording is—

Proved to the satisfaction of whom?

Who decides?

That is what I am asking, namely to the satisfaction of whom? Because if the facts are known then why call upon the person to make an admission? If the facts are known, these should determine what his classification should be. There is no necessity for it to be preceded by an admission. If, on the other hand, the facts are unknown, the question which arises is why start new investigations because of the admission? There seems to be an illogical basis to a procedure of having an admission first and thereafter either establishing that it is not true, or setting out to establish that it is true. These two consequences seem to me to be quite illogical and I, therefore, feel that the hon. the Minister should reconsider his amendment in this regard. I further want to point out that when the hon. the Minister during his reply to the Second Reading Debate indicated that he was going to move an amendment of this kind.

I indicated that not only in the course of my reply, but also in the course of my Second Reading speech.

Yes, but I am referring only to the statement made in the course of the reply to the debate. I found his statement to be rather alarming because he said that it might arise that some over-zealous official might ask a person “Are you not of Coloured descent?”. The hon. the Minister also agreed that there might be one or other unscrupulous neighbour who might come along and give this information. The possibility of that arising is, therefore, in the Minister’s mind. On the other hand, if my amendment is accepted, such a possibility will be eliminated completely and it will be quite impossible then for an overzealous official to extract an admission from a person, or for some unscrupulous neighbour to come forward with an allegation of that nature. The admission, in terms of my amendment, will be in a clear and suitable form, namely in the form of a affidavit sworn to before a responsible judicial officer. On these grounds I appeal to the hon. the Minister to accept this amendment. It will not in any way detract from the legislation which he has to administer and will bring certainty into the procedure. At the same time it will clarify the way in which his own staff should act in the application of this new rule.

I should like to point out to members that it is much easier for me to deal with any amendments if they are submitted to me beforehand and, accordingly, I want to thank the hon. member for Umlazi for having furnished me with four amendments earlier to-day. That also applies to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth-South in regard to the amendments he has just moved. In connection with this particular amendment, I should like to say that I am not prepared to accept it in the form in which the hon. member has proposed it. I have consulted my law advisers in this connection. I am, however, prepared to move the following amendment—

I am prepared to accept his amendment in this form. My reasons for couching his amendment in this form are, firstly, that I feel that if a person makes an admission, then surely it is not necessary for him to do so under oath because it is a free and voluntary admission. This is not in the form of an admission in a criminal case. Secondly, why must such an admission be made before a magistrate? Magistrates have nothing to do with the classification of persons under the Population Registration Act. It is the duty of the Secretary for the Interior, or of persons in his Department acting on his authority and guidance. If the hon. member for Port Elizabeth-South feels that he is prepared to accept the amendment in this form, I shall be only too pleased if he would take it over and move it. Otherwise I should like to move it now. In so far as the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban (North) is concerned, I should like to have more time to consider it.

I am pleased that the hon. the Minister has seen it fit to accept my amendment to a very considerable extent. I wonder, however, whether he would not agree to include the words “under oath”. You see, Sir, we are concerned here with a very serious matter and the hon. the Minister, during the course of this debate, also said that this was, in fact, a serious matter and he indicated with what care officials of his Department dealt with cases falling under this Act. I feel, therefore, that an admission of such an important nature should be treated in a somewhat more serious way that it would be in terms of the amendment now moved by the hon. the Minister. I will not, however, insist that the admission should be made before a magistrate. I merely thought of a magistrate because he is a judicial officer and would give an added degree of sanctity and force to an admission of that nature. I should like the hon. the Minister, however, to reconsider the matter with a view to adding the words “under oath”, because of the nature of the admission and of the importance it has, not only in the life of the individual concerned alone, but also in the lives of members of his family or those yet to follow.

In regard to the suggestion now made by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South), I think we should bear in mind that an admission is normally made either in a document which is submitted to the Director of Census, or in the course of an investigation into a complaint. In this connection I want to point out that, firstly, a document submitted in connection with registration is not, normally, made under oath, and, secondly, the procedure to be followed for an investigation conducted by the Appeal Board is not circumscribed by the Act. There is, in other words, no statutory provision which obliges that Board to take evidence under oath only. The normal manner in which an admission could, therefore, be made, would be a manner which would preclude it being made under oath. If the amendment is extended so as to make it possible to take sworn admissions, it will entail a specific procedure which will be outside the scope of the Act as it stands. If the hon. member accepts the amendment which has been moved by the hon. the Minister, I think he would have attained his point. I now should like to come to the amendment moved earlier on by the hon. member for Durban (North), viz. to Clause 1 of this Bill. In connection with this amendment I should like, however, to raise the query—without making an issue out of it—whether we will be competent to amend this clause by introducing certain qualifications in respect of the objections which can be raised. In the principal Act this matter is dealt with in Section 11 laying down that an objection by any one may be raised within 30 days after the classification concerned has become known to the objector, or within 30 days after the commencement of the Act. Now an attempt is made to provide that no objection can be brought in against a classification of a person. In this Bill there is no amendment of Section 11 of the principal Act relating to the competence of an objector to object against a classification. In regard to the merits of the amendment, I should like to say that at the moment it is competent for any person to raise an objection against a particular classification within 30 days after he became aware of such classification. The point now is that this Bill introduces two possible new grounds for objections, namely the appearance of a person and his own admission The right to object will, however, subsist only for 30 days after the passage of this Bill. It is accepted law that everybody should be aware of the contents of an Act which has been published in the Gazette. At any rate, the right to object on the new grounds now being created in this Bill, will subsist only for 30 days after the publication of this Act. In view of this short period, is it necessary to curtail the rights of potential objectors for that period of 30 days? It is hardly conceivable that any objection would be raised within this period of 30 days for reasons of spite or for any other unworthy motive. An objection could only be raised in an outstanding case where the principles of the new Clause 1 had not been applied in the determination of race under the existing section. Therefore I feel that, in any event, an amendment to Clause 1 has no practical importance at all. Neither could it justifiably be inserted because that would create the impression that we are guarding against a possible abuse which does not, however, present a praticable possibility.

The amendment moved by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) has been accepted by the hon. the Minister, in spirit at least, because he realizes that this deals with a very important matter. The declaration by a person is of great importance in his classification. Now, this amendment applies to Clause 1(b) only and not to (a) and, accordingly, it is applicable strictly to borderline cases. For the man concerned it is a solemn occasion and not an occasion on which he fills in a census form, or anything formal of that kind. It was suggested in the course of the Second Reading debate that a man might make such a declaration in a light-hearted manner while he was slightly inebriated and that could then count against him. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) has, therefore, framed an amendment which concentrates on the solemnity of the occasion on which he is making a statement which is irrevocable—because having made it, he will be classified accordingly. For this reason, it would be appreciated if the hon. the Minister would accept the words “under path”. It would not be absolutely necessary to call in a magistrate for the purpose of having the declaration made under oath, because there are many officials in the Department of the hon. the Minister who themselves are commissioners of oaths. Any statement which has to be made could, therefore, simply be made before them in their office, or, if the person concerned does not wish to do that, he could go to his own attorney. I again appeal to the hon. the Minister to accept this further amendment, especially in view of the fact that the hon. the Minister himself realizes the importance of the matter.

I really cannot understand the hon. member for Kensington. The hon. the Minister to a large extent accepted the amendment he moved. In fact, he accepts the whole idea behind the amendment, except for the provision in regard to the sworn statement. Now the hon. member for Kensington is afraid that unless a person can state under oath that he is this or that, he can simply be classified on the basis of common gossip. Does he really imply that the Board concerned will take any notice of gossip? Surely they will get into touch with the person concerned and inform him that objection has been raised to his classification, and await his reaction. Thereafter such a person will certainly make his statement in a responsible manner, or even appear before the Board before the Board takes a decision. Therefore I do not believe it is necessary for that hon. member to see ghosts here. In fact, I think he ought to be grateful to the Minister for having accepted his amendment to the extent he did.

However, on this occasion I more particularly want to refer to what was said by the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman). This hon. member to-day made two heartstirring pleas on behalf of a Mrs. Singh and a Mr. Song. I am convinced that these pleas are only a political sing-song, because anyone who followed the story in the press in regard to Mrs. Singh’s marriage realized that it was only politics which was behind it all. Take, e.g., the statement read out here by the hon. member made by Mr. Song and his family. According to that statement, his father has been in this country since 1898, and he himself has a daughter of 32 years of age. In other words, they have been in the country for 64 years. During this time, it is stated, they have always associated with Whites. But he nevertheless married a Chinese! Where then did he find her if he associated only with Whites, as he alleges? The same applies to his daughter who is now married to a Chinese. Why did she marry a Chinese if she has always associated with Whites? These are matters which the hon. member for Houghton should explain to the House before we can take that statement seriously. No, Sir, this is a case which, as we all know, was worked up by Mr. Ray Swart. Mr. Ray Swart was the attorney in this case, and if he could have his way, not only would one Chinese family be classified as White, but a few hundred.

That is absolutely untrue.

I repeat that this case was worked up by him, although not necessarily in a political sense. The case was taken to the Classification Board by him. But if one looks at the history of the Song case, I cannot see how it can be alleged that they have always associated with Whites, particularly when members of this family have married Chinese. Surely that is illogical. If one moves in a certain circle, surely one will not seek a spouse in another circle. The hon. member told us a few weeks ago that she does not believe in the intermingling of blood, but here she is now advocating miscegenation because she approves of persons classified as Whites marrying Chinese. If the hon. member wants to suggest a solution for this matter, she must advise Mr. Song to apply to be reclassified as a Chinese.

I should like to deal with the serious arguments of the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) in regard to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban (North). The hon. member for Kempton Park stated that 30 days was such a short period that it would hardly be worth it. The hon. member must bear in mind, however, that period is being extended to one year under Clause 3.

Only with the consent of the Minister.

Yes, but the fact remains that it can be extended up to a period of one year. Consequently, I consider that this is a matter of more than passing importance.

I should also like to refer to some aspects of the clause we are dealing with, as a whole. Because, while it seems from the speeches made by the hon. the Minister during the second reading debate, that he appreciates the effect the Bill will have, he does not perhaps fully appreciate all the circumstances which can give rise to real hardships. The hon. the Minister indicated that there was an appeal against a classification and that no harm could be done to a person who has so appealed, because he gets the right classification. We all agree that the clause we are discussing limits the number of people who can be classified as Whites. We are all agreed on that. That being the case, you create uneasiness with quite a large number of people on account of their reduced prospects of passing through the net. That is the case long before there is actually a classification or an appeal. Then also you get those cases where an investigation is made into their circumstances, and cases where persons who have been passing as Whites, are classified as Coloureds. That might be the correct classification—or it may be accepted that it might be so, on account of the Minister’s assurances that no injustices would be done. Nevertheless, that person will be suffering under tremendously changed circumstances—having been able to go to theatres, cinemas, and to have sources of income which are no longer open to him. I suggest that these things can cause very real hardships, especially as one would not be able to give any justifiable explanation for the sudden change in his circumstances. I suggest, therefore, that although the classification of the person concerned may be quite correct and fully in terms of the new definition, the attendant hardships have made themselves felt long before that, or may, indeed, be precipitated by the very correctness of the decision.

It is useless giving explanations again, because that has been done so often already. It is quite clear that we on this side will never accept the standpoint of hon. members opposite in regard to Clause 2. Take, for example, the second amendment of the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell). Does the hon. member realize that where a bona fide mistake has crept in in the classification of a person, in terms of the provisions of that amendment such a bona fide mistake cannot be remedied unless there is an objection by the public to such classification? The person himself will, however, not be able to have the mistake remedied. In addition, the objection by a member of the public will be valid only if submitted within 30 days after the classification has been made. The result of this amendment will therefore be that if there is no objection by the public, the person concerned will have to suffer from this wrong classification for the rest of his life. I have had this matter carefully investigated by my law advisers, and that is the conclusion to which they came. This is not a political matter; the lives of people are at stake. Can one imagine an hon. member moving such an ill-considered amendment, without analysing it properly? That is my objection to this amendment, and it is for hon. members to persuade me to adopt a different standpoint. I simply cannot accept an amendment just to please someone. I rely on my law advisers. Let me repeat what the position will be in this regard. My information that it is possible that a bona fide mistake may slip in when a person is classified. If the amendment of the hon. member is accepted, it will be impossible for the person concerned himself to remedy that bona fide mistake. He has to await for a member of the public to object to his classification, and that has to be done within 30 days after he becomes aware of such a classification. If that does not happen, the person concerned will be saddled for the rest of his life with a wrong classification. So much for the amendment of the hon. member for Durban (North).

Now I come to the request of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) that provision must be made for a statement to be made under oath. Surely the hon. member is aware of that the Board of Appeal is a quasi judicial body. When the Appeal Board considers it desirable that the voluntary admission should be made under oath, it can instruct the man to take an oath. When the matter goes to the Supreme Court, the man can make the statement under oath verbally or in writing. Why then introduce this aspect? Surely the person who makes the admission is not one who would like to be classified as White. It is only a person who admits that he is Coloured or a Native. That is what he admits, that he is a Coloured person or a Native. If he makes that voluntary admission, that person is not classified as White. In the first place, why should the man take an oath, and secondly, my further amendment to Clause 1 provides that if there is any doubt as to the truth of the staement this man makes, here is the right to prove the contrary, and then I suppose the Appeal Board will place him under oath. They will tell him that there is certain evidence against him, and then he can controvert it under oath. But my law-adviser—and that is the Chief Law Adviser—says that this is absolutely unnecessary, and I had to plead hard with him to consent to these words which I proposed to be inserted, because he says that it unnecessary also. By implication the position is as I stated it in my second reading speech. But I said be inserted, because he says that is unnecessary words than too few words, and therefore these unnecessary words are there, and I hope the hon. member will withdraw his amendment in favour of this one, because I am not going to discuss this matter any further. I have firmly made up mind on the matter, and I have made a great concession which the Committee should appreciate.

On a point of order—forgive me for not doing so earlier, but with so many amendments which one had not had the opportunity to study one’s brain does not work so fast. I would like to direct your attention to the fact that in this Act, in Sec. 11 there is provision for a re-classification. We are dealing now with an amendment to Clause 1, and all the amendments moved here, except the one moved by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) envisaged only one thing, viz. a limitation on the right of classification. If I understood the Opposition correctly it means they want to add a proviso to it, viz. with this proviso that persons already classified will not be reclassified except at their own request. That amounts to a limitation of the right of classification in terms of Sec. 11. That affects the power to classify. On that basis these amendments, with respect, should not be allowed, because they add additional matter to the definition which has nothing to do with the definition. This really constitutes an extension of the provisions of Sec. 11, which is not under discussion now, and which was not approved of in the second reading either.

May I address you on the same point, Sir? The position here is perfectly simple. The new definition is proposed in the amendment before you. There are certain amendments moved by this side of the House to limit the application of that definition. My submission to you, Sir, is that it is always possible to move amendments limiting the application of a new Bill or a new proposal before the House, but not amendments to extend it.

May I just say something on the same point of order, Sir. As I see the position this point of order is based on the principle that no new ideas can be brought into the discussion during the Committee Stage, that no new principles can be introduced during the Committee Stage. I should like to refer you, Sir, to the book “Parliamentary Procedure in South Africa” by Kilpin, the third edition, where he says—

I submit that in view of the fact the principle of re-classification exists, an amendment which limits re-classification is a totally new principle according to the definition. This definition was accepted in principle during the second reading and this definition is now being used to introduce a new principle, a principle which is dealt with in Section 11, namely that of reclassification and an attempt is now being made to curtail that principle of re-classification. In my opinion this is a completely new principle which is not permissible in the Committee Stage.

Sir, may I address you on the same point. The hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller) says this is a new principle, but in my submission it is not a new principle at all. The principle is a new definition of a White person and a new means of classification which brings in descent. Normally an Act only applies in any event in respect of the operation of that Act to future incidents after the passing of that Act. The hon. member for Ceres in his argument suggested that a new principle was being introduced in the amendment before the House. In my submission it merely seeks to ascertain and to make certain that the Bill will not operate retrospectively, which is the normal thing. In any event, the intention of this Bill, I believe, was clearly expressed by the hon. the Minister at the second reading, when he explained it to the House, and it is that explanation given in the second reading which this Committee is now considering, and the Minister said then that it was the intention not to apply this Act so as to re-classify persons who have already been classified.

I have not had the privilege of seeing the precise wording of the amendment but I wish to put this to you, Sir, that I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has given us only one facet of the truth, and that is that where a new principle is accepted in the second reading we can in the Committee Stage limit the scope of the application of that principle. I think for instance that an amendment which will have the effect that no person objecting after a certain date can rely on the provisions of this amendment, in other words, this amended Section 1 cannot retrospectively form the basis of an objection, would probably be a good amendment. But having listened hurriedly to the amendment of the hon. member for Durban (North) I fully agree with the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) that amendment places a restriction on the right to object, which is dealt with in Section 11, and which has absolutely nothing to do with the definition and in my opinion that amendment is out of order, but I say that with reservation because I do not have it in front of me.

The last speaker said it was permissible to introduce an amendment at this stage which limits the application of a certain principle. The amendment presently before you does just that, in the sense that as it stands at present, as the amended definition stands at present, it will apply to two categories of persons, those who are still to be classified and those who have already been classified, and whose classification will perhaps be changed because of the new classification or the amendment of that classification. This amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban (North) merely seeks to limit the application of it to one of those groups; it merely narrows the scope of it. It is not introducing anything new in so far as Section 5 or Section 11 is concerned.

As the Minister himself has stated, this new definition replaces the old one, and therefore the law is changed from that moment. Now the amendments that have been moved do not vary the principle and do not try to introduce a new principle. They simply seek clarity as to what extent this new definition will apply. It is the application of a new definition which both amendments are concerned with, and I would therefore urge that your ruling, Sir, should be that no new principle is being introduced.

I have considered the matter. In my opinion, the principle of reclassification is contained in the clause, and for that reason I am prepared to allow the amendment.

In introducing the Bill and in dealing with Clause 1, the hon. the Minister has said that this is completely non-political, but it does affect the lives of people. I personally have had much to do with classification cases and I think we should get down to bedrock and see what happens. These poor unfortunate people, when they do not have identity cards, either write to Pretoria or out of the blue they get a letter and I want hon. members to listen to the letter they receive. It is headed “Population Register” and says—

On what clause are you talking?

Clause 1.

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

With due deference, what I am referring to now is sub-clause (b), which says “but does not include a person who admits that he is by descent a Native or a Coloured person”. In order to make my point I must read this letter, or at least the last paragraph of it, which says—

Order! The hon. member is discussing the definition, but we are dealing with Clause 1 now.

Yes, I will come back to that. The position is to-day that there is a great danger in the admission, and in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) we are trying to safeguard these people—I will not say from their own folly, but it is quite simple for people to make admissions without any substance. When these people are called into the Registration Office and interrogated they make admissions which affect their lives. I am talking now about the people who have lived as Whites and are accepted as Whites, and who to all intents and purposes are White. We have such unfortunate people here, and this particular clause can affect these people, and I would like to ask the Minister to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South).

I have listened very carefully to all the arguments the Minister has advanced in reply to all the amendments I have moved, and to the amendment which I moved to my amendment to meet the objection of the Minister to the first amendment, and I must say that I am rather reminded if the verse from “My Fair Lady”—

It is very obvious that the Minister is attempting to find some reason for not accepting the amendments moved. Surely if the Minister really wanted to meet the situation which he claims to exist, namely that it is the policy of this Government not to reclassify people already classified, he would have found some way of helping us to put it into the Bill, but he has not been very helpful and the hon. members behind him have aided and abetted him in rejecting this without putting up something in its place. I hope the Minister will show us that he has a little more feeling than he is displaying at this stage. If the Minister does not intend to classify people already classified, in terms of the new definition, and does not intend to have a witch-hunt, then why will he not accept this amendment to provide in the Bill positively once and for all that the rights of everyone presently classified will not in future be affected by this unless they themselves desire it or unless, to meet the objection of the Minister, in terms of Section 11, someone else has the right to object. In fact, I have not yet moved formally, although I have given the Minister a copy of it…

Order! If it is not moved, the hon. member cannot discuss it.

Then I move as an amendment to the amendment previously moved by me—

In other words, the Minister’s first objection to the amendment, that it would prevent people in terms of Section 11, that is other people, from objecting to the classification, is now met by this amendment, because it says “in terms of Section 11”. An objection by anyone else can still be made, but it must only be made in terms of the old definition in the Act, and not the definition contained in this clause. That will meet the Minister’s only objection, by putting in this Bill the provision that there shall be no reclassification of persons already classified, an amendment put up on the word of the Minister given in the second reading, an undertaking by him. But when that is met, he now comes with another objection and says that this will now prevent bona fide mistakes being rectified. Clearly it is not going to do that. Clearly there is another provision of the Act which provides for that. Nowhere is that affected by this. It is a classification, and if the classification was made in error this is not a bona fide or proper classification. If what the Minister said in the second reading is what he really meant, namely that he is not going to reclassify anyone, then it seems to me that the Minister must either himself move an amendment acceptable to him or he must ask that this clause stand over so that he can get his legal advisers to go into the matter. If he did that he could meet the point raised by him. Therefore, I move this further amendment.

After the diversion of the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze), we reached the stage where we were really arguing on a petty legal basis. The Minister knows exactly the situation which this side of the House wishes to protect against. We have moved a number of amendments and have explained to the Minister what situation we wish to guard against. One is the reclassification under the new definition of persons already classified, and the other is the classification of those who have already applied but have not yet been classified under the previous definition. If the Minister will concede that he wishes to meet that situation, then one or other of the lawyers on this side will get together with the legal advisers and in five minutes an agreed draft amendment can be produced. No situation is incapable of being put down in words. Would the Minister be good enough to indicate whether he is prepared to accept any sort of definition which will cover the situation dealt with by the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell)? If he is against meeting that situation, no matter what amendment is moved, a great deal of time can be saved and we need not bother about preparing anything to meet the needs of the Minister. If that is his standpoint, perhaps he will be good enough to say so, because so far his objection to the amendment of the hon. member for Durban (North) is purely on the basis of draughtsmanship, and that can be overcome in five minutes. So if the Minister will give us a reply on that, a great deal of time can be saved. As far as my amendment is concerned, which is to meet those who have already applied but have not yet been classified, there again if the Minister would be good enough to indicate whether he would be prepared to accept any amendment a great deal of time can be saved, because the objection to my amendment is also on a purely legal basis, draughtsmanship, and it is quite easy to re-draft it to meet the Minister’s objection that the old definition will have gone and consequently there are no standards whereby you can classify them. One could meet that objection quite easily by re-drafting it, but one does not want to go on putting amendments to meet objections purely based on draughtsmanship if we know that the Minister is opposed to meeting the case we are putting up under any circumstances. If the Minister takes the view that this amending Bill was introduced to meet the people who are not yet classified and he is accordingly prepared to classify those people only under the new definition, we know where we stand and we know it is not merely a question of legalistics that he objects to, but that he wants to use this Bill so that he can classify those people according to the new definition. If the Minister would be good enough to indicate where he stands on these two points, it would save a lot of time.

I find it very strange that hon. members opposite want to know from me what my attitude is in respect of the amendments. Surely that is not the way in which to move or consider amendments. In my second reading speech and in my reply—and it appears fully in to-night’s Argus—I emphasized that no matter what happened, re-classification must remain as it is. I said unequivocally and without any reservation that the machinery for re-classification had to remain as provided for in Section 5 (3) and Section 11 of the principal Act—we only have the addition to Section 11 of the amendment contained in Clause 3. Hon. members now make a sincere attempt, and I accept everything bona fides, to have all the assurances which I have given enshrined in the Act. It appears—and this is a fact—that if they close the one loophole another loophole appears somewhere else because what hon. members have been trying to do ever since this Bill has been published, has been considered for months by myself, the legal advisers, the Cabinet and everyone else who worked on it, in order to produce the best. I can tell hon. members that many changes were made in order to formulate it correctly because I tested it against every possible case that might arise. Hon. members have made it their business to mention many cases and to try to prove that a certain case will be hard hit under this definition, and I simply do not accept it. I maintain that under this Bill classification will be dealt with on a more fair basis to the satisfaction of everybody concerned, and the loopholes which threaten to burst open will be closed without anybody suffering an injustice. That is why I say that with the best will in the world I cannot accept one of those amendments which have been moved, with the exception of the amended one of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South). If hon. members were perhaps to come with other amendments they will have to be considered. But those which have been moved so far are unacceptable to me. Surely it is wrong to hold that against me. The hon. member for Zululand says I must say whether I will accept any amendments. How can I say that I will not accept any amendment? Hon. members wish to have the weapon of being able to say that I only gave a number of assurances, but when the time came for me to enshrine those assurances in the Act, I refused—in other words, I am a dishonest man who only uses words and tomorrow or the day after, having the Act at my disposal, I do something else. That is not fair. I say that is how it can be interpreted. I am not saying that is what hon. members have in mind. Hon. members cannot expect me to say, however, that I will not accept any amendments. I say that any amendment which is moved I will consider, and it is my duty to do so, and if I give my reasons why I cannot accept it, we can differ on that, but I cannot allow myself to be bullied into doing something which I do not want to do. That is why I am asking hon. members that if they have other amendments, to come forward with them. If we do not have the time to-night to discuss them, I am prepared to let Clause 1 stand over, but the amendments which I have had up to the present are unacceptable and consequently it is not necessary for me to move that the clause stand over.

I have considered the amendment to the amendment of the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell), and I am afraid I cannot accept it because it is in conflict with the principle of the Bill, as read a second time.

I would ask the Minister to move that the clause stand over because I am sure that with the number of amendments we have had it would not be fair to vote on them to-night without due consideration.

No, the others were handed to me before.

In order to clarify the Minister’s own amendment, I would like to put a question to him so that I can be quite satisfied as to what it means. I am referring to the Minister’s suggestion that Clause 1 be amended by the addition of the words “who for the purposes of the classification under this Act freely and voluntarily admits”. Those are the people affected. An official of the Department now asks him: “What are you? To which race do you belong?” He replies: “I am European.” That is the point I wish the Minister to answer and that is the point which has worried many of us. The official has certain information in his possession that this man has a Coloured father or Coloured mother. The man is asked to what he admits and he says: “I admit to be a European”. The official who has information in his possession from the 1951 census, or by virtue of any other information, says to him: “Do you admit that in 1951 your father wrote in the census form that you were Coloured?” [Interjections.] I want it on record; if the Minister says that any admission extracted from the applicant in those circumstances will not be regarded as free and voluntary admission, I am prepared to accept the Minister’s amendment. I am telling him that now. I want to repeat this: if the Minister will place on record that any admission extracted from an applicant under circumstances as I have narrated, will not be regarded as a free and voluntary admission under this Act.…

How can you.…

If the hon. the Minister wants to ask me a question I do not mind if he does. I want to tell him that at the moment, without a proper reply to my question, the Minister’s amendment is completely unintelligible, because who is going to say to an official: “I am a Coloured man”? Who will say: “I am a Native”?

That is the only reason why we have that Clause.

I cannot… [Interjections.]

May I ask you a question? If the hon. member’s argument has any foundation, will he tell us if the parents of a child admit voluntarily that the child was born Coloured, what is his objection?

I am not worried about the parents; I am worried about the child who is now the applicant. That applicant has been living among Europeans for years and is regarded as a White person. He now receives notification by letter such as the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Timoney) attempted to read, or he receives a card classifying him as Coloured and he says: “I am neither Coloured nor Native; I am a White man”. The official says: “I have sent you a letter or I have sent you your classification card, because in the 1951 census your father said that you were a Coloured man.”

What is wrong with that?

The official says: “Do you admit that your father wrote that in the census form?”

Whose evidence are you going to take?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Karas (Mr. von Moltke) has never had any personal experience in regard to helping people to be classified.

I have had more experience than you have had.

Of Grey Shirts, not of people. My experience has been that the people who re-apply for classification are people who have been told that they had to re-apply because they are of a different race according to the Government’s records than they claim to be.

Who gave the evidence?

I can tell the hon. member for Karas that in the 1951 census, in nine cases out of ten, the form was filled in by either the father or the mother. The child was then, say, ten years old. Twelve years later, when he is grown-up and has lived as a White person, he is then confronted with evidence that his father wrote in the 1951 census form to the effect that he was Coloured. [Interjections.] If the Minister makes a statement to-night that such an admission will not weigh against an applicant I can give him this assurance that he will remove all the doubts in the minds of many of the applicants in regard to applying for a reclassification. I have had many discussions with people since this Bill was published. They want to know what will happen if they admit that their father wrote in the 1951 census form that they were Coloured? In terms of this Bill that will be an admission.

You are talking nonsense.

If I am talking nonsense, you are all swallowing it very easily.…

Order! The hon. member for Karas will have an opportunity of addressing the Committee.

I want to assure the hon. the Minister that people are worried about this question of admission. If the Minister says it will not be regarded as an admission he will be removing untold doubt in the minds of the people and I ask him to give me an answer.

I want to ask the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) to do one thing and that is to take the Bill and to read it. Somebody is a White person who is so and so but not somebody who admits that he is a Coloured or a Native. I ask the hon. member with tears in my eyes what person who claims that he should be classified as a White person, will be so stupid as to admit that he is a Coloured or a Native? We are dealing with race classification. Will a person who tells you that he wants to be classified as a White person, be so stupid as to admit that he has Coloured blood in his veins? If I knew that my grandmother or grandfather had a little coloured blood in them, do you think for one moment, Mr. Chairman, that I will say to the officials: Look, I want to become White but I admit my grandmother had a little Coloured blood in her. I will not do that nor does the law compel me to admit it. If I do do it I do so voluntarily without any coercion. What are the people afraid of? Hon. members referred yesterday to the case of Rex vs. Gill.

You are missing the point which I made.

There is no point to miss. If I have missed the hon. member’s point I am glad that I have missed it, Mr. Chairman. In the judgment in the case of Rex vs. Gill it is stated clearly that we have nothing to do with that “preponderance of blood”in our race classification. We consider appearance and acceptance. I cannot understand why the hon. member for Boland does not want to accept that and how he can still say that somebody can be coerced or forced to make an admission. If he cannot understand that, there is nothing more that I can do make him understand it.

There is another aspect of Clause 1 in regard to which I do not feel completely happy. It was touched upon during the second reading debate but none of the amendments which has been moved so far has changed the position. I want to make this statement that if the assurances which the hon. the Minister has just given and which he gave when he introduced this Bill, were accepted, it will amount to this that the fear which hon. members say they harbour, is groundless and that the examples which other hon. members and the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) gave a moment ago have no bearing on what is intended here. The Minister stated clearly that what was intended here was to close the loopholes through which a certain person of the Chinese race had crawled and was classified as a White person. Why this situation in which we find ourselves? All these objections, this entire debate, all the difficulties which have been mentioned by members opposite and all the explanations would not have been necessary. Was it not possible to state specifically in Clause 1 what the intention was? Mr. Chairman, I think I have a strong argument and I wish to carry it further. Why does the Minister not want to specify what the intention is? I said during the second reading debate that the Coloureds were perturbed about the fact that they were being used as the ash-heap when it came to race classification. If there is a person whose descent is of such a nature that he does not fall into a specific group, he gets classified as a Coloured. (Kleurling).

No, as coloured (gekleurde). Not as a Coloured.

The Minister has just used the words “as coloured”. Had those words not appeared here, it would not have been necessary for us to have this debate.

“coloured person” is defined in the Act.

Throughout this debate accusations have repeatedly been levelled from the Government benches against members on this side of the House to the effect that what we say in this House is quoted against South Africa in the world outside.

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

Mr. Chairman I am speaking on Clause 1. I have certain objections to the wording of Clause 1. I make this statement that I think I have reason to believe that there is a reason why the wording of this Clause is as it is.

Order! The hon. member had sufficient opportunity during the second reading debate to raise his objections.

Mr. Chairman, I am speaking on Clause 1 specifically, more in particular the last two lines. Reference is made to “Coloured” (gekleurde) which creates the impression that when a person cannot be classified, he is simply classified under that group. The reproach has been levelled at us that what is said in this House is used against South Africa in the world outside. The reason why South Africa is being besmirched is really to be found in the manner in which this Bill has been drafted. It says “or anybody who admits that he is a native of a coloured (gekleurde)”.

“Not”.

Mr. Chairman, the words “coloured person” is used in the English text. In South Africa we understand “a coloured person”to be a Coloured. Had those words not appeared here, this discussion would not have been necessary. I object to the wording of this Clause. It specifically says “coloured because had it referred to “Chinese” or “Asiatic” it would have harmed the name of South Africa. I accept the hon. the Minister’s assurances. I will avail myself of them, of course, if ever I have to deal with such a case. I accept that the Minister will honour his assurances and his undertakings. The danger always exists, of course, that this hon. Minister will not always be administering this legislation. Another person may take over in the near future. That is very possible. He is not the only Minister of the Interior who has administered this legislation.

Order! The hon. member must return to Clause 1 and to the proposed amendments.

Mr. Chairman I wish to confine myself to paragraph (b) of Clause 1 where reference is made to a “coloured” person. This whole debate would not have been necessary had it been the specific intention of the Minister to close the loopholes to which he referred and had he mentioned the racial groups which he wanted classified as coloured. I think that is an argument which cannot be cast aside. A great deal of time would have been saved had we known precisely where we stood. The Minister has repeatedly given us assurance as to the procedure which will be followed under the new definition and that he will not re-classify persons who have already been classified, and that evidence, which was to the detriment of the person, will not be used. We are grateful for these concessions. But cannot it be specifically stated in Clause 1 which racial groups, Chinese or Asiatic or whatever it may be, the Minister does not want classified as White? Had that been done there would not have been this misunderstanding and all this arguing would have been unnecessary and this entire discussion would have been unnecessary.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot agree with the Minister’s argument when he replied to the amendment which I moved and he said that the evidence in the form of an admission will only come from those people who claim to be a Coloured person or a Native. This condition is contained in the definition of a “White” person. It is quite clear to me that this admission will come from the person who has been classified as White and who is to be re-classified. I have indicated my appreciation of the change in the wording which the Minister has moved in his second amendment to meet some of the difficulties I have referred to. Of course, the hon. gentleman will also know that I understand his difficulty in getting concessions in legal drafting to the extent to which he has gone. I would have preferred to have seen the words “under oath” included in the law itself. But knowing something about the difficulties which confront the staff in administering this Act and knowing also something about the competence, sincerity, and calibre of the senior members of the staff who deal with this Act I have not the slightest doubt that in practice they will adopt the procedure in cases as important as these of taking the information in the form of an affidavit. Although the law does not say so, I am sure the hon. the Minister will find that in practice that is what will happen. The time might well come when he will then see that it would have been quite appropriate to have put into the law, in the interests of the applicant concerned, these words “under oath”. I concede that the Minister’s amendment goes a long way in removing some of the practical difficulties which I foresaw before this amendment was moved. At the appropriate time, therefore, Sir, I will withdraw my amendment.

The hon. the Minister has been quoting the case of Rex vs. Gill in this House as though it has not been mentioned before. The crux of the judgment in the case of Rex vs. Gill, which was a case determined under the Mixed Marriages Act, is contained on page 204 where the learned Judge said—

What the hon. the Minister has done, Sir, is to introduce a Bill in which he asks us to do exactly what the hon. Judge said should not be done.

Order! The principle of the definition was accepted at the second reading.

I merely wish to indicate to the Minister what the meaning of this clause is.

I only mentioned it in passing.

I cannot allow the hon. member to continue on those lines.

Mr. Chairman, may I have your ruling on the question as to whether or not, if this Committee is entitled to reject this whole Bill, I may advance reasons why this Committee should reject this clause?

Order! The hon. member cannot advance any reasons against the principle; the principle was adopted in the second reading.

The point which is made in the case of Rex vs. Gill is opposite to this particular clause. What the learned Judge said in respect of…

Order! The member cannot continue along those lines. He must continue on other lines or resume his seat.

May I put it this ways, Sir: It is impossible for the definition contained in this clause ever to meet the situation for which the hon. the Minister has designed it. That is one of the reasons why we will vote against it, one of many reasons. In support of that reason may I quote what the learned Judge said in the case of Rex vs. Gill…

Order! The hon. member is trying to circumvent my ruling.

The hon. Minister as well as other hon. members opposite tell us glibly that it is so simple and that they do not know why we on this side of the House are worrying. If a man admits that he is a Coloured or a Native that is the end of the matter, according to them. But that is not what this clause says. It does not say that if a man admits that he is a Coloured or a Native, it says if he admits that he is a Coloured or a Native by descent.

Order! I warn the hon. member finally. The hon. member must either discontinue or resume his seat. He cannot continue along those lines.

Mr. Chairman, may I have your ruling…

Will the hon. member resume his seat.

Sir, may I take a point of order?

The hon. member may take his point of order.

Mr. Chairman, my point of order is that one is entitled to advance any reasons for the rejection of this clause.

Order! I have already ruled against that and the hon. member must now resume his seat.

May I refer the hon. the Minister to the statement he made in reply to the first amendment moved by the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis) which asks for consideration to be given to those people who have already applied for their classification and whose applications are already in possession of the Department, that it should not be necessary for them to re-submit applications in terms of the new definition. The hon. the Minister will remember that he told us that he had a very simple answer to that. In fact it is so simple that I do not think we can really accept it. The simple answer was that, with the passing of this Bill the old definition will disappear and be replaced by this new definition. Those applicants will therefore really have no old definition for their applications to be judged upon. But whilst we are discussing this Bill the old definition still stands. This Bill is not law as yet. However, that is not the point I want to argue. I want to raise this point with the hon. the Minister: The hon. the Minister has been faced to-night with a number of legal questions on the definition. I want to put a human one to him. Those 30,000 people to whom the Minister has referred have in many cases gone through several months of extreme mental anguish in preparing the answers to the questions put to them by the Department, in getting the affidavits ready, in going to their friends and all the rest required of them. As far as it was possible for them to do so they have tried to comply with the legal conditions which existed at the time their race classification was questioned. In terms of those conditions they have submitted their applications to the Department. It may well be that having to deal with a large number of cases the Department itself has not been able to come to finality on a number of those applications, through no fault of the applicant at all. I know from experience how difficult it is to rake up sufficient evidence to justify your giving the affidavit which a Member of Parliament is called upon to give. That in itself takes quite a time. I want the Minister to reconsider the position. The hon. the Minister has told us that the old definition will disappear and that the new definition will apply and that they will now have to be classified in terms of the new definition. I want to put this to the hon. the Minister. Surely he is not going to subject those 30,000 people to another two or three months of intense mental anguish, anguish which they have already passed through in meeting the law as it stood. Now that the law has been changed they will have to go through the whole harrowing experience again. To me it seems a perfectly fair proposition which we have put in the amendment and one in respect of which you can give any number of sound precedents. Whenever a law is changed and a new law is brought into operation, a proviso is usually inserted that the new law will not apply to people who were dealt with by the law before it was changed. I want to ask the Minister whether he will not reconsider the position in the case of these outstanding applications, where they were in the hands of the Department prior to the date on which this Bill was introduced, or prior to the date from which the hon. the Minister himself said he froze the issue of any further classifications, whether he will not allow them to be judged according to the conditions and definition which existed at the time they were called upon to submit their evidence and at the time they made these statements. To me it is a perfectly fair proposition. It is one which deals from the human angle with cases in which, as the hon. the Minister himself has admitted, intense human feelings are concerned and in which the people themselves have to be protected from any anguish and hardship which they are bound to suffer as a result of this legislation. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister, quite apart from the legal aspect, to accept a proviso of that sort and when the new definition comes into force, if and when this Bill is passed, to start the classification off with those people who fall under the new definition and not to include those who have already complied with the law as it existed before this amending Bill became law.

It has taken us something over two hours to lift the veil of sweet reasonableness by which we were in danger of being beguiled over what the Government’s real intentions are insofar as Clause 1 of this Bill is concerned. This much we now know at last: The Government is not under any circumstances prepared to allow people who have presently applied for classification, to be classified under the old definition. It is quite clear, Sir, at last that this Bill has been brought in specifically to deal with persons whose applications are presently lying on the desks of the officials of the Department. Secondly, it is clear that the hon. the Minister is not prepared under any circumstances to enshrine in legislation the assurances which he has given to this House on a number of occasions. The House can draw its own conclusions why he refuses to do that. It is an unhappy position for anyone to have to draw those conclusions. We might have come to this conclusion earlier had we paid less attention to the hon. the Minister’s honeyed words and more attention to the reasons he gave for refusing the amendments which have been brought forward by this side of the House. I should like to deal with one of those reasons, Sir. The Minister said that he could not accept the amendment of the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) because it did away with the public’s right to object, a right which they had had for 12 years. It is touching, Sir, to find solicitude in certain circles for the rights of the public. It is nice to hear that said occasionally, particularly from certain quarters. But what argument is that for refusing an amendment when in the next breath the hon. the Minister says that the right was not exercised by one single member of the public in 12 to 14 years. That was the principal reason he gave for refusing the amendment. We have at last got down to brass tacks. We know exactly where we stand in regard to this Clause and at last we know the reasons why it has been introduced. They are not pretty, Sir, but it is a pity that we had to waste something over two hours before we got any clarity on that point at all. That being the position we at least know that there is no point in moving any further amendments in this regard and we at least know that the honeyed persuaveness which we have had up to the present time has not been put forward in order to expose the Minister’s thoughts to this House but to disguise them.

Sir, I am not satisfied with the reply which the hon the Minister gave regarding the position of families. This is worrying me. This whole clause deals with the reclassification of families.

What is the name of those pills?

I will give you the right one. I want to get the position quite straight so that we will all understand it. Under this Bill, by regulation, the Minister can establish a family register. That means that under the ordinary classification he can take them and classify them as a family.

At 10.25 p.m. the Deputy Chairman stated that, in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave asked to sit again.