Mr. Speaker, I move—

It gives me very great pleasure, whereas in my capacity of Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions as well as Minister of the Interior I am concerned with the interests of those who are in the service of the State, to be able to introduce in this House a Bill such as this one, the exclusive object of which is to promote the interests of officials. As I see the matter, this Bill is therefore, figuratively speaking, the Magna Carta of the officials that has to determine, guarantee and perpetuate their personal rights, which are acquired after a lifetime of service to the State.

But, what is more, this is the instrument whereby the Government wishes to give expression to its appreciation for indispensable services rendered. For let us admit openly that just as indispensable as a good, efficient and stable Government is to every country, such as South Africa is fortunate to have, so indispensable is a loyal, dedicated, efficient and purposeful Public Service to every good government and to every country, and that South Africa has, too. In fact, one cannot imagine, in the era in which we are living, the administration of any country being possible without a reliable and stable Public Service.

But the service rendered by the Public Service of a democratic country is not confined to the service of the State or the Government only; on the contrary, in the modem machinery of government it affects virtually every sector of the national economy, and it is just as important and just as indispensable to the private sector as it is to the public sector. Even though this is sometimes regarded as an irritation by some people, it nevertheless remains a fact that the private sector, too, would hardly be able to function without it.

But I do not wish to philosophize at this stage about the place a modern public service takes or ought to take in a modern democratic system. I would rather concentrate on the Bill before the House and the objects on which it is founded.

As hon. members will probably have noticed, those affected by this Bill are officials who are at present members of the Public Service Pension Fund, the Permanent Force Pension Fund, the South African Police and Prisons Pension Fund, the Provincial and the Territory Service Pension Fund and the Government Service Widows’ Pension Fund, or persons who are pensioners of those funds. Those five funds are now being consolidated into one fund, which will in future be known as the Government Service Pension Fund.

As matters stand at the moment, the five funds in question are being administered in accordance with five sets of regulations which, although they correspond in many respects, nevertheless differ in many respects as well. This state of affairs complicates the administration of these funds and increases the cost of administration unnecessarily.

However, the mere consolidation of the funds in question, without simplifying the working procedure of administration, would be of little use. Consequently this opportunity was taken to simplify and facilitate procedures, and it may in all probability be expected that once the new procedures have been implemented, it will be much easier to administer the new fund.

The simplification of the administration of the new fund is, however, not the only matter which received attention; advantage was also taken of this opportunity to effect a considerable improvement in the pension benefits of those who are in the service of the State. In fact, we believe that we have succeeded in establishing a pension scheme that is unrivalled either in the public or in the private sector in South Africa.

†it is naturally not possible to apply the new scheme to those civil servants who have retired or retire prior to the 1st July, 1973. Existing pensioners have, however, not been overlooked and their pensions will be improved. As hon. members are aware, the pension payable to a civil pensioner at present consists of a basic pension, a bonus of 5% and further bonuses as approved from time to time, a temporary allowance and, in some cases, also a supplementary allowance. As from the 1st July, 1973, the bonuses and allowances payable to pensioners of the five funds concerned will be consolidated with their basic pensions, and the pensions so consolidated will then be increased by 10%.

The consolidation of the basic pensions and bonuses and allowances will, as will be readily appreciated, by itself have no effect on the total amounts payable at present, but whereas increases in the past were calculated on basic pensions only, the increase of 10% now envisaged will be calculated on the total of the consolidated amount. The total increase will, depending on the circumstances of each particular case, therefore, be far in excess of 10% on the basic pension.

The considerable increase in the bonuses payable to civil pensioners which was effected during 1971 will, in view of the impending consolidation, obviously now have the additional effect of raising the increase of 10% well above the level of 10% of the basic pension payable. In the circumstances, hon. members will no doubt agree that even existing civil pensioners are to benefit appreciably by the steps envisaged.

What is more, the widows of existing pensioners will, as in the case of the widows of officers who retire subsequent to 1st July, 1973, receive half of the pensions payable to their spouses. This is an improvement which will greatly relieve the hardships experienced by some widows in the past.

*As hon. members are aware, the pension benefits of the members of the respective funds are at present being calculated on the basis of varying factors, and they also contribute to their respective funds at various rates. The new approach makes it possible for us to have uniformity in this regard, with the result that from now on gratuities will be calculated throughout at the rate of 6,72% of an official’s average salary over the last three years of his service multiplied by the period of his pensionable service. As against that, annuities will be calculated at the rate of 1/55th of such salary multiplied by the period of pensionable service.

As matters stand today, gratuities are calculated at rates which are lower than 6,72%, whereas in many cases the formulae for the calculation of annuities are only 1 /80th. The new scheme which is being envisaged now, will bring about considerable increases in gratuities and annuities in all cases.

The extent to which a particular member will benefit by the new scheme will of course depend on the personal circumstances of that member as well as the formulae in terms of which his pension benefits are being calculated at the moment. Whereas the funds about to be consolidated have been providing the members with different benefits up to now, it goes without saying that the degree of improvement which will be effected in terms of the new scheme will not be precisely the same in all cases. Therefore it is also impossible to illustrate how all officials or even groups of officials will benefit by the new scheme.

However, I should like to furnish a few examples here for the information of hon. members, but in doing so I also want to emphasize that officials may not use these examples as a basis for determining the improvement in their own cases. The position of each official can only be determined on the basis of the circumstances applicable in his own case, and therefore they should ascertain how the changes will affect them personally before any calculations are made to determine the extent to which they will benefit.

As regards the examples to which I have referred, I take pleasure in furnishing the following particulars:

In a case where A would have received an annuity of R7 020 and a gratuity of R28 904 in terms of the old dispensation, he will receive an annuity of R9 169 and a gratuity of R32 558 in terms of the new dispensation.

In a case where B would have received an annuity of R7 576 and a gratuity of R31 500 in terms of the old dispensation, he will receive an annuity of R9 905 and a gratuity of R35 280 in terms of the new dispensation.

As hon. members will have noticed from the examples I have just quoted, the new scheme is indeed a significant improvement on the existing one. What is more, the widows of the officials in the case of the examples I have mentioned, will in future receive an annuity of R4 584 and R4 952, respectively, instead of the existing pension of R3 054 per annum, because they will be entitled to half of the annuity paid to their spouses.

It also gives me pleasure to inform the House that the envisaged scheme is meeting with general approval amongst officials and that my department and I have received numerous tokens of gratitude and appreciation and satisfaction from officials throughout the country. To tell the truth, the general consensus of opinion appears to be that the new scheme is meeting with more approval than did the recent considerable increase in salaries.

What has been particularly gratifying is the readiness with which the increase in contributions, which inevitably had to be effected in order to ensure the improved benefits, has been accepted throughout. In fact, it was with appreciation that I took cognizance of the fact that the Public Servants’ Association, which is the mouthpiece of officials, did not hesitate to advocate an even further increase in contributions.

However, what has given me personally the greatest satisfaction is that we have now succeeded for the first time in paying to the widow of an official half of her husband’s pension. I believe that this improvement will bring relief where relief is needed most.

But, Sir, the new scheme envisaged by us does not only imply benefits for officials and their dependants, but is already yielding dividends for the State as well. To be specific, I have been told that the fact that such a pension scheme could be offered has already been directly responsible for its being possible to recruit professional staff, who used to be virtually unobtainable, for the Public Service. Therefore, for the first time in many a long year, the pension scheme for public servants is once again becoming a very important service benefit which may play a decisive role in the recruitment of staff.

†Naturally the improvements I have referred to are not readily ascertainable from the Bill now before the House as the administration of the Consolidated Fund established by clause 3 and the provision for the benefits payable therefrom will be regulated by regulations to be promulgated under clause 17.

To be quite frank, the Bill is largely a re-enactment of the existing provisions of the Government Service Pensions Act, 1965, by which the five funds referred to previously were established.

Hon. members will, however, notice that the provisions of that Act, in so far as they relate to the Government Employees’ Provident Fund, the joint pre-Union fund, certain members of the National Road Board Provident Fund and to certain officers and employees formerly employed by the Pretoria Branch of the Royal Mint, have not been re-enacted. The reason therefor is that the members of the funds concerned and the officers and employees referred to are not members of the funds now being consolidated and are accordingly not affected by this consolidation. They will continue to receive their pensions, bonuses and allowances as hithertofore, except that the increase of 10% will also apply in those cases where annuities are payable.

*For the information of hon. members I should like to add that although the Bill does for the rest follow the pattern of the existing Act, the provisions relating to ages for retirement have been worded somewhat differently because some of the provisions no longer serve any useful purpose and it is desirable for the rest to be overhauled. However, the principles remain the same and no attempt whatever has been made to change the retirement ages of officials in any way.

As far as the rest of the Bill is concerned, I think that, if necessary, it can most effectively be discussed during the Committee Stage, and therefore I shall not deal with it now.

South Africa has always been in the fortunate position of having a reliable and stable Public Service. This is a fact which is not without significance and which has on more than one occasion made a favourable impression on foreign commentators and investors. We are thankful for that, and we pay tribute to the host of people who have over the years fulfilled their task with so much dedication and diligence. It goes without saying that, as is the case in any large organization, we too have had our disappointments, but we shall persevere in eliminating the weak links.

Of course, we do not want to suggest that there is no room for improvement; on the contrary, we are constantly mindful of improvement and renewal, for, Sir, in the times in which we are living and in the times that are in store for us, there is no room for weak knees. We believe that we have in the Public Service today the best brain-power in the country, but, what is more, we are only too conscious of the fact that we need more of it and can make more use of it every day.

In the post-war years there has practically been not one civilized country in the world which has not had to cope with a manpower problem, and we have been no exception to the rule. However, the record of our own Public Service during this period is to my mind one which is not to be despised. With a handful of men, relatively speaking, we in this country have, in the midst of unprecedented growth in virtually every sphere, undertaken and carried through in the post-war years a programme which at times appeared to be almost impossible. In this process it was inevitable that we had to lean heavily on our Public Service. During these years we in South Africa underwent an industrial revolution in practice created an infrastructure, and all the while the Public Service managed to hold its own and accomplish its task.

Just compare the scope, technical detail and complexity of our legislative programme since 1945 with what went before. Just consider the antagonistic climate in which South Africa has had to carve its own way in the post-war era. If we were just to consider the revolutions that have taken place in the economy and in technology since then, we would more or less have an idea of the demands made on the machinery of state during this period.

The way I see it, the future is not going to be less exacting; on the contrary, we know from experience that increasingly heavy demands will have to be made on brain-power and manpower. Our road to our future destination is strewn with the one challenge after the other, which will try the ingenuity and capacity of our Public Service to the utmost. The Public Service of the future, if it wants to serve this people and this country, must ensure that it is in the front line in order that it may pave along with us the way to prosperity, peace and optimum development. It may not merely stand on the side lines and watch developments like a spectator. It forms part of these developments. Its involvement in the weal and woe of this country and its people requires it to push in the front row.

By way of this measure we have, so I believe, done much to eliminate the financial worries of our officials and prospective officials about their retirement, with the result that they will now be able to dedicate their undivided attention to the task at hand. This has not been effected without a considerable contribution on the part of the State, but we are doing so willingly because we believe that it is an investment in our future.

And now that we have gone to these lengths, I believe that we may claim, even more so than was the case in the past, that every official in the Public Service, irrespective of his rank or status, will throw in his full weight so as to make the Public Service that dynamic machine which our times require it to be. What is more, I want to make an appeal to the young men of our country in particular to join the ranks of the Public Service. No matter how grateful we are towards the weaker sex for the contribution made by them, the fact remains that they cannot bear the burden alone and that the Public Service of the ’seventies also requires urgently men of daring and action who are capable of thinking and planning in an imaginative manner. The challenges are there, and I believe that our conditions of service are now competitive. Somewhere in this extensive machine there is a place where the cream of our young men will be able to fit in and where they will be able to make a significant contribution. Somewhere there is a challenge for every young man in South Africa to play his role in the Public Service.

We on this side of the House obviously welcome the provisions of this Bill. It is an improvement, as the hon. the Minister has indicated. Indeed, it is the result of various amendments which have taken place during recent years, and if one looks at this Bill one can visualize the research that has taken place by the hon. the Minister’s department to try to achieve this goal of consolidating the five major funds administered by the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. It is obvious that it is vitally important for the Government to take this step in view of the shortage of manpower, and it is essential that the fringe benefits accruing to the employees of the State should be improved from time to time so as to attract new staff and to retain existing staff. Obviously the turnover in staff in any undertaking can create enormous difficulties, and that is why we believe that this Bill before us is an improvement on the existing position. The Minister has indicated various improvements which he said are not in the Bill, and obviously these will come about by way of regulation. Here the Minister has indicated that the information that is provided today will be contained in the regulations as appertaining to the various improvements in the fund, in terms of benefits and gratuities and annuities.

There are other aspects of this Bill which require comment, but some of the details can perhaps best be raised during the Committee Stage. However, some general observations need to be made. One can only be pleased that the Government has seen its way clear to take into account the existing civil pensioners, the older pensioners, persons who are receiving pensions which are commensurate with the salaries which they received, perhaps many years ago. With the improvements of salaries, plus the improvements which the hon. the Minister announced and which will follow the passing of this Bill, many of those people will of course be at a disadvantage. We realize too the ravages of inflation and what has happened to their pensions as a result thereof. We also realize what it has meant in the decrease of the purchasing power of those pensions. That is why I am particularly pleased that the hon. the Minister has indicated that a 10% increase to existing pensioners will be an overall 10% increase which means the incorporation of the allowances and bonuses. This, in fact, means a genuine 10% increase. I hope that the hon. the Minister of Transport, who is in the House at the moment, will take careful note of this increase, because obviously it is one which could be applied to the existing Railway pensioners where an increase was granted but only to the extent that the basic pension was increased. Those persons who are receiving allowances do not, infact, receive an overall increase percentagewise whereas the civil pensioners are to receive such overall increases with effect from the 1st July this year.

We must also take into account the large number of persons who are at present receiving these pensions. According to information which was supplied in reply to a question earlier this session, there are approximately 47 000 persons who are receiving civil pensions and of those persons the greatest number, namely over 14 000 are widows who are receiving pensions from the Government Service Widows’ Pension Fund.

I now come to the question of the number of contributors to these funds. The figures indicate that there are something in the region of 348 000 persons who are making contributions to the five funds which are now to be consolidated in terms of this legislation. A large number of people are involved and therefore it is right and proper that due consideration should be given to their pension entitlement as provided for by statute.

In dealing with this legislation one takes into account that Act No. 62 of 1965 is to be repealed almost in its entirety save for the sections dealing with the Government Employees’ Provident Fund and other sections which make specific provision for the continuation of the recognition of services in other fields.

If we look at the Bill before us, a comparison has to be made between the provisions of the 1965 Act and the provisions of this Bill. Here it is interesting to note that certain provisions are re-enacted while others have been omitted. First of all if one takes into account the various provisions, the first item which is of importance is the fixed date. In terms of this legislation, it will be the 1st July, 1973. There are always difficulties in regard to a fixed date. Those persons who are due to go on pension shortly before that fixed date, might not be able to receive the same benefits as those who retire after the fixed date. The position as indicated by the hon. the Minister really revolves around the promulgation of these regulations which will put into effect the various improvements which the hon. the Minister has announced this afternoon. Therefore, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister when he replies to this debate to indicate whether these regulations, which will have to be the consolidated regulations of the five funds consolidated by this Bill, will be promulgated and be ready by the time this legislation comes into effect on the 1st July, 1973. These regulations will obviously require careful study and careful consideration. The Public Servants’ Association and those who are keenly and directly interested will make a careful study of those regulations so as to make sure that their pension rights are fully covered and where they have enjoyed previous pension rights whether they will continue to receive such rights.

Now I want to refer to the question of keeping contributing members fully informed of what their pension entitlement and pension benefits are. The hon. the Minister in his capacity as Minister of the Interior has in recent times made available pamphlets setting out the various pension benefits and entitlements. I hope that the hon. the Minister in passing this legislation and bringing into force the regulations, will see to it that amended pamphlets will be produced and made available to members of the Civil Service so that they will be able to study the terms of entitlement as far as their pensions are concerned. The same applies to the other pamphlets such as the Government Service Widows’ Pension Fund and the bonuses and allowances which are paid to certain civil pensioners. Some of these matters will require amendment and it is hoped that these members will be kept fully informed in regard to that.

Some other general observations in regard to this Bill revolve around clause 17, which deals with the regulations. The hon. the Minister this afternoon announced certain improvements and certain alterations as far as the Fund is concerned. He also made a public statement on 1st March, 1973, wherein he gave some indication of what is involved. The hon. the Minister has given some examples and he has mentioned how the gratuities under the new scheme will be calculated. He said they will be calculated at 6,72% of the average salary over the last three years of service multiplied by his period of pensionable service whilst annuities will be calculated on 1 /55th of the salary multiplied by his period of pensionable service. In addition to that the widows’ entitlement will be 50% of what her late husband would have received or was receiving. These improvements will indeed bring about a situation where those persons looking forward to retirement, particularly after 1st July, 1973, will be able to receive those increased benefits.

In regard to the contributions which are to be paid, if one looks at the existing position one will see that the rate of contribution was reduced to the figure of 4% in Apr. 1968. At the time this was hailed as a step forward, as one which will be of immense benefit to the Civil Servants in that the rate of contribution will be reduced to a common 4% in respect of both men and women. In addition, the men are required to make a contribution of some 2% to the Government Service Widows’ Pension Fund with the result that they have to make an overall contribution of 6%. The hon. Minister has indicated that the men’s contribution will be increased to 7% and the women’s contribution will be increased to 5% from 1st July, 1973. I wonder if the hon. the Minister could give some further information as to the necessity for increasing this rate of contribution. I mention this fact not because there is more money available to the contributor, although as far as the rate of contribution is concerned, it has been reduced with the effect that more money is available to them.

At the same time the position exists whereby a person who resigns from service can obtain a lump sum benefit. If a person resigns within a period of ten years, he will receive approximately, although it is based on a special formula, the refund of the contributions made. If he resigns after a period of ten years, he is entitled to receive an additional 4% on that amount for every year’s service over the ten years’ pensionable service. The point in raising this matter is that to try to obviate a person resigning merely for the sake of receiving immediate benefits which he can then utilize for various purposes, is one which does give cause for concern, not only in Government pensions funds and the Railways Superannuation Fund, but also of course in the private sector. This is a matter which has been investigated and certain recommendations were made some years ago to bring about the preservation of pension entitlement and the transferability of pensionable amounts that have accrued to an employee. I believe the hon. the Minister should give serious consideration in drafting the regulations in terms of clause 17 of this Bill to see whether it is not possible to have a lower rate of contribution during the first ten years of the employee’s term of service. This would create a situation where it would not be as attractive for that employee to resign in order to receive an immediate payment from the pension fund. The former member for Kensington, Mr. P. A. Moore, on several occasions in this House, in discussing civil pensions, advocated that civil servants should not pay any contribution whatsoever towards a pension fund, as he believed that they are in service to the State and that the State should carry the responsibility of providing them with a pension. This is another and wider subject which I do not intend dealing with this afternoon, but I do feel that some special consideration should be given to this matter in the drafting of the regulations as far as the rate of contribution is concerned during the first ten years of a person’s service.

The position of the Government Service Widows’ Pension Fund is one which I mentioned earlier, to which the rate of contribution amounts to 2% by the male employees. I understand that this amount is also subsidized and that the State makes a contribution on a rand-for-rand basis. In view of the fact that this fund is now to be consolidated with the new fund which will be known as the Government Service Pension Fund, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether this position will still exist as far as these rand-for-rand payments are concerned between the State and the fund. This aspect of the Bill is one which requires further consideration from time to time.

There are other clauses in the Bill before us, some of which are re-enacted from the 1965 Act, and I would like to obtain further information from the hon. the Minister particularly in regard to non-White employees of the State or of the provincial administrations, because this Bill before us consolidates these five funds. The position of the non-White members of these funds is one that requires some consideration. When one looks at the position one sees that provision is made for the transferability of funds from various other funds to this new consolidated fund. However, a position is now pertaining whereby private enterprises are now amending and extending their pension schemes so as to incorporate non-White employees. The non-White employees are invariably incorporated into such fund purely on the basis of their rate of pay and their period of pensionable service. I believe that the Government can in this respect give a lead to the private sector and can set the example by endeavouring to achieve that object of calculating their pensions on the basis of the salary or wage earned and the period of pensionable service. I particularly want to draw attention to the fact that in clause 17(4) on page 28 of the Bill, it is re-enacted that different regulations may be made under this section in respect of members who belong to different population groups, classes or categories. My question to the hon. the Minister is why this particular provision is necessary and included in the Bill if the basis of calculation of pensions, irrespective of race or population group, is entirely based on the pensionable salary, wage or allowance and the period of pensionable service?

Another aspect that arises from this is the question of transferability. Provision is made in the Bill before us under various sections for a pension entitlement to be transferred from one department to another or from the provincial level of government to the State level and vice versa. This is where a number of difficulties arise from time to time and when one considers the non-White employees, one must bear in mind the Government policy of passing certain aspects of administration to Bantu homeland governments or to other administrative bodies such as the Coloured Representative Council and to the South African Indian Council at a later date. Here I particularly refer to certain persons such as teachers in the field of education and social workers in the field of welfare work, where it has been indicated from time to time that these particular categories of administration are transferred to other governments. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether due provision is being made to come to an agreement of reciprocity between the hon. the Minister’s department and these other governments in order to protect the pension entitlement of those persons who might have to be transferred to the employ of another government. In other words, we should try to ensure that those persons so transferred will be in a position to continue with their membership of the proposed consolidated Government Service Pension Fund. I believe with the hon. the Minister that this is indeed a very important piece of legislation affecting a large number of important people who are performing magnificent work on behalf of the various Government departments and provincial administrations, and who play such a vital role in the public sector.

Therefore this Bill is one which has our full support at the Second Reading. We hope during the Committee Stage to raise certain items in greater detail to gain further clarity. We on this side of the House believe that this is an improvement; it is a step forward, creating the situation where there will be one fund with consolidated regulations. Thus is will be far easier for a person to ascertain his pension rights and person entitlement in terms of the legislation once it has been consolidated. More important still is the fact that an improvement is to come about in the benefits received by existing pensioners. Furthermore, by means of this legislation future pensioners who are presently earning pensionable services, will be justly rewarded for their services when the time comes for them to retire. We support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Umbilo expressed his appreciation and said that this was an important Bill, and I want to agree most heartily with him. He mentioned a few aspects here to which the hon. the Minister will probably give him detailed replies.

As an inhabitant of Pretoria, I could almost say as a person who hails from the Republic of South Africa’s “city of officials”, I too welcome this Bill and I want to express my thanks and appreciation to the hon. the Minister for this Bill. I also want to express my gratitude to the Minister for the fact that the initiative was really his. We also want to say “thank you” to the department for their share which made it possible for this Bill to be before this House today. It is a Bill which we shall probably all welcome with open arms. At the moment there are five different pension funds which are being administered separately at present, namely the Public Service Pension Fund, the Permanent Force Pension Fund, the Provincial and the Territory Service Pension Fund, the South African Police and Prisons Pension Fund and the Government Service Widows’ Pension Fund. At present these funds are being administered separately each with its own set of regulations and programmes for the computer. In other words, Mr. Speaker, at present there are five separate sets of regulations and five separate programmes for the computer. This Bill seeks to do three things. In the first instance it seeks to consolidate all five of these funds into one single fund. In the second instance it seeks to facilitate and simplify the administration of the consolidated pension fund. The various contribution formulae are being simplified to a large extent and uniformity is being introduced. The effect of this will be that the formulae will now be the same for everyone which will, of course, greatly facilitate administration. When we consider the manpower shortage and the question of time-saving and cost-saving, this represents a substantial improvement. In the third place the Bill seeks to effect the payment of improved benefits to the officials. The Government thought fit, since the five funds are being consolidated, to effect at the same time also an improvement as far as pension benefits for public servants are concerned. When we analyze the improvement in regard to gratuities and annuities for public servants and the provinces we find that at present, when they retire on pension, they are paid a gratuity which is calculated at 5%. This means that a member with 40 years’ service and who was in receipt of an average salary of R9 000 during his last three years of service, will receive a gratuity of R18 000. The gratuity formula for the same person will be as follows as from 1st July, 1973: 6,72% multiplied by the number of years of service and calculated on the average salary of the official over the last three years of service. This works out at a gratuity of R24 192 and amounts to an improvement of R6 192, or 34%. When we make an analysis of the annuity, we find the following: A member of the Public Service Pension Fund and the Provincial and the Territory Pension Fund with 40 years’ service and an average salary of R9 000 per annum over his last three years of service, received a pension of R4 500, calculated at the factor 1/80. To this another 5% is added, which brings his annuity to R4 725. After 1st July the same person will receive R6 545 per annum. This, therefore, is an increase of R1 820 per annum, which represents an increase of more than R150 per month. When this legislation comes into operation, pensioners and widows of officials will also benefit substantially. It is undoubtedly so that the officials welcome and appreciate this legislation. There are even some of them who have told me personally that this is a fine Bill and that they are looking forward to the day when the Bill will become law and will come into operation so that they may be offered these exceptionally favourable privileges.

I just want to congratulate the hon. the Minister and his department and the Government on this fine piece of legislation they have brought before this hon. House. May we cause a feeling of satisfaction and happiness among our officials in this way. May they be encouraged to work even harder than they do at present. May we also draw more young people to the public service in this way.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for Hercules for the support he has lent to this Bill and also for his plea for better pensions for certain officials.

†Sir, I wish to support the hon. member for Umbilo, especially in thanking the hon. the Minister for this very wonderful Bill he has brought before the House this afternoon, particularly as it benefits the old pensioners and their widows. I am sorry that they have not been given a little more, but the hon. the Minister will probably in time consider this aspect.

I wish to plead this afternoon for pensions for a group of employees of the Department of Forestry in the George area who are beneficiaries under Act No. 11 of 1939. They seem to have been excluded from this Bill. I am referring to the “men of the trees” as they are known. As Government employees they surely are entitled to pension benefits as provided for in this Bill. It was in 1932 that I first heard about these people. I visited Keiskammahoek and there I met a Mr. Ballantyne who owned an indigenous wood sawmill. While being shown around I remarked on the roughly sawn yellowwood and stinkwood and I was informed that this wood was rough because it was hand-sawn by the men of the trees. I am referring to the original woodcutters of the Outeniqua and Tsitsikamma indigenous forests.

If I may, Sir, I should like to give a short historical resumé of these people. During the latter part of the 18th century, the first men came to this area. They were Dutch settlers whose grants of land stretched along the coastal belt between the Keurbooms River and George. The forests were theirs to plunder. The exploitation became so bad that in 1811 the woodcutters were licensed. The woodcutters themselves could hardly be blamed. At that time conservation was quite beyond their appreciation. Stinkwood became so sought after that it became closely guarded, even in those early days, and an application was necessary to fell a stinkwood tree. This unscrupulous felling became so bad that in 1847 the Government declared felling to be illegal. They might as well have tried to control the sea. The woodcutters were a race apart. For generations they had lived in the cloisters of the forest, enclosed within a matted wall of jungle, seeing daylight only as a diffusion of light seeping through the branchy ceiling and knowing the black night merely as an aggravation of the dark days. Their “daily bread” consisted of sweet potatoes, brown bread and black coffee. The children’s knowledge of the outside world went no further than the first clearing in the bush. They grew up like their elders—fatalistic, undernourished, untaught, save by nature, fearful of the unknown which, to them, was the outside world, all stricken by the hand of the forest. They lived under appalling conditions—always damp under the trees. If a log could not be sawn by placing it on other large logs, they had to dig trenches underneath the log so that the one sawman could saw from the bottom. They were always working in dampness. Nearly all of them suffered from some chest ailment. Sir, even the elephants in the forest played an important part in the lives of these men. From time to time elephants killed men, women and children, and the homes of some of them were destroyed by these animals. One of them, a certain Marais, became an elephant hunter, and after killing 99 elephants, he boasted that before he killed the hundredth elephant, he would pull out its tailhairs. He did that, but the wind blew in the wrong direction; he perished and not the elephant.

In 1885 there were approximately 500 elephants left. Free permits were issued to shoot them, and only when they were reduced to 20, did the Government capitulate and declare them Royal Game. Sir, the woodcutters only cut stinkwood and yellowwood trees. A yellowwood tree 150 feet high with a breast-high girth of 30 feet is considered a teenager of 1 500 years old.

Tell us more about the elephant.

The iron-wood logs, 40 feet long, went by sea to build Cape Town harbour. Yellowwood and stinkwood timber was sent by ox-wagon all over the Cane Province to build the stately Cape Dutch homes, and to make the sought-after stinkwood furniture that has now become antique, commanding astronomical figures.

Order! Is the hon. member not delivering his speech on the wrong Bill?

I hope not, Sir. I am leading up to their pensions. Sir, all these timbers were cut by the sweat of the woodcutters’ brows. In 1932 there were 700 woodcutters, together with their families— 4 000 individuals scattered throughout the forests. By 1939 only 258 registered woodcutters remained. Death and old age had reduced their numbers. In March, 1939, the Woodcutters’ Pension Act, No. 11 of 1939, was passed in this House. It was introduced by the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry and was only passed on a division. The remaining 258 woodmen, save those eligible for old-age pensions, were turned into pensioners and paid the colossal sum of £25 a year, in other words, approximately R4 a month. A total of approximately 260 remain today in the George area, I believe.

And they lived happily ever afterwards.

Sir, I must say that that hon. member is most amusing. Sir, more or less all these people were employed by the Department of Forestry. Their welfare should become the responsibility of the Departments of Forestry and Social Welfare and Pensions combined, according to the category in which they fall. Apparently there are four groups; firstly, those who are fully employed by the Forestry Department and who should also be considered in this Bill: secondly, those who can only be given sheltered employment; thirdly, those who are unable to work and the aged who require social pensions, and, fourthly, the youth who should be assisted in all respects to enable them to become useful citizens. Mr. Speaker. I would suggest that a small committee representing Social Welfare and Health and Forestry should examine their respective cases. The Department of Forestry has done a wonderful job in looking after them. They should be relieved of this responsibility as far as the last three groups are concerned. The question of repealing Act No. 11 of 1939 must be decided if there are no more pensioners drawing this pension. This may raise a new problem, Sir, because this Act was like a two-edged sword. Its first object was to provide pensions for the woodcutters who were being deprived of their only means of livelihood and the second and most important object was to silence the saws and axes that were cutting down these valuable trees. Sir, this Act has been responsible for protecting these forests for the State for nearly 35 years. Now the builders of a national road are clashing with those citizens wishing to preserve the trees in these forests. I should like to mention here the story about the young couple who got married. He was a farmer and he wanted to build his house down in the valley near all his farming operations. She was a young girl from the city and she wanted the house built on a hill so that she could have a view. He reminded her of what the priest had said on their wedding-day, that if there was ever any controversy they should sleep on it and compromise. They did that. Sir; the house was built on the hill. Sir, if these people could also compromise, the road could probably be built along the hills, and the trees in the forest could be saved, remembering that only the Almighty can grow a tree and that modern man reports that it has taken up to 2 000 years to grow some of the trees in those forests.

Mr. Speaker, I shall not follow up what was said by the hon. member, because I am unable to connect the provisions of this Bill with the dramatic plea delivered here by the hon. member, But I do want to associate myself with what was said by previous speakers and thank the hon. member for Umbilo for supporting this Bill. However, I also want to say that I think the United Party had no option but to support this legislation, because in the first place these public servants and all officials in South Africa are a heritage we have from the United Party, and this National Party Government has since then made the career of a public servant far more attractive. I think that this Bill before us is one of the best measures ever introduced into this House for the security of the public servant. I think that it is fitting on this occasion to convey our thanks and congratulations to the hon. the Minister and the officials of the department, who drafted this legislation without any pressure having been exercised on them from any quarters whatsoever. Sir, there are three aspects of this Bill which I want to mention here. The first is the consolidation of the five pension schemes which exist at present. The second is the consolidation of the bonuses and pensions of existing pensioners together with an increase of 10%. The third, in my opinion, is one of the most important amendments, which is also the one which is most appreciated by the Public Service and by South Africa, and that is the amendment in terms of which a widow will now receive 50% of the annuity payable to her husband. I think that this is a wonderful achievement on the part of the Government and the department and the Minister. As I have said, I think that this is one of the finest pieces of legislation which has ever been piloted through this House and I do not think that we should let it pass unnoticed.

I do not want to take up much of the time of this House, but I just want to say that I have been approached by a few pensiones who have asked me whether it would not be possible for the Minister to give them half-day employment in the service, rather than that they should leave the service completely when they reach the age of retirement. They feel that they do not want to be fully pensioned off, nor do they want to do a full day’s work. That is why I want to ask the Minister whether it would not be possible to investigate whether these people could not perhaps have half-day employment in the service. These people usually have a great deal of experience and can serve a very useful purpose in the various departments I should be pleased if the Minister would investigate this possibility.

I want to thank all the hon. members who participated in the debate, for the high standard which was maintained. I want to thank the On-position for the fact that they support this measure, and I want to give them the assurance that I appreciate it.

I want to reply briefly to the hon. members on my side who made speeches. I want to thank the hon. member for Hercules for a fine, well-thought-out and well-constructed short speech, which was indicative of the fact that he had made a thorough study of the Bill. I am grateful for his contribution. The hon. member for Mayfair likewise made a well-considered contribution. The request of the hon. member for Geduld is worth considering. I think that there are some of our officials who are already in part-time employment on a temporary basis. Whether this can be done throughout the service is another matter, because circumstances vary from place to place, but I shall investigate the matter and tell the hon. member what the position is.

Then I want to reply to the two speeches which were made from the Opposition benches. In the first place I want to talk to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg City, who, with great eloquence and perfect control of the English language, waxed lyrical here about the jungles and the forests. At times it seemed to me as though he was quoting from an English translation of Uit Oerwoud en Vlakte by Sangiro and at other times it sounded to me as though he was quoting from Die Laaste Watergat, one of our well-known Afrikaans works which causes one to feel nostalgic about nature and the forests. I just want to tell the hon. member in regard to the people who fall under Act No. 11 of 1939, that I am told that according to our information it is doubtful whether anyone is still receiving a pension under that Act. We do not think that there are such people. If there are, they would in any event profit by this 10% increase we have just announced. The further fact is that it is only permanent people, people who are in the permanent employ of the State, who, in the nature of things, may belong to this pension fund. Temporary people, as the woodcutters often are, do not have permanent appointments and they may not become members of this fund. They become members of the Government Employees Provident Fund with the specific benefits which flow from that. But what is more, the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions has duly performed its duty in regard to these woodcutters, and I may tell you that a large number of them are at present established as pensioners in the settlement of Karatara near Knysna, one of the settlements established by the Department of Social Welfare, where these people are accommodated in their own surroundings, where they have lived all these years. The appeal which the hon. member made, is of course praiseworthy. I want to give him the assurance that we shall not lightly pass it over.

I should like to reply to the speech by the hon. member for Umbilo who, as chief spokesman on that side, summarized the position on behalf of the Opposition. In the first place I want to tell him that the regulations have already been drawn up. They are being printed at present and according to my information they will definitely be announced before 1st July, 1973. The regulations will, therefore, be promulgated before the date on which the Bill will come into operation and this eliminates one of the hon. member’s problems.

The fact that we had to peg the fixed date of 1st July, 1973, is simply a reality which had to be taken into account. In the matter of overcoming his objection, it does not really matter what date one determines as the fixed date and we could just as well have made it 1st April or 1st January. In any event, there will always be borderline cases such as those to which the hon. member referred, which do not qualify as a result of the fact that they retired a month or two prior to that date. Therefore, that problem cannot be overcome by advancing the date, because if the date were to be advanced, it would only mean that another group of people would be affected. There is another reason, too, why the fixed date was made 1st July, 1973. The payment of these pensions is computerized and it takes some time to do the necessary programming work. The legislation is only being dealt with now and from the nature of the case it is not possible to have an earlier fixed date than the one we have. Consequently it is essential in this case for the date to be 1st July.

The hon. member asked us to convey the information to the officials. The idea is to have the Public Service Commission, as in all other respects, bring the new provisions of the Bill as well as the new benefits introduced as a result thereof, immediately to the attention of the Public Service in pamphlet form. Naturally this will take time and officials who are retiring or who already want to know at this stage what their position will be, must contact the department and the department will tell them what the correct state of affairs is in regard to their benefits.

The hon. member also made out a case as to the question of contributions. Men pay 7% and women 5%. The additional 2% which men pay, is of course by way of their contribution to the Widows’ Pensions Fund. Ladies, of course, cannot leave widows.

The hon. member also dwelt on the question of the abuse of pension funds in the sense that after an official has had ten years of service, or even a shorter period of service, he may retire and get his pension contributions back when he may then spend as he thinks fit. In so doing he reduces his eventual pension benefits, because if he is re-employed in the service and contribute to the pension fund, he will of course contribute over a shorter period. Sometimes it also happens that such officials take up employment with employers who do not offer pension benefits to their employees. Such people may eventually become a burden on the State.

The hon. member asked whether it would not be possible to reduce the contributions which officials make over the first ten years of their period of service so as to reduce the temptation to officials to retire from the service. Subsequently the pension contributions must be increased. To what percentage could one reduce the contributions? It would perhaps be reasonable to reduce the contributions to 4%, but the man who wants to give notice to get hold of that amount, would still do so. That is my problem. There is another problem, too, and if it would be of any help, I should like to make another appeal to our officials on this occasion not to give notice for no other reason than to get hold of their pension contributions. It does happen that a person who has landed himself in financial difficulties retires from the Public Service, the Railways or the service of another employer with no other purpose than to get his hands on this money. With it he pays his debts and the next day he starts working again. Then he starts right from the beginning to build up his pension. It stands to reason that when he has to retire eventually, he will receive a poorer pension on which he and his wife will hardly be able to exist, and they may even suffer hardship. It is usually these very people who have all kinds of letters published in the Press in which they say how badly off the pensioners are. However, they used that money in their youth to enjoy life and did not contribute to their pension over the full term.

There is another problem, too. Often people take the maximum gratuity with the result that the annuity is less. Later they suffer hardship as a result. The fact that they do suffer hardship, is the result of their own actions and of nothing else. Sometimes these people are the most vehement critics and they reproach the State and say that pensioners are not being seen to. A colleague who did not use his contributions in the form of cash in his youth or who did not elect to have such a large gratuity, finds that as a result of the bigger pension he receives it is not so difficult for him to exist. I do not know of a way in which we can overcome this problem.

And if there is no contribution?

We have considered this, but this is something which the officials do not want, because when the official makes no contribution, in terms of the system advocated by Mr. Moore in the past, he loses all say over his pension fund. If he is not a contributor, he need not be consulted when it comes to the determination of his benefits. In that case his pension would essentially be a benefit which the State gives him and the State would be able to alter it at will. In that case the official would lose his share and also his contribution as well as his corresponsibility for and his say in the fund. That is something the officials do not want. They say that they would rather pay contributions and then, together with the State, have a say in the fund. Therefore, in reality, they are the co-owners of the fund.

Would it not be possible to develop a system in terms of which no contributions would be payable during the first ten years?

We could go into that. It would mean, however, that one would have to draw a line and differentiate between officials who have less than ten years’ service and those who have more. Those who have more than ten years’ service, would then have no say in the fund and those who have more than ten years’ service, would have a say. This could be considered, but then he would have to make a larger contribution after ten years to compensate the fund financially for the loss suffered by it in the first ten years. This is something which could be considered, and I want to thank the hon. member for this idea.

The hon. member also spoke about the contribution on the rand for rand basis for widows. I want to give hon. members the assurance that in terms of the legislation as it stands, all officials will receive R2-25 from the State for every rand they contribute to the fund. That is the basis on which we are working at present.

As far as non-Whites are concerned the hon. member referred to clause 17 (4). The various regulations for the various peoples are essential simply to provide for the contingency of circumstances rendering them necessary. We have to make provision for that because we do not want to come back to this House every time to amend the legislation. It is possible that such circumstances may arise and no-one can foresee what is going to happen. Therefore we have to render it possible, if it should be necessary to transfer a pension fund from one Government to another, from one department to another, under circumstances which we are unable to foresee at this stage, for such a fund to fall under separate regulations; that is why we just want to be covered. As far as this position is concerned, I want to give the hon. member the assurance that at present there is no difference between the non-White members of the consolidated fund and the White members. The former are in precisely the same position as the Whites; they contribute at precisely the same rate and their benefits from the fund are calculated on exactly the same basis.

That being the position, is it necessary to take this measure?

This is just a safety valve to provide for the contingency of such a position occurring. We do not know what the position is going to be, but we do want to have safety valves in case circumstances should render them necessary. We are dealing with a developing policy under developing circumstances which may lead to such a provision being necessary. That is why I left it as it is and that is why I should like to have provision such as this in the Bill, for the purpose of covering such eventualities.

As far as the transfer of the one fund to the other is concerned, I want to tell the hon. member at once that the question of being transferred from one to the other in this group of five funds falls away as a result of the fact that the five funds are being consolidated. In regard to transfers between other funds and this fund, the position remains as it is a present. We shall adapt this as far as possible and try to make it possible for us to have transferability without any problems arising. The hon. member referred to the possibility of members being transferred from this fund to the fund of a homeland government. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that we shall ensure in the ensuing negotiations that people who are transferred will not lose the benefits they enjoy under this fund. We shall ensure that the benefits will remain precisely as they are and that such persons will not be worse off.

I do not want to say anything more about this Bill. I want to thank hon. members once again for their support of this Bill, and ask that the Bill be accepted in its present form.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, this clause provides that the assets of the five different funds, which are now to be consolidated, together with the additional benefits account, shall cease to exist with effect from a fixed date, namely the 1st July, 1973. I would be grateful if the hon. the Minister could give some indication to the Committee of the position of these five previous funds, particularly in cases where there may be deficiencies in the financial position appertaining to each of the five funds which are now to be consolidated. I seek this information mainly on account of the fact that in terms of the schedule the 1965 Act is to be repealed in its entirety except for certain sections. One of the sections that is to be repealed in terms of that schedule is section 11 of Act 62 of 1965. This provision in the 1965 Act provides for the quinquennial valuation of these funds by an actuary. In other words, the actuarial assessment of these funds will be done on a five-yearly basis. I would like to have this additional information in view of the fact that this provision for a five-yearly actuarial valuation does not appear anywhere in the other clauses. I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to give the Committee this information so that one may ascertain the financial position of these funds, e.g. whether there are deficiencies in any of these five funds which are now to be consolidated into one new fund.

Mr. Chairman, I do not have the details of each fund available at the moment. Actuarial assessments are made from time to time, but not all of them have recently been assessed actuarially. The total assets of the five funds amount to approximately R2 000 million. The assessment will still be made every five years as it was done in the past and provision for this will be made by regulation in terms of which it will be regulated. I just want to tell the hon. member that we were able to assess the full benefits only after we had taken the assets into account and had calculated the contributions on the new basis, and had also assessed the obligations. Only then were we able to estimate what benefits we could offer in future. All of this was done actuarially in co-operation with the Treasury and my department and for that reason we were able, after we had taken into consideration all the assets, the liabilities and the possible future liabilities, to announce the benefits as they are at present. However, the only total I am able to give the hon. member, is the figure of R2 000 million which the fund will have as its assets. The other aspects will be dealt with by regulation.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, in a speech which I made here yesterday I referred to the hon. member for South Coast and said that he had on a certain occasion, in a statement which he made to the Rand Daily Mail, which I quoted here, been guilty of a “gross distortion” which had allegedly occurred at Dundee. I now want to withdraw those words “gross distortion”.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill comprises only seven clauses this year, and the impression could possibly arise that it does not have much substance. On closer examination, however, it will become apparent that it is in actual fact a very important Bill which affects the interests of nearly the whole of the civil pensioners corps. Actually, this Bill is self-explanatory, but even so I just want to comment briefly on some of the clauses for the information of hon. members.

As hon. members will recall, the hon. the Minister of Finance announced in his Budget speech on 28th March that the bonus of 25% payable to persons receiving pensions in terms of the War Pensions Act would be increased by 10% as from 1st October, 1973. The amendment which we are effecting in clause 1 now, does in fact give effect to that announcement.

When the provincial administrations established a pension scheme for members of provincial councils as from 1st April, 1960, it was provided in the relevant ordinance that serving members who had had continuous service as members of a provincial council prior to 1st April, 1960, could elect to count that service for pension purposes. However, it came to my notice recently that the ordinance regulating the pension scheme for members of the provincial council in the Cape Province had been put into operation on 15th December, 1960, with retrospective effect as from 1st April, 1960, and that there were provincial councillors who had been elected as members of the House of Assembly prior to their exercising the option they had been offered.

As a result there are members who are being wronged because they did not have a full opportunity for having their previous provincial service count as pensionable service. The service rendered by those persons prior to 1st April, 1960, as members of the provincial council is therefore lost to them, because, as you know, in terms of section 4 only pensionable service with a provincial council shall be taken into consideration for recognition for the Pension Scheme for Parliamentary Service and Administrators. By way of this amendment it is now being envisaged to remedy the position so that the members involved may not be prejudiced because of circumstances beyond their control.

Hon. members are already aware that the Public Service Pension Fund, the Permanent Force Pension Fund, the South African Police and Prisons Service Pension Fund, the Provincial and the Territory Service Pension Fund and the Government Service Widows’ Pension Fund are going to be consolidated into one fund, and that the statutory provisions relating to those funds are being repealed. The regulations which are applicable to the funds in question and which are also going to be abrogated now, make provision, inter alia, for the payment of pension benefits to certain non-White officials who are not members of the funds in question. The reason for their not being members of the funds concerned, is that in accordance with their conditions of service they elected not to become members of these funds.

Because the regulations concerned are now being abrogated, it is, as hon. members will understand, essential for provision to be made for the rights of the non-White officials concerned to be preserved. This we are now doing by way of clause 3.

For the information of hon. members I may just mention that the officials receiving pension benefits in terms of the relevant provisions, do not make any contributions in respect of those benefits. The fact that they do not make any contributions was probably the real reason why they elected not to become members of the funds in question.

In terms of section 14 of the Government Service Pensions Act, 1965, no benefit payable from any pension fund or scheme administered by the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions shall be liable to be attached, except in the case where an order has been issued in terms of section 11 of the Maintenance Act, 1963, or where the Controller and Auditor-General certifies that certain moneys are due to the State.

At present officials who retire may remain members of their medical aid associations, but, as matters stand at the moment, their contributions to such associations, or moneys payable by them to such associations, may not be deducted from their pensions.

Cases are also found where at the dissolution of a marriage a court of law issues an order for the payment of a sum of money to or in respect of a pensioner’s former partner in marriage and where the pensioner fails to comply with the order of the court. Because his pension benefits are being protected under the relevant Act, he may therefore sit back without paying the slightest attention to the order, and because he does not have other assets which are liable to be attached, the order of the court may be ignored completely to the detriment of his former partner in marriage.

It is our opinion that the protection enjoyed by pensioners in respect of marital commitments in this regard really goes too far, and that there ought to be provision in terms of which steps may be taken in appropriate cases. After all, a man’s commitments to his former partner in marriage or his dependants ought to have first claim to his pension benefits, and an order issued by a divorce court ought not to be less enforceable in this case than is a maintenance order issued by a magistrate in terms of the Maintenance Act, 1973.

Clause 4 therefore makes provision for action to be taken in the two cases which I have just outlined.

Unfortunately we omitted to include in clause 4(1)(a) medical aid associations recognized by the Public Service Commission. I shall therefore move a suitable amendment at the Committee Stage.

As hon. members know, provision is being made by section 22 of the Pension Laws Amendment Act, 1969, for the payment of allowances and bonuses to pensioners. However, whereas allowances and bonuses are now being consolidated with basic pensions in a large number of cases whilst they are to be retained in other cases, the amendment of this section has become essential. We have accordingly deemed it fit to re-enact the entire section, although a large part of it is in fact merely a repetition of the existing provisions. We think that this section, as it is worded now, is simpler and still enables us to pay bonuses and allowances as we did in the past.

Mr. Speaker, having made these comments, I think I have now explained this Bill fully.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House support this Bill at Second Reading. It brings about certain improvements which we welcome. One has become accustomed in this House, to dealing with an annual Pension Laws Amendment Bill which brings about various improvements. In recent years, however, the size of the Pension Laws Amendment Bill has diminished in that a number of announcements are made by the hon. the Minister of Finance in his Second Reading speech under the Appropriation Bill containing benefits which are promulgated by way of regulations. Consequently we are not able to discuss in any detail some of those announcements that are made by the hon. the Minister of Finance. There is, however, one exception affecting clause 1 of this Bill where the bonus payable to war-disabled pensioners is being increased from 25% to 35%. We welcome this provision which will bring some alleviation to those persons receiving pensions in terms of the War Pensions Act, particularly some of the widows who are finding it extremely difficult under present-day circumstances. The only disappointment here is the fact that this particular provision is only applicable from 1st October, 1973, whereas the provisions of clause 2 are applicable from 1st April, 1971. The remainder of the Bill will come into operation on 1st July, 1973, so as to coincide with the Bill that has just passed through the House. As I have said the only exception is this group and we express our regret that this is only to become effective from 1st October, 1973. These people will therefore have to wait this period of time and in actual fact they will only receive the increase for the last six months of the present financial year.

There are several other clauses which the hon. the Deputy Minister has dealt with during the course of his speech which I believe require further comment. In terms of clause 4 it is now possible for amounts owing to medical aid societies to be deducted from a person’s pension. In addition, certain payments can be made from the pension in the case of divorce orders. This is an important provision. One is aware of the fact that there are certain persons who do not meet their obligations as far as contributions are concerned. Very often the dependants are placed in pecuniary difficulties and they then have to try to find ways and means of obtaining some support from the ex-husband. We have no objection to this particular clause. We hope that in the event of a person getting in arrear with his contributions to a medical aid society, that the deductions will not be of such a nature as to cause unnecessary financial hardship.

Then there is the position of persons receiving increases in certain pensions in terms of clause 5. This is another important provision. Here the hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated that in terms of the Pension Laws Amendment Act, 1969 (Act No. 98 of 1969), these persons will continue to receive bonuses and allowances. There is a particular portion of this clause in respect of which I should like further information from the hon. the Deputy Minister, and that relates to overpayments that have been made to persons who are receiving these pensions, allowances and bonuses. We know that where an overpayment has occurred, the State has the right to claim the refund of such an overpayment. We also know that the recipients of such bonuses, pensions and allowances are often not aware of the fact that they have been paid an incorrect amount, and in fact that they have been overpaid. In this respect the provisions of this clause are widely framed. Subsection (4), which deals with this position, states that where a person has been paid any amount to which he was not entitled, “he or his estate, as the case may be, shall be liable to repay such amount unless the Minister or an authorized officer is satisfied that he received the amount without knowing that he was not entitled thereto”. Here the difficulty arises as to whether a person is aware or not aware that he is receiving an amount to which he is not entitled. This question arises in terms of other legislation too, but in this particular provision it is simply stated that the Minister “or an authorized officer” must be satisfied that the person concerned received the amount without knowing that he was not entitled to it. I believe that this particular provision goes beyond the position as it obtained under the 1969 Pension Laws Amendment Act and other legislation. If one looks at other legislation of this nature, one finds that this power can be exercised at the discretion of the Minister. We recently passed the Social Pensions Bill in this House, which also made provision for the repayment of sums overpaid. Although that measure specifically referred to social pensions, there is a similarity in that these bonuses and allowances to be paid in terms of this measure now before the House come from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, as is the case with the social pensions. The wording of clause 7(1) of the Social Pensions Bill which, as I have said, has passed through all its stages in this House, is more or less the same as in this case, with one exception. I quote—

In other words, Sir, in this case it is in the discretion of the Minister to come to that very important decision. I say it is an important decision because such an over payment could amount to a considerable sum. Indeed, cases have been brought to my notice where persons have been required to refund considerable sums of money where, it is claimed, they knowingly received such incorrect amounts. As I have already pointed out, the provision in the Bill now before the House states that the Minister “or an authorized person” must be satisfied that such an amount was received without the person concerned knowing that it was incorrect.

Then, Sir, a further provision is made in clause 8 of the Social Pensions Bill for an appeal to the Minister. Where certain decisions are made by the secretary in the administration of that particular law, a person has the right of appeal to the Minister. Such a matter, relating to the administration of the Social Pensions Act, can therefore be placed before the Minister for possible reconsideration.

To get back to the Bill which is now before us, and in particular to this question of the refund of overpayments, clause 5(7) reads as follows—

Then there is this other important provision whereby the Minister or an authorized officer may cancel or reduce a pension in certain circumstances. Then, of course, there is the provision that the Treasury may authorize the writing off of any amount overpaid if it is uneconomical to recover it or if its recovery would cause undue hardship. Sir, these are indeed very important powers which are being given to the Minister, but it is specifically stated that these powers may also be exercised by an authorized officer. An “authorized officer” is defined as “an officer in the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, designated by the Minister for the purposes of this section”. An authorized officer therefore has the right to come to a decision, firstly, as to whether the person concerned was knowingly accepting an incorrect amount and, secondly, he has the authority to cancel or to reduce a person’s pension. These are indeed very wide powers which I think require further consideration, and I do hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will be prepared in the Committee Stage to accept an amendment in terms of which these decisions will rest with the Minister only. These are decisions of such major importance that I believe that they should be made by the Minister only and not by an authorized officer. If the hon. the Deputy Minister is not prepared to do that, then perhaps he might consider moving an amendment to this clause so as to give the person concerned a right of appeal to the Minister against the decision made by an authorized officer. Sir, we are dealing here with pensioners, many of whom have reached advanced years, and when they suddenly receive a notification to the effect that they have been overpaid a certain amount, which may in some cases be a very large amount, it may come as a tremendous shock to them. The amount overpaid can, of course, be recovered by way of monthly instalments if it would cause the person concerned undue hardship to repay the amount overpaid to him, in a lump sum. Here the question arises as to what “undue hardship” is. This is a very wide term indeed. In addition to that difficulty, there is the further difficulty that no limitation is placed on the period in respect of which overpayments can be recovered. In terms of the regulations applying to social pensions, it has been the practice not to go beyond a period of three years, so if a person has been overpaid a certain amount for a period exceeding three years, he has only been required to refund the amount overpaid to him over the preceding three years. In terms of the Bill now before us, there is no time limitation at all. A pensioner may have been overpaid a certain amount over many, many years before the mistake is discovered. The authorized officer must then decide whether that pensioner should refund the entire amount immediately, or he may ask that the amount be refunded in considerable monthly instalments. This could reduce this person’s standard of living enormously. In addition to that power, the authorized officer has this power to cancel or to reduce a pension. I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will give consideration to this particular aspect, because we on this side of the House do not feel happy about these provisions which are contained in clause 5 of the Bill.

For the rest, Sir, we are pleased that this Bill has come before the House. It will afford some relief to certain groups and categories of pensioners. Non-Whites who have been receiving pensions under clause 3 will now have their pensions protected. This protection is deemed necessary in view of the repeal of the 1965 Government Services Act. With these words, Sir, we support the Second Reading in principle, with this one reservation that the hon. the Deputy Minister should give further consideration to the provisions of the clauses to which I have referred.

I want to express my appreciation for the standpoint adopted by the Opposition in regard to this Bill, and I want to reply briefly to the question raised by the hon. member for Umbilo in regard to clause 5. I want to tell the hon. member that the provisions from subsection (4) to at least (7) and probably also (8), are the same as those contained in the old Act. According to the information at my disposal most of the overpayments are simply written off in practice. Overpayments are only recovered in those cases where the official or the Minister is sure that the person concerned was aware of the fact that overpayments have been made. In other words, what it really amounts to is that the person concerned received money he knew full well he was not entitled to. Hence the words contained in the Bill: “the Minister or the authorized officer is satisfied that he received the amount without knowing that he is not entitled to it”.

†The word “satisfied” has a very strict connotation. One is only satisfied if one has clear evidence to that effect.

The word is “or” and not “and”.

It says “the Minister or an authorized officer”, but the word I am actually talking about is the word “satisfied”, which has a very clear connotation. It means that it is not an arbitrary action. One must be completely satisfied about the fact that the received the amount knowing that he was not entitled to it.

*What really happens in practice, is that the money is written off. May I once more draw the attention of the hon. member to the fact that, as far as social pensions are concerned, the Minister’s power to write off overpayments has, in fact, been delegated to officers of the department. Decisions made by an official in terms of this clause may be revised by the Minister, but I shall go into the question put by the hon. member and if I feel it is necessary to accommodate him, I shall do so. On the other hand, if I feel, after having considered the matter, that the hon. member did not make out a case, I shall try to explain why I am unable to endorse his standpoint.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, 1 move—

Since almost 30 laws are being amended by this Bill, and the Bill is not of a contentious nature, I think that this is principally a Committee Stage measure, and I therefore do not intend making a Second Reading speech, with reference to every provision. Consequently I think it would be sufficient if I referred to only a few provisions, provisions which in my opinion ought to be mentioned.

The first of the provisions to which I want to refer—and I am doing this because the matter was raised during the discussion of my Vote—comprises clauses 3, 4, 29 and 50, which related to one another. According to the Government law advisers, the Liquor Act, 1928, is not applicable in that section of the Matatiele district which is not Bantu area and has now been added to Mount Currie, and in that area of the Port St. John’s district which is not Bantu area and has now been established as a separate district under the name Hermes. The Transkeian Liquor Proclamation No. 333 of 1949 still applies there. In terms of the amendments in the said clauses, the Liquor Act, 1928, will be applicable in and with regard to the areas in question, and in addition it makes provision for incidental matters. With these amendments any uncertainty in regard to the legal position which existed among the parties concerned in the said areas are now being eliminated.

As far as clause 6 is concerned, Sir, the position is that surety bonds are normally required in a case of customs and excise duty. No real problems are being experienced as far as the customs duty is concerned. With the excise duty, however, the position is different. This tax is payable on or before the last day of the month following on the month in which stock is taken. The result is that the Department of Customs and Excise has to protect revenue by requesting a cover in respect of the amount normally payable. Large amounts —sometimes many millions of rand—are involved. Apart from the fact that large amounts are being paid out in premiums, the enterprises in question find it difficult to obtain the required security here and abroad. With the introduction of sales duty it was decided, in consultation with industry, with a view to the launching of the new duty and the problem experienced in obtaining surety bonds, it was decided not to insist on security. There were small manufacturers of sales duty goods who, owing to their inability to comply with departmental requirements, would have had to go out of business if surety bonds had been insisted upon. Despite all these circumstances cover is still being insisted upon today only when registered manufacturers repeatedly fail to meet their obligations. However, there are a considerable number of industrialists who do not pay in time and the department then has to seek protection in the exercising of a right of retention in terms of section 114 of the Customs and Excise Act on sales duty goods in stock and the machinery used for the manufacture thereof. However, there is a difference of opinion as to whether this right of retention may be exercised after liquidation, and the department must constantly guard against being caught unawares by liquidation. To safeguard State revenue to a certain extent a right of preference as envisaged in clause 6 is being conferred

As far as clause 10 is concerned, Sir, representations were received, inter alia, from one of the mining companies for an amendment of this section. It is argued that prospecting contracts are constantly being concluded with farmers and other parties, and that subsequently the question of the purchase of rights from the owners in question if borehole results are positive arises. In view of the provisions of section 63 of the Act problems are being experienced in particular with the registration of cession of rights. If conditions occur in the deed in question which simply create a personal right or which do not restrict the right of ownership of the owner, the registrars, owing to the provisions in question, may not register the conditions. This applies particularly to conditions such as the admittance of workmen to the property and the laying on of a water supply. Because the right of ownership of the owner is not affected by this, the conditions may not appear in the ultimate cession. Problems are also being experienced in regard to servitudes, in that conditions of a personal nature pertaining thereto are not registrable. To overcome problems which are being experienced in this regard the amendment in clause 10 is being effected.

Clause 18, paragraphs (a) and (b) of clause 19, and clause 20 provide for the establishment of a full-fledged local division of the Supreme Court in the area of the Eastern Cape division of the Supreme Court which will be known as the South-Eastern Cape local division of the Supreme Court of South Africa with the magisterial districts referred to in clause 20 as area of jurisdiction. The establishment of this division is the outcome of an investigation in loco by Judge of Appeal Mr. Justice Rumpff which was carried out at my request as a result of repeated representations for the establishment of such a division. Sir, I want to avail myself of this opportunity of thanking Mr. Justice Rumpff for the thorough investigation which he carried out in this connection. Various persons and bodies presented written or oral representations to the judge in regard to the investigation. In his report Mr. Justice Rumpff states that, as was to be expected, the representations received from persons and bodies from Port Elizabeth supported the establishment of a local division. As may be understood, the judges of the Eastern Cape division at Grahamstown were of course concerned about the status of the Eastern Cape division at Grahamstown, and they are therefore not enthusiastic about the establishment of the envisaged local division at Port Elizabeth. The same applies of course to the Bar and the Side Bar at Grahamstown.

In the light of all the evidence obtained from various bodies and the surrounding circumstances, Mr. Justice Rumpff arrived at the conclusion that the Circuit Division at Port Elizabeth had in practice virtually become a full-fledged local division but did not enjoy the benefits of such a full-fledged local division. In addition he is of the opinion that the establishment of a local division will not fragment the Eastern Cape division and that there is no call to be pessimistic. Nor is he of the opinion that the Grahamstown Bar will be prejudiced in any real sense. The present status of Port Elizabeth and its surrounding areas, with its potential growth, the amount of work which is being done there and the presence of a university there, appear, according to the judge, to indicate that a full-fledged local division has become necessary, and that the disadvantages of such a step are outweighed by the advantages which are of general importance. Consequently he recommends the establishment of a full-fledged local division at Port Elizabeth, with concurrent jurisdiction with the Eastern Cape Division, and with the area of jurisdiction as indicated in clause 20. The idea is, as I have already indicated in a Press statement, that the statutory provisions in question will come into operation with effect from 1st January, 1974.

In terms of the amendment in clause 24 powers with regard to State airports are now being conferred on the Minister of Transport in regard to the sale of intoxicating liquor to Bantu, not only with regard to the transit area but with regard to the premises or any portion of the premises which are situated within an area designated for the entry and departure of international air traffic, and also in regard to the admission of females to the restricted portions of such premises. These powers are required in order to keep in line with international air traffic—where no racial separation applies—to and from the Republic and also to admit women to bars in accordance with the custom at other international airports. The amendment in clause 25 relates to the amendment in clause 24.

The Publications and Entertainments Act, 1963, provides that the Publications Control Board is empowered upon request to examine any publication or object and to declare whether that publication or object is, in the opinion of the board, undesirable or not. In addition the Act provides that cinematograph films intended for exhibition in public or certain other places may not be exhibited unless such cinematograph films have been approved by the board. The board may also under certain circumstances prohibit the holding of a public entertainment or proposed public entertainment. Doubt exists whether the board may review and, if necessary, amend or substitute decisions in regard to these matters once it has taken a decision. Clauses 26 to 28 of the Bill are aimed at conferring this power on the board when directed to do so by the Minister in question. The issuing of such an instruction will of course take place only if justifiable grounds for it exists, for example as a result of altered circumstances which have arisen subsequent to the board’s decision. Decisions given on appeal as referred to in sections 11 and 14 of the Act are of course not affected, and it will be possible to afford interested parties an opportunity of making representations to the board before it reviews a decision.

The amendment in clause 41 is being effected as a result of a request from the Life Offices’ Association of Southern Africa to afford protection to insurance companies with regard to loans in respect of insurance policies made on or after the commencement of the Prescription Act, 1969—that is, 1st December, 1970. This provision is necessary since loans on policies, unlike other loans, are in general not reclaimed, and debts in this connection incur the risk of being cancelled. The Association in question is satisfied with the amendment because it will enable them to effect the necessary adjustments with regard to future loans in the light of the Prescription Act.

As far as the amendment in clause 44 is concerned, it appeared from representations that certain properties were leased to companies in terms of leases for fluctuating periods. Because section 23 of the Sectional Titles Act, as it now stands, makes it possible for any person who occupies any part of a building by virtue of a shareholding in a company to obtain ownership in the part in question, regardless of the duration of a lease concluded by the company with the owner, the amendment in this clause is being effected because the object was not that persons who obtained rights of occupation for only a limited period should be able to obtain ownership. The idea was that shareholders who obtained the right to unlimited possession should be able to obtain ownership in terms of the Act.

With that, I think, I have elucidated the most important provisions.

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing how the pattern of General Law Amendment Bills has changed over the last few years. We find ourselves once again in the position that we can support this Bill at the Second Reading. This Bill is in fact a Committee Stage Bill, dealing as it does with many different departments and purporting to amend various Acts. By way of giving notice I should like to indicate those clauses to which we shall give our attention in the Committee Stage.

The first clause to which we will give our attention is clause 6. I know it has been the pattern over the years to allow the preference in respect of a debt to the State over other debts on insolvency. Here we have yet another measure which gives the State preference in respect of customs and excise and sales duty over workmen’s wages, for example, upon insolvency. We see no reason why there should be this preference and should like to be persuaded of the necessity for this in the Committee Stage before we would agree to it.

Then there is clause 13, which deals with the question of the laying upon the Table of regulations which are made by Ministers and other authorities in terms of Acts of Parliament. The position up to now was that they had to be laid on the Table. Hon. members all receive copies of the Government Gazette and therefore they do in fact see these regulations. I think this amendment is a great improvement, because it now provides that the departments concerned will be obliged to list the proclamations, stating in each case the number, the date and the title of the proclamation and the Gazette in which it was published. This is a great improvement and will be of great help to members of this House in dealing with all these various regulations. As it is now, it is almost impossible for anybody to find the various regulations which are made relating to various departments in the Government Gazette. As I understand the position, these lists will be printed in the minutes when they are laid upon the Table and therefore they will be noticed and hon. members will be aware of what is happening.

Then there is the increase in judges salaries, amounting to R2 000 per annum in each case, all the way from puisne judges up to the Chief Justice. This is again something which we welcome. Inflation catches up with everybody and one even hears that journalists have gone to arbitration because inflation has caught up with them, and indeed there are others whom it is believed inflation never catches up with.

Clause 16 amends the Prisons Act, and I wonder if the hon. the Minister could indicate to us in the Committee Stage why it is that the training may now be for any other purpose connected with the prison rather than in connection with the employment, training or treatment in that prison.

Clause 22 deals with offices of profit under the State. It is a disqualification, as everybody knows, for members to have offices of profit under the State. You are disqualified as a member of Parliament or as a provincial councillor if you occupy such an office. The present section 55 of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act defines what an office of profit is in this respect, namely that if you are a member of any council, committee, board or similar body established by or under any law and if you receive no payment for your services, but get an allowance at a rate not exceeding R11, you do not occupy an office of profit under the State and you don’t become disqualified. It is now proposed that the amount should not be R11, but an amount to be determined by the Minister of Finance by notice in the Gazette from time to time. One appreciates that R11 may now no longer be a realistic figure, but the principle involved here is that the Minister of Finance is now going to determine what the payment is which does not disqualify you from being a member of Parliament if you accept such payments for service on such boards. The principle of this does not seem to be correct, because it does seem to us that the Minister of Finance may in fact specify different amounts in respect of different boards or different bodies and this appears to us to be undesirable.

Clauses 26 to 28 do not fall under the hon. the Minister’s department, but under that of the hon. the Minister of the Interior and I am glad that he is here. These clauses introduce a new procedure in terms of which the Minister may at any time direct the Publication Board to review various decisions that it has made in respect of publications —in terms of clause 27 in respect of cinematograph films and in terms of clause 28 in respect of entertainments. It seems to us that this is a proper procedure. I want to say at once that it is proper in the sense that if an adverse decision is given by the board, a decision forbidding something, then a person still has his right of appeal to the court. The Minister may not direct the board to do anything in this regard until such time as the person concerned has prosecuted his right in the court, or until the time for prosecuting such an appeal has elapsed. Clauses 26 to 28 provide that the board may in its discretion, before reviewing a decision or statement referred to it, request any person who has a direct financial interest in the publication, object, or goods to submit to the board in writing any representations he may wish to make. It seems to us that this should not be a discretion that the board has. It seems to us that the board, having allowed a publication or a cinematographic film or an entertainment like a play, gives the green light to persons to invest money in the further production of that product, the cinematograph film, etc. It seems to us that, the board itself having decided that you may go ahead, anyone who has a direct financial interest should in fact be asked, in other words, the board should be obliged to ask them, whether they wish to make representations. I am sure that that is a reasonable request, because it is the decision of the board to allow, in their discretion, something to proceed which causes the person to invest money. At the very least he should therefore be heard if the Minister directs the board to review the decision arrived at.

Those are the main aspects we wish to deal with in the Committee Stage. I thought it would be wise to give notice of them now so that we can all have a look at them. My hon. friend from Green Point will move amendments in respect of those clauses relating to publications and entertainment.

There is one final small matter concerning clause 44, which amends the Sectional Titles Act. Which are the words that are intended here, those in the English text or those in the Afrikaans text? The English text speaks of “the right to occupy any part of a building in perpetuity”, whereas the Afrikaans text speaks of “die reg om ’n gedeelte van ’n gebou vir ’n onbepaalde tydperk te okkupeer”. It seems to us that the two do not have the same meaning. “An unlimited time” and “inperpetuity” are two quite different concepts. If, as we think, it is the meaning of the English version that is intended, the Afrikaans version should read “ … ewigdurend” or something like that. In our view the two terms do not at this stage coincide and, as one does not know which version is going to be signed, perhaps the hon. the Minister will give his attention to that as well.

I have indicated the matters which we would like to deal with in the Committee Stage. Otherwise we support the Bill at the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Durban North for the attitude which the official Opposition is adopting in this connection. I felt all along that nothing really contentious was contained in this Bill. It is therefore not necessary to spend much time on it. I shall gladly look at the clauses mentioned by the hon. member. There are some of my colleagues who will have to defend certain clauses and have to explain others. In regard to the amendment to the Sectional Titles Act I may just point out that this was done at the request of the Durban Municipality, the city from which the hon. member comes. We are reacting here to their request. I did not look at the English and the Afrikaans versions separately, but I shall discuss it with the law adviser. The idea was, as I said in my Second Reading Speech, that it should be an indefinite period. Whether we should use the word “ewigdurend” in the Afrikaans text, or whether “onbepaald” in the Afrikaans text should be translated as “indefinite” is a question for them to decide.

I do not think that at this stage there is anything further I need to say. So I shall simply wait for the Committee Stage to discuss these matters further.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

I need hardly say that in many respects mining is the Republic’s most important industry. Therefore it is a matter of national interest that those who are employed in this important industry and who make such an important contribution to our economic prosperity should be properly cared for, effectively protected and happy.

The Pneumoconiosis Compensation Act, 1962, has now been in operation for more than ten years, so it has been possible to test it thoroughly. It has been found to contain deficiencies which require correction. Circumstances have changed considerably in the mining industry over the past ten years. In the same way the circumstances of the workers in the mining industry have changed a great deal. Furthermore, intensive research in connection with occupational diseases has been conducted here in South Africa and elsewhere in the world since 1956, and particularly during the past ten years. This research has produced new information and knowledge.

The Bill before the House at the moment is the result of intensive study and careful consideration of the manifold and complex problems presented by this matter. It is an honest and sincere attempt to find effective solutions to these problems and, perhaps the most important of all, to establish a fair deal for the workers, whose interests must first and foremost be promoted by this House, workers whose interests are always looked after very well by this side of the House.

†I would now like to refer to and explain a few of the more important provisions of this Bill.

WORKS:

Up to now, the pneumoconiosis legislation has only applied to the mining industry and to workers in that industry. The safety and health of workers in both mines and works are governed by the regulations under the Mines and Works Act— legislation which is also wholly administered by the Department of Mines, but today we have the anomalous position that whereas workers in the mining industry are subject to rigid medical control and receive compensation under the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Act if they contract pneumoconiosis or tuberculosis, workers employed in works are not subjected to medical control and must be compensated under the Workmen’s Compensation Act in respect of pneumoconiosis.

The position is, however, that works are in many respects closely connected with the mining industry and they are often part and parcel of that industry. Works are normally places where the treatment, processing or beneficiation of minerals or mineral products is undertaken with the view to producing material which could be subjected to manufacturing processes; but because they handle ores and mineral substances, the working conditions of persons employed in works are often similar to those of workers in the mining industry and they are in consequence often subject to the same health hazards. It is therefore only right and logical that they should receive the same medical protection as that enjoyed by workers in the mining industry and that, if they should contract occupational diseases while employed in works, they should be entitled to the same compensation.

*Therefore works are being included in the provisions of the Bill, which not only eliminates a serious deficiency, but also complies with the continuous representations by the workers employed in works.

OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES:

The present Pneumoconiosis Compensation Act and all the preceding Acts related only to pneumoconiosis and tuberculosis. However, research has proved that there are other diseases, too, which occur more frequently among mineworkers than among the general public and other occupational groups. In this way, for example, it has been found that mineworkers are more subject to chronic bronchitis and that there is a connection between dust and this disease; that workers in asbestos mines are more subject to lung cancer and cancer of the pleura and that mineworkers are more exposed to scleroderma (a painful skin disease). These diseases are not compensatable under the Pneumocniosis Compensation Act or under the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

Since it has now been discovered and proved that mineworkers are also subject to these other diseases which comply with the requirements for classification as occupational diseases, it would be wrong and unfair to the workers to continue to limit the legislation and the compensation payable under the legislation to pneumoconiosis only. So the Bill abolishes this limitation and substitutes for pneumoconiosis the wider concept of “compensatable disease”.

This provision now makes it possible to include other diseases under the provisions of the legislation, without the bother of amending laws, if and when such diseases are identified by research as occupational diseases peculiar to mines and works.

I am convinced that this is a great and important step forward which will ensure that it is possible to deal fairly with the worker who loses his health as a result of the particular conditions of employment to which he is exposed. This will remove many grievances and complaints by mineworkers. This is one of the cornerstones of the Bill and a provision which is welcomed by miners everywhere.

†RISK WORK:

The introduction of the concept of “compensatable disease” must be seen together with another equally important and radical change.

Research and advanced knowledge have shown that dust was not the only element dangerous to the health of workers in the mines. There are also other elements and factors like gases, vapours, chemical substances and working conditions which either singly or collectively may play a role in the damage to the health of the worker and the development of diseases. It is unrealistic and unfair to link occupational diseases with dust only and the Bill therefore substitutes the much wider concept of “risk work” for the old concept of “work in a dusty atmosphere”. In the circumstances, the existing requirement, namely that there must have been proven exposure to dust in a mine before a worker may lay claim to compensation, is now being discarded and the new test will be whether the worker contracted his disease as a result of his performing risk work.

This very important change must be seen as an important forward step which will be welcomed by the workers and which will allow medical practitioners responsible for certification adequate scope to employ their knowledge and experience to the advantage of the mineworker. At the same time, the new concept will also allow these practitioners greater freedom in allowing the worker the benefit of the doubt in cases where doubt exists as to the causes of a disease. Mr. Speaker, this is undoubtedly of very great importance to the workers in our country.

*COMPENSATION:

A further important, and probably the most radical, change introduced by the Bill into the present arrangement is in regard to compensation. Compensation for pneumoconiosis in the mining industry, or as it was at first called, silicosis compensation, was introduced to meet an emergency in the days at the beginning of the century, when mineworkers died of silicosis within a period of six months to two or three years and left their dependants in poverty and distress. Where at first everyone received the same compensation, in the form of lump sums, the legislation gradually began to deviate from the legal principles underlying compensation for damage suffered and began to take on the form of a welfare or pension measure. So in practice the question of “compensation” in the true sense of the word hardly arises any more in the Pneumoconioses Compensation Act. In this way the position arose that benefits in terms of the Act are awarded almost exclusively in the form of life pensions. Under the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Act the size of a pension is not related to loss of income, but is determined exclusively by the marital status of the beneficiary and by the number of dependent children.

I should like to emphasize that this state of affairs arose and developed as a result of special circumstances and that special considerations, although good ones, were at stake. This Bill introduces a drastic and radical change in respect of the basis of compensation which on the one hand is aimàl at restoring sound legal principles and on the other hand tries, for obvious reasons, to relate as closely as possible and to try to reconcile the underlying principles of this legislation and of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

It is an accepted and sound legal principle that no one should bt deprived of an existing right. In accordance with this principle it was therefore decided, and the Bill gives effect to this decision, that the position of existing beneficiaries should not be disturbed. In other words, those who are already receiving pensions will retain those pensions, although adjusted and computed on a new basis. For new beneficiaries, however, the Bill introduces a completely new dispensation. May I say, Sir, that it is undoubtedly a very fine dispensation. So the Bill provides that when it comes into operation there will be two kinds of beneficiaries, i.e.—

1. (a) existing beneficiaries who will continue to receive pensions—better pensions, as I shall indicate in a moment; and
2. (b) new beneficiaries for whom a new compensation arrangement is being introduced.

Several changes and advantageous concessions are made in respect of existing beneficiaries as well. In the first place, where at present pensions comprise a pension for the mineworker, a pension in respect of his wife and a pension in respect of every dependent child, a consolidated pension will be paid in future which will include all these individual pensions. Secondly, pensions will be consolidated in such a way that every beneficiary will benefit by consolidation. Thirdly, in those cases where the beneficiary does not benefit by the consolidation of his pension, special steps are taken to ensure that he will in fact benefit in terms of the provisions of this Bill. Consequently the Bill ensures that every existing beneficiary will receive an additional benefit, i.e. that the pension of every existing beneficiary will be increased.

Because pensions for existing pensioners are being retained, however, it is necessary, for practical and other considerations, to retain for them the present system of classification of impairment.

For new beneficiaries, i.e. persons who are certified for the first time after the date of commencement of the new legislation, a new dispensation is introduced, entailing two new principles, namely—

1. (a) the certification of compensatable diseases in only two degrees, i.e.—

1. (i) first degree—impairment of not more than 40%; and
2. (ii) second degree—impairment of more than 40%; and

1. (b) the payment of benefits in the form of lump sums instead of pensions.

I have already said that it is one of the objects of this Bill to link compensation for occupational diseases, as far as is practicable, again to common law principles of compensation for “damage suffered”. In practice, and this is the way it is applied by our courts, “damage suffered” is calculated in terms of money by determining and awarding a fixed amount for this damage. This, then, is the principle the Bill is also introducing. That is to say, for “damage suffered” which is classified into two degrees on the basis of loss of health for the worker, a fixed, non-recurring compensation is awarded—for the first degree a particular amount which, when he enters the second degree, is supplemented by a further non-recurring benefit.

†EXTENT OF COMPENSATION:

I have already said that existing beneficiaries will retain their pensions, that these pensions will be consolidated and that every beneficiary will receive an increase in pension with effect from the date of coming into operation of this legislation, which, if it passes through both Houses, will be 1st October, 1973. For existing White pensioners, pensions are being consolidated at—

1. (a) for the 20%-50% group—R50 per month;
2. (b) for the 50%-75% group—R94 per month; and
3. (c) for the group over 75%—R136 per month.

In certain cases beneficiaries are already receiving pensions equal to or exceeding the proposed consolidated pensions. In these cases the higher pensions will continue to be paid. I have, however, already indicated that every pensioner will receive an increase, and in those cases where pensioners will not benefit by consolidation, an additional allowance of R3 per month in respect of every dependent child will be paid to them until such time as their pensions, due to a decrease in the number of dependants, fall to a level below the consolidated pension. From then onwards the consolidated pension will naturally be payable.

It gives me great pleasure indeed to be able to announce these pension concessions because I believe that mineworkers suffering from pneumoconiosis do not only deserve our sympathy, but that they are in real need of financial relief, which is now being given to them by means of this very important legislation.

The consolidation of existing pensions means in effect that pensions in the category 20%-50% will on average increase by 24,92%, and that the average increases in the 50-75% and above 75% categories will be 23,77% and 16,5%, respectively.

I want to stress the fact that every pension will not be increased by the percentages which I have mentioned. These are the calculated average increases for all the pensioners in the respective groups. The exact amount will differ in individual cases and consolidation will benefit some pensioners more than others. The important point is that each and everyone will gain.

*I have already said that for new beneficiaries there will be a new compensation arrangement, that in their case impairment will be classified into only two degrees and that a fixed, non-recurring compensation will be awarded for every degree. The amounts laid down by the Bill are R12 000 or the first degree and an additional benefit of R6 000 for the second degree. For the two degrees together, the beneficiary will therefore receive a non-recurring amount of R18 000. The person who is placed in the second degree immediately on first being classified will also, of course, receive R18 00.

These amounts have been fixed in such a way that a beneficiary will not be in a less favourable position than present beneficiaries who are receiving pensions; in fact, because pensions are subject to periodic review and are increased from time to time, it was of course necessary to fix the one-sum benefits at considerably higher amounts than the capital value of the pension. Apart from the immediate gain, the interest which a beneficiary will be able to earn on his one-sum benefit will amply compensate for possible pension increases which existing beneficiaries may receive in the future.

The Bill further provides that one-sum benefits are to be paid out only once. However, the beneficiary has the option of requesting payment in monthly or three-monthly instalments, in which case his capital continues to earn interest.

DEPENDANTS:

As in the case of mineworkers receiving pensions, widows and dependent children who are already receiving pensions will continue to receive monthly pensions. However, in their case the pensions are increased from R63 a month to R70 a month in the case of the widow, and from R26 a month to R29 a month in the case of a dependent child.

In the event of the death of a mine-worker who is at present receiving a pension, his widow will not receive a pension, but a one-sum benefit of R9 000. This amount, too, compares very favourably with the capital value of the existing widows’ pension. So the position of the new widow of an existing beneficiary will not be prejudiced either.

Under the present Act a widow receives a one-sum benefit of R1 380 for a postmortem finding of pneumoconiosis with less than 20% impairment. Widows who have been receiving this amount since 1st October, 1962, are regarded as existing beneficiaries and from the commencement of this legislation those of them who have not remarried in the meantime and their dependent children under the age of 18 years will receive the same pension as existing widows of pensioners and their dependent children, i.e. R70 a month and R29 a month respectively.

It is estimated that there may be as many as 1 100 widows and as many as 500 dependent children who may qualify for pensions.

In the case of new beneficiaries, i.e. those to whom one-sum benefits are awarded, any unpaid balance of their benefits will at their death be paid to their widows or dependent children. In all cases where one-sum benefits are paid, the whole benefit is paid out at once, except when the beneficiary himself prefers it to be paid in instalments. This applies to widows and dependent children as well.

TUBERCULOSIS:

At the moment a one-sum benefit is paid for tuberculosis, but a distinction is made between persons who performed fewer than 3 000 and those who performed more than 3 00 shifts. At present the respective benefits are R2 160 and R2 880. When tuberculosis is certified after death, the widow receives only half the benefit.

This arrangement falls away and in future all beneficiaries will receive the same benefit, irrespective of their service. The amount has now been fixed at R5 000, and in the event of a certification after death the full benefit is paid to the widow, or the dependent children, or the estate, as the case may be. This is an important concession which will benefit every person who works at a mine or works and who contracts tuberculosis.

†COLOUREDS:

The Bill introduces two important changes in so far as Coloureds are concerned. In the first place, the existing differences in compensation based on the monthly wage of beneficiaries are being abolished, with the result that all will in future receive the same amount where the degree of impairment is the same. Secondly, the present discrimination between Whites and Coloureds in respect of special allowances, assistance in connection with training, etc., is being removed, and Coloureds will henceforth also be able to qualify for these additional benefits. The compensation payable to Coloureds will in every case be half of the corresponding compensation received by Whites. There will, however, be no difference in so far as the manner of payment of compensation to Whites and Coloureds is concerned.

BANTU:

Compensation payable to Bantu is being increased appreciably and payments will, in fact, nearly be doubled. At present a Bantu receives R691-20 for pneumoconiosis or for pneumoconiosis plus tuberculosis. Under this Bill, compensation for a compensatable disease other than tuberculosis is R1 000 and for tuberculosis plus another compensatable disease the amount will be R1 200. For tuberculosis only, the new benefit will be R600.

An important change in respect of Bantu is that they will in future receive interest on benefits awarded to them which are paid out in instalments. Compensation is nearly always paid in this manner, but at present Bantu do not receive interest.

FINANCING:

This Bill provides for three accounts, viz., the Mines Account out of which all future compensation in respect of mine service will be paid, the Works Account from which compensation in respect of service at works will be paid, and the State Account out of which all existing pensioners will be paid.

The risk of mines will in future be determined on an individual basis and a levy based on the risk so determined will be imposed on each mine in respect of every shift worked. It is, therefore, no longer necessary to classify mines under separate groups and to keep separate accounts. Funds collected from the mines will be paid into the one account, but because works are a new addition to the legislation and no funds in respect of them are at present in the compensation fund, it will be necessary to create a separate account for them.

Since 1956, whenever an increase in existing pensions was effected, the State accepted the additional burden thus created. This is a principle to which the State has bound itself and which can hardly be departed from at this stage. It is therefore the position that the State must again accept the responsibility for the concessions now being made to existing beneficiaries. The cost of these concessions is estimated at about R3,03 million per year, and the State’s liability in respect of the State Account will therefore increase by this amount per year.

As far as the mines are concerned, the granting of lump sum benefits and the increase in Bantu benefits will entail for them an estimated additional liability of at least R4,l million per year. The total will thus be between R7 million and R8 million which will go to the mineworkers. Depending on the number of certifications under the wider definition of “compensatable disease”, the additional liabilities of the mines could even be higher. However, if spread over all the mines on the basis of their respective risks, the additional liability for individual mines should not prove excessive. The mining industry, and especially the gold-mining industry, is experiencing prosperous times at the moment, as we all know, and the Government is satisfied that the additional liabilities which they have to face are not unreasonable and that they should be able to meet these liabilities with reasonable ease.

The whole matter is one which should be seen in perspective. The State could not lend itself to a measure which would not provide for adequate compensation for the worker who paid with his health. Compensation for loss of health is an unavoidable operational liability which the mining industry will have to accept, and the Government has the duty and responsibility to see to it that the compensation is fair and reasonable.

*Several other changes are introduced to make control over workers in mines and works more efficient, to ensure intensive and sustained research for the protection of the workers and to facilitate and streamline the administration of the legislation. I cannot discuss all the changes in detail here, but on the whole this legislation is an important step forward to which a great deal of research was devoted. I would not say that the last word has now been spoken on occupational diseases in mines and works. However, I am convinced that this legislation is a great improvement on all its predecessors.

The Bill before the House at the moment was very thoroughly investigated by a Select Committee of this House, on which both sides were represented, and it incorporates the unanimous recommendations of the Committee.

It is a great pleasure and privilege to me to be able to announce that all the trade unions have given their support and approval to the Bill. I believe that this is the first time that the mining trade unions have given their unconditional approval to legislation of this nature, and I should like to express my sincere thanks and appreciation to them for their understanding and fine co-operation.

The Chamber of Mines does not feel happy about certain provisions. Most of the Chamber’s objections have been met, but in other cases the representations and counterproposals of the Chamber of Mines could not be complied with. However, I am convinced that when the legislation comes into operation, all the sectors of the mining industry will give their full co-operation, as in the past.

Mr. Speaker, as already indicated by the unanimous report of the members of the Select Committee on this Bill, both sides of the House agree on this legislation and I therefore feel that both sides must support the second reading of the Bill. We on this side of the House have been happy to serve on the Select Committee, ably presided over by the hon. member for Virginia. I must say that the hon. member did his best during these deliberations to give everybody, both the members who served on the Select Committee and the witnesses, a fair and courteous hearing. The deliberations were marked by the great interest taken especially by the representatives of the mine workers and by those of the industry. I feel that we in the Select Committee were very happy to have been able to have the services of several members of the Department of Mines. These officials gave us much of their time and much of their experience, and were a great help to us. I think those members who were on this Select Committee will join with me and thank them for the help that they gave us. The evidence that was given was remarkable as well in the sense that it highlighted not only the two particular diseases we dealt with in previous years, but also the occupational diseases associated with the mining industry now. The people who gave evidence on these matters were experts in their fields. We took great notice of what they said. As a result of these deliberations one could not but come away with unanimous findings and, as I have said before, we on this side of the House are naturally happy to be associated with this Bill.

As far as this Bill is concerned, I think there are two aspects that are of the greatest importance. One is the great increased benefits which the mine worker will derive through this Bill if he is suffering from an occupational disease associated with mines and works. The other important facet of this Bill, as I see it, is the fact that the Medical Bureau, which previously confined itself mainly to the diseases of pneumoconoisis and tuberculosis, is today ready to deal with other diseases arising out of risk work in mines. The hon. the Minister spoke about this in his Second Reading speech and I shall come to that later on in my speech. Risk work is the basis of the findings of this Bill. However, the bureau that is now established will have to open up its doors and will have to deal with what I think is an imperative aspect of labour legislation. The compensation awards to persons who work on mines are somewhat different to compensation in other fields of labour. I feel that the time has come to bring into line the findings of the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner when he awards compensation and the awards given by the Compensation Commissioner for Occupational Diseases. With the growth of industry and the tying up of our various industries in the Republic which depend so much on the mines, the secondary industries which have arisen around the mines have become so intimately connected with the mines that I think it is a matter of urgency for the Minister of Mines, with the Minister of Health and the Minister of Labour, to consider the possibility of using this Bill which we have before us today as a basis for bringing into being a much wider Bill encompassing all compensation diseases which arise out of a man’s work. It should be done soon. At the moment we have a wonderful opportunity to start this work.

The hon. the Minister of Health has started a Division for Industrial Diseases, but a Division of Industrial Diseases which does not take into consideration the diseases that affect the mineworker is not a true Division for Industrial Diseases. Unless we review the Workmen’s Compensation Act and bring it into line with what we have today in this Bill we are not only going to have the anomalies the hon. the Minister pointed out, where previously people working in works were compensated differently from people working in mines, but also the anomaly that exists today in regard to those people who work, for example, with iron ore or asbestos fibre. The person who works in the mine or in the works gets one level of compensation: for instance, the loader of asbestos onto a lorry at the mine will get compensation estimated as if he is working on works, but the person who loads the ore or asbestos fibre at docks onto a barge or onto a ship is compensated differently. Both may eventually suffer from the same disease. These are the sort of anomalies which we must try to wipe out. As far as risk work is concerned, we on this side of the House have for years been pleading for the inclusion of certain diseases under this category. I do not have to deal with it again, because it is in Hansard. What we have said in the past about the workings of previous Acts in relation to pneumoconiosis is in Hansard.

I remember that in reply to one of the first speeches I made in Parliament, in which I criticized the then Pneumoconiosis Act, the then Minister. Dr Van Rhyn, had an awful lot to say to me. He was most disgusted that I, a backbencher, should have had the audacity to criticize what was then, he thought a model piece of legislation and which I pointed out to him could not possibly work. It was impossible in those days to expect that type of legislation to work. As far as he was concerned, it was the beginning and the end of compensation for pneumoconiosis. Soon after that, another piece of legislation was introduced. We said we would give it a try. We were willing to try it, but this again was not satisfactory. One of the faults of previous legislation was that it was too finicky and that it had too many stages of illnesses. One was wondering how you could possibly separate the one degree of penumoconiosis from another. I am pleased to say that in the Bill we have in front of us today, that difficulty is to a great extent eliminated. Even now we will have to wait two or three years to see how this Bill works. I think it is going to work well, but whether it is going to work well or not can only be said in a few years hence. I hope that what the mineworker expects from this Bill is going to materialize.

The awards that are going to be given to mineworkers have been discussed in detail by tht hon. the Minister and I am not going to go over them again. We on this side of the House think they are fair awards. I am sure the members on the Government side feel likewise, but there is one point I do not feel happy about, and that is that in the Bill—perhaps we can come to an adjustment in a year or so—no provision is being made for the lowering of the value of the rand. According to this Bill before us today the pensions of those people who have been receiving pensions under the old Act will be brought in line as near as possible to this Bill’s provisions. However, there is nothing in the Bill to say that in five years’ time there will be an automatic review of the present awards, so as to bring the value of the rand, as it is today, in line with what it may be in five years’ time.

I feel that we must not allow what is happening in respect of the workmen’s compensation awards: People who first received compensation ten years ago, are in some cases today forced to live on the value of the rand as it was ten years ago, there has been no adjustment. There have been adjustments for those who get injured today but for those who received pensions ten, or even 20 years ago in some cases, there is no adjustment. I feel that the hon. the Minister should bear that in mind. I for one and, I am sure, all the members in the House, do not want the mineworker to be placed in the same position as some of the people who have been injured in other categories of work, and who have to suffer today because of the high cost of living and the falling value of the rand as buying factor.

Another point I want to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister—and I think this is most important—is that if this legislation is to be successful every facility must be provided for those people who are responsible for carrying this legislation out. That means that from the day that a person is recruited by the mines, irrespective of that person’s colour, until he leaves the mine, his medical examinations, for one, must be most carefully undertaken. And not only that; I want the hon. the Minister to make sure—he must take note of this—that, as soon as a man is given work on the mines, the findings on that man’s health are transmitted to his panel doctor so that the panel doctor will also be able to take an interest in the man’s health and welfare. I do not know if the hon. the Minister knows, but the hon. the Minister of Health and other members here know, that the main complaint of the mineworker, when he goes to see his panel doctor, is a chest complaint of some sort.

I am very pleased therefore that bronchitis is today included in this piece of legislation. The panel doctor was the one who had to treat the patient for bronchitis. It was not accepted by the Bureau, nor was it regarded as a disease in respect of which compensation had to be paid. I hope that today, with the co-operation of the panel doctors and the doctors at the Bureau, we will give a different complextion to this matter so that the mineworker can feel he is being looked after properly, and that his complaints are being taken up seriously.

That has not been done always in the past. There was plenty of cause to grumble. I already said that the success of this piece of legislation depends on examination. What perturbed me in the past—and I have mentioned it in this House over and over again—is that so many mine workers were found only after death to be suffering from pneumoconiosis or tuberculosis. I hope that we will now eliminate that. Doctors are not infallible. We must take every necessary precaution. If we make use of the new techniques, the new apparati, new forms of X-rays, etc., I think we can eliminate much of that which escaped detection in the past.

Now I would like to say something about risk work. This is a most important innovation, as the hon. the Minister correctly pointed out. Here again, I think we must take into consideration other types of risks that occur to mine-workers. In the main these diseases which follow the occupational risk work only apply when a man is working in a dusty atmosphere or underground. That is where the emphasis is being put, namely on his chest, his cardio-espiratory system. Now there is a new provision for scleroderma.

But there are other conditions that must be looked at as well. I think that conditions like deafness should be included in risk work, and should be compensated for. However it should not be treated as a disease that would bar a man from his work. There is deafness of people working in a mill, for instance, in addition to the dust disease risks. I have two cases at the moment of people who have become deaf as a result of their work, but because they were not examined to show that they had perfect hearing when they started to work, they are being penalized now that they have gone deaf. They have no proof that they were not deaf when they started to work. These are things that are most important to them, and which should, I think, receive the attention of the hon. the Minister.

Now I want to say a word or two about the Bantu. The Bantu in the past have been excellently treated as far as their health is concerned. Their compensation is now going to be much higher than it was in the past. There is nothing to grumble about as far as that is concerned. I also understand that more and more Bantu will be taken into the mining profession. It will mean adjustment to their compensation as well if they are going to be allowed to do some of the work which is at the moment being done by Whites. This is being resisted by certain people, but because we do not have the White hands, we will eventually have to use more and more Coloured and Bantu to do the work. That is obvious. When we are going to review compensation again, we will have to take these things into consideration. I am not going to harp on that. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that he has got to see that those Bantu who are entitled to compensation actually get that compensation. The amount of unclaimed money that is piling up in the coffers of the Department of Bantu Administration is becoming too high for my liking. Not enough care is taken to trace the Bantu when he leaves the mine. Some new form of contact must be advised between the Department of Mines, the Department of Bantu Administration and the ex-mine labourer. That has to be done and I hope the Minister will see to it that a proper register is kept of the movement of the Bantu. The excuses given in the past are to my mind not acceptable. Too many of these Bantu are not receiving what they should, and the money is piling up in the coffers and used for other purposes.

Why don’t you put the blame on them?

Perhaps the Bantu is to blame. I am not saying that he is blameless. But you know, Sir, it is a peculiar man who does not take what is offered to him when it comes to money. People stand for hours outside a post office for their pensions. Why should it be that the Bantu who needs this money badly, especially when he goes back to his homeland, does not stand in the queue for his money? What is wrong? Let us find out. If the hon. member thinks it is the fault of the Bantu, let us educate him to go and get the money. If we think it is the fault of the Bantu Affairs Commissioner, let us tell him that he is not doing his job properly. But I think that what we must do is to investigate the matter to see where the blame lies. I cannot be fairer than that. But I want the hon. the Minister to do this. This does not only apply to the Bantu’s money; there are other people as well who do not go to receive their dues, because they do not know about it.

Sir, my time is running out. I want to say again to my fellow members on the Select Committee that I congratulate them on what they have brought forward. We hope that the mine worker will derive much benefit and satisfaction from this piece of legislation. I do not think that the viability of any mine is going to be affected by what is going to be awarded to the mine worker. Judging from what is happening to the dividend scale of mines today, every single mine appears to be well able to afford the extra money which is going to be paid to the mine worker. The amount to be received by the mine worker is nothing in comparison with the vast profits made by the mines. I think that what the mine worker is going to receive, he well deserves. Perhaps at a later stage we will review the position and even give him a little more than what is provided for in this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it was my privilege to be chairman of the Select Committee which has today brought this amended Bill before the House. As chairman I consequently want to express my thanks and appreciation to the members of the Committee for the spirit of cooperation and goodwill in which they approached and carried out this task. However, I want to express a special word of thanks and appreciation to the members of the Opposition who assisted us, with goodwill and diligence, to bring this Bill before the House. I have only the utmost praise for the way in which they accepted and treated me as chairman.

The legislation now before the House is ushering in a new era with respect to the handling of and approach to compensation for occupational diseases in this country. From knowledge and experience of previous years, on the one hand as a result of the practical implementation of the existing legislation, and on the other hand as a result of the research and development in the medical and technological spheres, it has now become possible to come forward with legislation that is so comprehensive that it can make possible, I believe, a sound and balanced approach to every problem. Unlike the previous legislation, which we passed in this connection, today we are not dealing with an agreed measure. With the previous legislation we had the assurance that it was a measure agreed upon by two interested groups, but after the Act subsequently came into operation, none of those people wanted to accept paternity for that small child. Today we have a Bill before us which was drawn up firstly as a result of the fact that all the interested parties had the opportunity to submit memoranda and, if necessary, also give evidence before the Committee. The Committee, consisting of members of both sides of the House, studies the memoranda very thoroughly and questioned the witnesses that appeared before them, and after careful consideration of all the memoranda and evidence, the Committee adopted the view of letting law and justice prevail not only for the interests of the relevant mineworkers, but also for the interests of the relevant employers. Subsequently it was unanimously decided to submit this amended measure here. Therefore we have here before us a Bill which was drawn up after thorough study and a Bill which, in my opinion, can be a model of how occupational diseases ought to be compensated.

I said initially that this Bill is ushering in a new approach to the compensation of occupational diseases. The hon. the Minister has already referred obliquely to the fact that up to now we have had the contradiction in our present legislation whereby a mineworker’s pension is referred to when this is in reality a compensation for pneumoconiosis, or silicosis, as it is also known. This custom is attributable to the fact that before the years 1948 and 1949 the mineworkers did not want a pension scheme, and persons who contracted miner’s phthisis or silicosis, as it was initially called, were compensated not in terms of the degree of loss of working ability, but in accordance with the size of the family and the number of dependants.

Interesting, in my estimation, is the fact that in the earlier years the mineworkers did not want to know anything of a pension scheme. They believed that a pension scheme would render the weapon they had for going on strike less effective. The result of this was that in the early ’thirties the Chamber of Mines made fruitless attempts to create a pension scheme. Notwithstanding that fact, the Chamber of Mines went ahead and established what is popularly called the Provident Fund, a fund to which the Chamber of Mines alone contributes and which today provides considerable benefits to retiring mineworkers, or to their dependants if they should die. The pension schemes that exist today, a pension scheme for mineworkers and for mining officials, were only established in 1948 and 1949, and today, after 25 years, those funds are such that they can guarantee good pensions upon retirement. Sir, I think that in this respect we must also express our thanks and appreciation to the Chamber of Mines for this scheme which they inaugurated to make provision for the welfare of the mine-workers. In this Bill now, as far as new beneficiaries are concerned, the pension concept is being done away with and a single amount is being allocated to certificated persons. A second and very important aspect in the new approach is the concept “occupational disease”. We have now broken away from the narrower concept “disease of the lung caused by dust”, i.e. a disease caused by inhaling mineral dust. Dust has therefore, up to now, been the determining factor when it came to the certification and compensation of the mine-worker. Research has indicated, however, that factors such as depth, gases, fumes, changes in air pressure and sudden temperature variations can also cause lasting damage to the respiratory organs and adversely affect health. Since the concept “risk work” has now been written into the Act, full recognition will now be given to these detrimental effects. The definition of the term “compensatable disease” is now such that it is spreading the umbrella over occupational diseases much wider than it has ever been up to now. In this connection, Mr. Speaker, I personally now have the satisfaction of knowing that a disease, which has occurred in my constituency under mineworkers, i.e. scleroderma, will now also be a compensatable disease. I should like to quote what Prof. Oosthuisen said about this disease before the Select Committee on the Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Bill. He said on page 93 (translation)—

And this is important to my mind—

In addition he stated (page 95)—

And then he states very clearly—

Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to give my wholehearted approval to the Bill which is at present before us.

Mr. Speaker, like my hon. friend, the member for Rosettenville, I too would like to pay tribute to the work of the officials of the department, who were not only extremely helpful, but who were so well acquainted with the historical background of this Bill and all that it implies, that it proved a very great pleasure indeed to me to serve on this Select Committee, which dealt with this very important problem which so vitally affects those who produce what is one of the most important and vital assets for South Africa and perhaps for the world, namely gold.

As was pointed out, the Bill itself has broadened its entire aspect and now deals not only with mining but also with occupational diseases in other works as defined in the Bill. I would like to say, however, that to the hon. the Minister it must have been a very great privilege indeed to be able to introduce a Bill this afternoon which has been so very well prepared, if I may say so, by a Select Committee which had the opportunity to listen to evidence and to review much of the criticism that has been levelled at the Act as it has stood over the years. I do not think it would be immodest for me to say that this side of the House must enjoy to a considerable degree the credit for the part that it has played in constantly directing attention to some of the anomalies and the problems which faced the mineworker and his future in an occupation in which his eventual destiny was more or less a completely predictable one, and in many senses was a future which he could expect. In other words, it is very seldom that mineworkers have been able to escape the dangers and the risks to their health which one found in this form of mining activity. I want to say that what is pleasing about this Bill is that it has brought a considerable amount of relief to those who in years past always lived under this shadow of the first, second and third stages, people who were continuously harassed by the cost of living after having been found certifiable under one or other of the stages. Those in the first stage were always concerned as to whether perhaps they had not yet qualified for the second stage, and those in the second stage worried about whether their condition of health had not deteriorated so that they should be certified under the third stage. There was constant grumbling and concern by the sufferers as to whether they had been satisfactorily certified by the bureau and by the medical men who attended to them. I think it is an outstanding feature of this Bill that the stages have now been limited to two and adequate compensation is now being granted in respect of the first stage and in respect of the second stage, compensation which I think meets the present circumstances of the society in which we live. If we have made a contribution to the sociological future of the men who undertake this hazardous form of work, then I think Parliament has indeed made an important contribution to improving the lives of those who are engaged in this type of work. Furthermore, I am sure that it will assist us in meeting a problem with which we are already faced, and that is the shortage of mineworkers and even of technicians in this type of work, that is to say men who are qualified by university degrees as well as other technological education to play their part in what is a very important industry and which at one time we thought was becoming a dying industry in this country but which with the confidence we have always maintained, has now reasserted itself and will for a number of years still play a very important part in the economic life of our country. It is essential that we attract the right people to it and it is essential that we attract workers in every phase of this work, but it is pleasing to know that we can do so by giving them the assurance that they will receive adequate attention both from the point of view of the services of the Medical Bureau as well as satisfactory compensation should they at any time be assailed by the hazards of this particular occupation. The pleasing feature of the first stage is that the moment an individual has any evidence at all even of tuberculosis itself which is not necessarily confined to this undertaking but which can obviously be aggravated by this form of occupation, there is an immediate certification of the first stage of illness for which compensation is payable.

So I think that from many points of view, as the hon. the Minister has been at nains to tell us in great detail which I do not want to go into again, this Bill is something of which Parliament can indeed be very proud. It is very pleasing to note one important aspect and that is that this Bill is the culmination of the considerable interest which both sides of the House have always displayed in the future of the mineworkers of this country. I do think that we should also not underestimate the importance of the future of mining and other works in which the hazards are similar. We should realize that a part to be played in the future to a much more greater extent than now is the part which the Bantu himself will play in this industry, because more and more of them will be required. I believe that with the satisfactory provisions which are included in the Bill, we will be able to attract more and more from within the Republic of South Africa itself. The homelands, of course, are part of the Republic of South Africa at this stage, but if they do become independent at some stage I feel that, because of their affinity to the Republic and the fact that they are part of our whole Southern African complex, they will still play a great part. I believe that those territories will play an ever increasing part and the result will be that instead of relying, as it has been the case for years for the majority of our Bantu workers, on foreign countries, we will find that greater numbers of our own Bantu will come forward to take part in this particular work. I think the hon. the Minister has correctly stressed that the improvement in compensation and the improvement in conditions is something which will be of lasting benefit.

However, as the hon. member for Rosettenville has very clearly pointed out, we may still have to review the situation because as we broaden our whole aspect of labour in this particular undertaking and as we are doing in the general field of labour in the country today, we shall probably have to make adjustments in the field of compensation as well as in the conditions under which the lesser privileged persons work. Their standard of sophistication will improve, their standard of skill will improve and the demand for better standards of skill will increase and therefore we may, within a few years’ time, have to review entirely the whole set-up in regard to the non-White aspect of this particular work. The compensation payable to non-Whites as well as the other privileges which they will have in terms of this Bill may also have to be reviewed in a few years’ time.

I want to say something further about the background against which it was found possible to allow for greater compensation in terms of this Bill. The hon. member for Virginia referred to some of these aspects. Referring to the hon. member for Virginia, who served as chairman of the Select Committee, I should like to extend to him my appreciation for the very fair and able manner in which he conducted the work of the Select Committee. The hon. member for Virginia dealt with the question of the pensions which a mineworker is able to receive today as against the position that existed in the years gone by. As he correctly pointed out, a great deal of the criticism in the past has been levelled at the inadequate amount of compensation and pension which the miner received when he was obliged to leave his usual work or to engage in some other form of occupation in the mines by virtue of the certifications in the various stages. Here the whole question of pensions drops away entirely. One is now concerned with the compensation payable to a man who, in a sense, may have sacrificed a certain period of his longevity by virtue of the diseases which afflict him because of the work he is doing. I think it is a very much more satisfactory position. It gives the worker a greater sense of appreciation for the fairness and the sincerity of the employer and the country in whose interests he is really making this sacrifice. I think that is probably one of the principal features which gave the Select Committee very much more confidence in improving on the compensation that was suggested in the original Bill which was submitted to it for consideration. As has been pointed out, I agree that these increases are not very much to the detriment financially of the mining world, the mine owners or other works owners. I think that if anything, it will probably give them very much better returns in loyalty and service, something to which they have been accustomed over the years, to build this remarkable industry still further. It is also pleasing that, at last, after years of constantly nagging at this issue, we are able in a bipartisan manner to approach the improvement in pensions which sufferers are receiving at the moment. There is a great deal of unhappiness amongst many of these old-timers. They have been obliged to leave the mines and they have had their pensions fixed at a certain notch which in the present economic climate really amounts to even less than what one might describe as a mere pittance. I have constantly felt that they are suffering under a disability and a disadvantage and that something should be done for them. I am not terribly sure that we have done enough, but I certainly think that we have taken a step in the right direction. I hope that perhaps in the next year or two when we will see the value of the present improvements, we will be able to improve the position even further if necessary by some form of amendment to this legislation. I do not think there is anything so sad as to find a person who has to continue to live in the economic climate of today, relying on a pension fixed at a certain point where there is no flexibility at all and about which he can do nothing himself. We must also realize that some widows too are suffering under grave disadvantages and I hope that this Bill will play its part in that direction as well.

Generally, as far as I am concerned, I would not like to go into a great deal of detail in regard to what was done by this committee. I think members who have spoken have covered a good many of the details of what has taken place. I am particularly pleased to see that we have almost found complete agreement between the employee and the employer. In so far as the representations of the employers are concerned, it is possible that we may have gone a little bit further than they have suggested. We have considered carefully some of the problems which they maintain they are faced with, particularly those in regard to tuberculosis. They felt that tuberculosis was a disease which was curable today. We agreed with that with the exception however, that medical evidence indicated that although it was curable, exposure to this form of risk nevertheless was something that caused the worker to be more susceptible either to the recurrence of that particular disease or even pneumoconiosis itself. In our wisdom, we were obliged to go very much further than the representations made by the Chamber of Mines. However, I do not think they will begrudge what has been done for the mine-workers. I do feel that when they review this Bill they will see a balanced position which will give satisfaction to the employees and which, as I said earlier on, will redound to the credit of the industry in the material sense. I wish therefore, in common with those who have spoken already, to say how pleasing it is to be able to deal with a Bill of this nature. This Bill seems to me to be all that has been demanded; it possibly does even more than that. I hope that it will prove its value in the years to come.

Mr. Speaker, today is a very happy day for me, one which I have been looking forward to for many years. As a person directly involved with this legislation, I am grateful that at the beginning of this century provision was already being made for compensation to be paid to the persons who have to sacrifice their lives underground and are exposed every day to contracting the dreaded disease which was then known as miners’ phthisis. I say that it is a happy day for me personally because I have been taken up with this kind of legislation since 1948. I lived with this kind of legislation as a worker in 1956, when it was still called legislation on chest complaints. I also lived with this legislation as a worker in 1962 when it became known as the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Act. Before I continue, however, I want to link up with hon. members who have already spoken and convey my thanks to this hon. Minister, a young man who made it possible for me, as a member of the House of Assembly and as someone with a lifelong interest in mining and the conditions of the mine-worker, to see such a Bill come before the House. Nothing could give me greater pleasure and joy today than that which is today becoming a reality. I want to say thank you very much to every official, in whatever capacity he has played a part in the success of this legislation. However, I specially want to say thank you to the hon. member for Virginia, the chairman of this Select Committee. We all know already that he has given notice that his place in this House will shortly also be vacant. I want to tell the hon. member today that the mineworkers will remember him for this measure, remember him as a man who did a gigantic task to get for them what they wanted and even more than they had asked. I would be neglecting my duty if I did not also thank the Opposition members who were members of this Select Committee for their willingness and co-operation in connection with this legislation. They gave us complete co-operation, and this is again proof of the fact that when one is dealing with a person who can be injured in the line of duty and suffer from something as a result of factors beyond his control, two parties can stand together and place such a model measure on the Statute Book as we have before us here today. Time will tell whether this Act is going to furnish problems in the future. Never has something been written, nor will anything ever by written, which does not have to be revised or changed in the future. I was one who supported the Bill being referred to a Select Committee. This legislation was not rushed through the Select Committee, but was discussed with various witnesses and trade unions, as well as with various hon. members. There was complete co-operation. We spent enough time on it to make a model piece of legislation in connection with pneumoconiosis or occupational diseases, as this will now be known. We believe that it will be the best Act that has ever been passed here in the interests of the mineworker, from the beginning of the century up this very evening.

I would also be neglecting my duty if I did not also thank the Cabinet for this legislation. In particular I want to mention the Prime Minister and say thank you to him. I also want to say thank you very much to the Leader of the House for the fact that this Bill is going through now. We appreciate it. I can tell them that I have lain awake many nights with the fear that something could perhaps crop up to jeopardize this legislation, which is in the form in which I would like to see it. I want to say thank you very much to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House for what they have achieved for us in the Cabinet.

Various matters have been raised here, by various hon. members, which could quite possibly be put right in future. This is, however, one measure which caters for Whites, Coloureds and non-Whites. This is a Bill—and now I am surely speaking on behalf of the Opposition as well—in which all possibility of discrimination has been eliminated. There has been no discrimination between people because they are White, Brown and Black. I think it is a fine thing, because we have seen that members of all the various peoples or races also do their duty in the mining industry and that they do, in fact, receive everything to which labourers is entitled. The hon. the Minister has set out in detail the benefits connected with this Bill. Since the law is continually changing, difficulties will probably be caused when it comes to paying out benefits. But since the hon. the Minister, in his wisdom, and the Cabinet have thought fit to introduce this ample improvement in respect of the compensation to the mineworker, I know that justice will be done to the mineworker if he contracts one or other of the diseases and if the Medical Research Institute can prove that that disease can be ascribed to the mining industry. In the past we were obsessed by pneumoconiosis that was caused by silica that is inhaled. With the modernization of the mining industry and the improved ventilation system that has been introduced, this problem is very much better. Things have been put right by the best efforts our scientists are capable of today. In the past the mineworker did not only contract pneumoconiosis, but also many other diseases. My honest opinion is that pneumoconiosis, as such, is today no longer the most important problem; what is of the utmost importance are the other illnesses that go hand in hand with it. I am grateful that we have, today, a Medical Research Institute that works with these matters. These days they are carrying out experiments to find out what influence certain materials and forms of radiation have on the human body, and to find out to what degree heat and cold have an influence. Every day research is being done to see what conditions can be improved. If they cannot succeed in improving conditions, we leave it in their hands to determine whether a person can go underground or not. Let me tell you, Sir, that the day mineworkers go underground they are in peak health and have been found absolutely fit from head to toe. Only when their health is such can they go into the mine. Nevertheless, when one sees such persons again after many years, they are frequently invalids. This need not necessarily be ascribed to pneumoconiosis or tuberculosis which they have contracted; it could also be ascribed to the other diseases which they have contracted, diseases for which no provision has ever been made in legislation in the past. I am very grateful that the Department of Mines in all its facets, together with the Minister, has provided a larger umbrella in this respect. I also believe that the fine building, which stands in Kotzé Street in Johannesburg, will in future no longer be regarded as a white elephant either, a place where the mineworker is cheated, but will be regarded as a place where he is examined and treated honestly and well, a place of which he can say: “Here they look after my body; here they determine what I am still able to do and, if there is something wrong with me, I know that the officials and doctors in this building will look after me and that justice will be done as far as I am concerned”.

I now want to come to the finest aspect of this compensation: I am not speaking about the R12 000 or the R18 000, but although, in terms of the old Act, a person is already on pension or is obtaining compensation—we still call it a pension—if he dies his widow can immediately be paid out an amount of R9 000. In such a case the widow can obtain a pension of R63 per month. The Minister announced today that she will obtain R70 per month. She can get that, but if she marries again a large portion of that pensions falls away. If she dies the pensions stops immediately. She then has nothing to leave to her family or whomever the case may be. Now she gets R9 000. I am grateful for that. The Select Committee of this House, together with the officials of the department, felt that this is a benefit to which those persons ought to be entitled. We have problems with the two departments in tracing the Bantu who are certificated. In that connection I should like to appeal to the hon. the Minister to have the older Bantu, who have many years of service in the mines behind them and have reached the age of 50 or 60—I am not speaking about the young ones now—subjected to an immediate examination. If such a Bantu is certificated, he must be paid out so that he can take his money with him to the area from which he comes. This would greatly relieve the work of the Department of Bantu Administration. It would also result in those Bantu, who are entitled to compensation, receiving that compensation. I want to conclude by saying that nothing in my whole career has been finer, in my estimation, than what I, as an old mineworker, could place on the Statute Book in co-operation with the other members of the Select Committee. This measure will entail great benefits for them in the future.

Mr. Speaker, when one is faced with a problem and one does not have the right sympathetic orientation to that problem, it could be that the solution to that problem is doomed to failure. In connection with this legislation before the hon. House, we have had people working very hard behind the scenes. The attitude adopted by these people to employers in our mining industry was a very sympathetic one, an attitude which I do not think has its equal in any department in the world that deals with the mining industry. Since I have been in this House, it has been characteristic that legislation from the Department of Mines is always well-processed. One finds that the legislation has gone through the mill. All relevant parties have been consulted, and this consequently greatly facilitates that task of this House. This has always been a characteristic of all the legislation submitted to the House by this department since I have been a member. I can at the moment recall three different bound draft copies, each of about 150 typed folio pages, of the legislation in question which have seen the light in the past few years on various occasions. It is no easy task to string together the highly technical aspects of a subject such as the one under discussion here, about which there is quite some difference of opinion as far as the layman is concerned. It is a big task. To bring this together in legislation with a view to its practical implementation in public life is an even greater task. Consequently my personal thanks, too, for the affection and dedication with which the relative officials have handled this Bill. I also want to express thanks to the Government for the fully-fledged guarantee that is now being given to the mine-workers in South-West Africa’s mining industry.

As far as I am concerned—and I noticed this during the discussions of this Bill in the Select Committee—high quality and high standards are being maintained by our scientists and researchers. This applies to both the Medical Bureau for Occupational Diseases and to the officials of the department and the Chamber of Mines. They covered exceptional fields, which have proved particularly interesting to me as a scientist. I was particularly impressed by the way in which they conveyed to us certain aspects of medical science, specifically as far as lung functioning is concerned. Our country can be very proud of those people who have taken the lead in this respect in South Africa, just as the lead is being taken in many other social spheres today by South African scientists. In this particular aspect these people are also giving guidance to the rest of the world. They are also showing other scientists how people must act as scientific champions for the workers of our country. It is specifically those people who give so much colour and life to our economic life in South Africa.

It was during the discussion of some or other previous pneumoconiosis legislation that a previous member for Germiston District said that the subject of discussion was a highly specialized matter, and that it was a subject that was only meant for specialists. With the composition of the Select Committee on Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works, which submitted this amended Bill, this hon. House was very lucky in the sense that it could appoint members to the committee who had had years of experience of the subject under discussion. This applies to the medical profession and also to the many technical aspects of the mining industry. My impression of the attitude that prevailed in the Select Committee is something that I most certainly will not be able to forget. All the members on that committee were imbued with the ideal of doing the very best for the good and welfare of the worker with the means at their disposal. The outstanding characteristic in that committee was the philanthropy and sympathy which some members displayed. Here I must make mention of the philanthropy of the hon. member for Rosettenville. I could not think that in contrast to the political poison that one frequently gets from hon. members across the floor of this House, one could get people who could be so philanthropic as was the hon. member for Rosettenville. Throughout there was an intense interest in the welfare of the people who draw the wealth of our country from the depths of the earth, an interest which was aimed at giving them a form of security so as to enable them to keep the industry going. This is an industry which has brought about a metamorphosis in South Africa in the past, and which still creates new peaks in the economic life of our fatherland. Sir, the importance of the measure before this House can best be emphasized by the present state of affairs in the mining industry, and in that connection I should like to mention a few figures here. In the year 1972 the mining industry employed 667 000 people. The mining industry paid out salaries and wages amounting to R570 million; the value of stores which were used amounted to R633 million; the value of mineral sales was about R2 000 million, and the State revenue in the form of some taxation or other, was about R186 million. Sir, these are magnificent and impressive figures, and hence, too, the importance of the mining industry in the life of South Africa.

Sir, I should now like to dwell on another aspect of the mining industry and express the opinion that the object of research by the Bureau for Occupational Diseases must be to reduce the risks involved in the mining industry to such an extent that work in the mining industry becomes ordinary daily routine work. We frequently hear people saying, to the detriment of the mining industry, that it is too risky an occupation, and therefore one also finds that people are disinclined to enter the mining industry. Sir, therefore it will be necessary to do research into all the facets of the mining industry to remove the stigma that has clung to a career in the mining industry, as if the mining profession were a risky profession. It consequently also redounds to the credit of the mine-owners that they have made a model industry of our mining industry and that over the years they have made facilities available, to employees, which have contributed to reducing pneumoconiosis. Along these lines there is still room for improvement and progress. In this connection I want to refer to what I want to call the dust source in the mines. I have in mind, for example, all the air pressure drills which are today largely responsible for the raising of dust in the mining industry and which primarily create lung problems as far as our workers are concerned. Last year there were 35 000 of these air pressure drills in use in mines and industries under the control of the Department of Mines. With technological progress, this method of making holes in rock formations for explosives can be replaced by drills that do not cause any dust. In this respect there is today the method of drilling long holes with water-pressure diamond-drills, which causes no dust. Similar progress can be applied, with research in other spheres in the mining industry, as a preventive measure not only in terms of the Act, but also in terms of the Mines and Works Act of 1968. Sir, in the same vein I can refer to research on the pathology of all possible elements that could affect the lung functioning of our workers. We are aware of elements such as silica, asbestos and berillium, but with South Africa on the eve of great development in the sphere of the mining industry, it is essential that we should know in advance to what possible diseases our workers could be subject with these pending developments in the South African soil. Sir, in my opinion research work is essential in connection with both those who are sick and well in the mining industry. In this respect our mines could furnish a valuable contribution in the form of statistical data about their workers. Sir, there are many statistical data which, if they are correctly analysed, could be very valuable to us. I do not now want to go into all the dust sampling that is done today above and below ground; I could give you a long list, but my time is very limited and therefore I should just like to say in conclusion that we must accept in principle that it is desirable to handle all industrial diseases under one Act. With the exception of pneumoconiosis, this has become traditional, because when this was placed on the Statute Book for the first time, there were relatively few other industries with concomitant industrial diseases in our country. Other industrial diseases were virtually unknown, but since lung diseases today are not exclusively restricted to the mining industry, i believe that they, too, will fall under one Act eventually, for example the Workmen’s Compensation Act, together with diseases encountered in other industries, and that today’s legislation is merely a further step along the road of evolutionary political development.

Together with other hon. members who have already thanked the Minister and the Government for the privilege we have had in being able to get this Bill to a Select Committee, I also want to express my sincere thanks. This is in glaring contrast to what happened in 1962. There we had the Bill, the Pneumoconiosis Bill of 1962, under scrutiny for two days. We were told that it was an agreed measure between the workers and the employers and that it had to go through the House immediately, and we simply had to accept it in that light. No one was ever satisfied with that Bill and for many years afterwards attempts were made to amend that Act. I again want to say thank you very much for the opportunity we have had to investigate the Bill at leisure and draw up a new one. We are prepared to vouch for what is being done here. We also want to thank the department for the assistance we have had in drawing up this Bill; likewise the chairman and everyone who had anything to do with that.

As someone who, for the past 36 years, has lived and worked in a town where a very large percentage of the inhabitants have been mineworkers, and since my practice has chiefly dealt with mineworkers and their dependents, the medical aspect of this Bill is of the utmost importance to me. I am very grateful that the scope of this Bill has been made so wide that it does not only include mines, but also all other industries where people can inhale dust and are subject to diseases that result from such inhalation, industries such as High-veld Steel and Vanadium Corporation, Iscor, Ferro Metals Limited, African Metals Corporation and still many more, that will now also come under the ambit of the Act. In the old Act we had pneumoconiosis and tuberculosis, caused by dust, as the only compensatable diseases. In this Bill compensatable diseases have replaced pneumoconiosis, and today compensatable diseases does not only include pneumoconiosis, as we knew it in the old Act, and tuberculosis, but also obstruction of the air passages due to the inhalation of dust, any other permanent disease condition of the cardiorespiratory organs or a disease of any other kind contracted while carrying out risk work and which the Minister has declared to be a compensatable disease. This means that although doubt has previously existed amongst doctors about whether they could regard a disease as compensatable, and although they have only taken into account those diseases that could definitely be linked to the inhalation of dust, they can now also accept, as compensatable, other diseases like bronchitis and emphysema or cardiac failure as the result of right ventricle trouble, and upon determination of the degree of the mineworker’s disease this can now be brought into the calculation and he can accordingly be certificated. And now the kind of risk work does not only involve dusty air, but also gases, fumes or chemical substances and working conditions which, in the opinion of the Minister, could be harmful or potentially harmful. All these things make it easier for the medical practitioners to advise the committee in arriving at a decision. The Medical Bureau for Occupational Diseases will now be able to play a bigger role and furnish a greater service to the workers in mines and works. The old Pneumoconiosis Bureau will now become the Medical Bureau for Occupational Diseases. The risk committee will, as in the past, be able to play its role and determine the risks involved in the various mines and works. In addition, there is the certification and reviewing committee which is being retained in it’s previous form.

What is of importance is that the Minister may instruct a person or persons or a body to carry out research in connection with these occupational diseases. The Minister is also obtaining the necessary powers to be able to furnish services to people who are suffering from these occupational diseases after they have been certificated in that he can establish nursing homes in which these people can be cared for. Since all these things are now being made possible by means of this legislation. I regard it as a privilege that it has been possible for me to have been associated with those who were responsible for the establishment of this legislation. This legislation could only be of benefit to our mineworkers.

Mr. Speaker, I should also immediately like to lend my support to this measure, at present before the House, on behalf of those of my voters who are mine-workers. I should also like to link up with the congratulations which have already been expressed, by those who have preceded me, to the chairman of the Select Committee and officials, but in particular also to the relevant Ministry for the exceptional way in which this measure has thus far been handled and for the trouble that has been taken to ensure that this measure is placed on the Statute Book even before the end of this session. I think that time will one day reveal that this measure is one of the most important Bills that was piloted through Parliament during this session. I also believe that when the history of the mining industry is one day written, and that of the mineworker in particular, this Bill will not only occupy a special place in that historical document, but that in that historical document justice will also be done to this measure as such because it deals with the loss of health to our mineworkers, those people who, throughout the years, have not hesitated to sacrifice their health for the sake of the cause which they have been serving in this exceptional manner.

This afternoon I want to express my great pleasure at the concept of compensatable diseases which are so amply being extended by this legislation. As one of the people who represents mineworkers in Parliament, I have always found it a touching experience to talk to those mineworkers and former mineworkers who have been physically ground down as a result of the influence that working in the mines has had on their health, something for which they have never been properly compensated. I think it is fitting that in this discussion we should not neglect to pay tribute to the mineworkers of thee past and our mineworkers of the present. I also want to pay tribute in advance to those who will be working in the mines at a later stage. In paying tribute to the mineworkers this afternoon, I may also not neglect, at the same time, to pay tribute to the families of our mineworkers who, in the past, as a result of the special circumstances in respect of compensation which was payable to them, had to be on the losing side as a result of the physical conditions of the mineworkers. Although money never compensates for the suffering which our mineworkers have thus far had to endure, the benefits which are now going to accrue to them will at least ease their lot a little. The mining industry is a very essential service that is furnished in the interests of our country. Because this is so, and because more ample benefits will be available in terms of this legislation, I think this is also a very suitable opportunity to invite the young people to qualify themselves for this industry in future. We want to convey our good wishes to everyone who aided in bringing the Bill to its present state. We also want to convey our good wishes to those who are going to be dealing with the implementation of the Act in the future, i.e. the officials of the particular departments and the relevant Minister. Since we are now discussing this legislation, I may be permitted to take up the cudgels here in advance for two matters—we can do so again later if it is necessary in the Committee Stage. At this stage I already want to advocate to the hon. the Minister that he and his officials worked together to ensure the protection, in the form of the highest possible interest rate obtainable on investments, of the interests and capital of those who decide not to take the single amount as compensation, but instead a monthly payment, or whatever form this may take, in the light of the erosion to which all money is today subject. With the machinery which the relevant Minister and the State as such have at their disposal, I believe that something could be done in that connection, because that investment is not only an investment for the person who is the beneficiary. In many cases it is going to serve as a nest-egg for the family of that mine-worker. In this way we could also consequently look after his interests.

In the second place I should very much like to advocate that mineworkers, who develop heart disease while working in the mines, obtain the benefit of having heart diseases classified as industrial diseases in terms of this legislation as quickly as possible. There are many mineworkers who go into the mines fit and healthy but, as the result of the conditions prevailing there, in time develop these particular maladies and then become unfit to do any further work. I think it would be a good thing if something could be done in that connection very quickly.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.05 p.m.

Mr.

Speaker, the only thing left for me to do after a very interesting and a very good discussion, I think, on, if I may say so, a very good Bill, is to dot the i’s and to cross the t’s.

*I want to say that to me it is really a glad day to be able to pilot this Bill through this House. I want to say that this Bill states one thing quite clearly and explicitly, i.e. that the National Party is the friend of the worker. [Interjections.] This Bill is a milestone in the history of this House in the year 1973 and it proves that we care for the worker and have his interests at heart. We want to guard their interests jealously and we want to protect their interests.

Is this not a Select Committee Bill?

That is quite correct, and I shall deal with it in a moment. That is why it is a such good thing for us to be able to pilot through this Bill in the interests of our workers.

†I would also like to thank the Opposition speakers for the important role they have played and for the very good contributions they have made to this debate this afternoon; also for the important contributions they made on the Select Committee.

*We have also heard kind words of appreciation expressed, and I do not want to deal with this at length. The person sitting on my right, the hon. member for Virginia, has been rendering a service to our mine-workers for many years. I also want to address a word of sincere gratitude and appreciation to him for the capable manner in which he acted as chairman of this Select Committee. I want to express my sincere gratitude to every member of that Select Committee for the excellent work they did. I want to thank the Mineworkers’ Union for the most constructive and positive contribution they made to the Select Committee, before the time and under all circumstances. I shall deal with them again towards the end of my speech.

†I wish to thank the Chamber of Mines for their contribution, not always under the easiest circumstances. I have had consultations about this Bill at least three or four times with them, even more. I want to have it on record here that I personally and my department received from them only goodwill, wholehearted support and assistance. I want them to know that I appreciate it very much indeed. I found them to be interested in the welfare of our mine-workers and as long as they are interested in the welfare of our mineworkers and as long as they also look after our mine-workers, they will also find me a very good friend, even of the Chamber of Mines.

*I want to express my sincere gratitude to our department. I want to thank Mr. Uys for the fatherly assistance and the sensible advice I, as a young man, received from him in regard to this Bill. I said before that when I was born, Mr. Uys was already employed in the Department of Mines. This is a very fine thing and I regard it as a wonderful privilege. I also want to thank Mr. Coetzer, who was not concerned with the Bill directly, but who also contributed his assistance and share to this Bill.

I want to thank in particular Mr. Frikkie Snyman, the architect of and mastermind behind this Bill. He really produced a very fine Bill. He burned the midnight oil to be able to give us this Bill. It meant very hard work indeed.

This is a fine Bill—and with this I want to conclude—and there is a reason for this being so. To me this is a fine example of the operation of the Government, of the Opposition and of this, the highest Assembly in the Republic of South Africa, and of what this House and the whole establishment, my department, including every official, the Government and this high House mean to South Africa. If you will allow me to do so, Sir, I just want to say that I submitted this Bill to the Cabinet in August last year and that the Cabinet, as the result of problems based on principle with which it was unable to agree, rejected the Bill on two occasions.

What were the objections based on principle?

Since five departments are concerned with this matter and since this matter involves a large amount of money, i.e. over R7 million, and since this is a Bill introducing revolutionary changes and because it is not easy to have a measure of this nature approved, I told my officials after the Bill had been rejected by the Cabinet a second time: “Now I really do not know what more we can do, we have come across difficulties, serious difficulties”. We went to bed that night and early the following morning Mr. Snyman approached me and told me: “Dr. Koornhof, I have a plan.” It was a sound plan, a practical plan. I could hardly wait for the following Cabinet meeting to take place. When that plan was explained at the following Cabinet meeting, the Cabinet immediately approved the Bill unanimously. Subsequently approval was obtained from the other departments and eventually there was one last hurdle, i.e. the Select Committee, because we knew we wanted to refer this Bill to a Select Committee to obtain the opinions of both parties. This is a technical Bill comprising 136 clauses. We are breaking new ground with this Bill. Dr. Oosthuizen, which had quite a lot to do with this Bill, returned from a visit to England where he had discussions and told me that this Bill would, in fact, serve as an example to any other country in the world dealing with mining matters. People visited this country to consult this Bill and become acquainted with the circumstances leading to the drafting of this Bill. What happened here this afternoon is a fine example of the operation of this Government, the departments, the Opposition and of this, the highest House. That is why this is a glad day for me. After all these things had happened, one thing remained—and hon. members must listen very carefully now— and this I learned from Uncle Ben Schoeman, who is sitting here, i.e. that if one does not give notice of a difficult Bill on the first day of the session in this House, the possibilities of having the Bill approved are very slight. The officials and everyone concerned with the Bill, worked night and day; the law advisers worked hard, and on the first day of the 1973 session it was my privilege to rise and give notice of the Bill. A Select Committee was appointed immediately and, thanks to the hon. member for Rosettenville and other hon. members of the hon. the Opposition serving on the Committee, the Committee quickly did what it was called upon to do—and you, Sir, know how busy hon. members are during a session. To my mind this is a wonderful achievement on the part of this House, for both the Government and the Opposition, for a Bill of such revolutionary nature, breaking new ground, to be approved in this House in the course of one session. I therefore want to express my sincere gratitude to Uncle Ben Schoeman, the Prime Minister, the Cabinet and everyone tor their contributions to have made this possible. We are now nearing the end of the session, but the Bill is now going to be read a Second Time; I think the Second Reading of the Bill will be approved unanimously, and for that I express my sincere gratitude to everyone. This a fine gesture. And who will receive the benefit of it all? The people who are going to receive the benefit are our mineworkers. This is therefore a fine piece of work and for that reason this is really a glad day for me.

†For these reasons I wish to thank everybody for something which I think is very beautiful.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

I want to indicate the most important aspects of this Bill briefly. The Bill which is now before this House, contains amendments to four laws which are administered by the Financial Institutions office, but contains for the most part amendments to the Building Societies Act, 1965. The other Acts which are being amended to a lesser degree are the Banks Act, 1965, the Stock Exchanges Control Act, 1947, and the Securities’ Transfer Act, 1965.

Certain bottlenecks in the building society industry have recently become so real that the Technical Committee which is in the process of reviewing the Banks and Building Societies legislation was requested, to investigate these matters first, so that the necessary amendments to the Building Societies Act could still be effected during the present session.

From the investigation and recommendations of the Technical Committee it was clearly apparent that there are two important aspects in particular, directly affecting housing, which would basically have to be rectified. On the one hand, the provisions in respect of the application of building society funds for various kinds of advances have to be adjusted to prevailing circumstances, and on the other hand an attempt has to be made to keep the demand for financial assistance from building societies within the limits of that portion of the total available funds which may reasonably be applied for housing.

Funds for housing are limited because other deserving borrowers such as industry and agriculture may also lay claim to their rightful share of the available pool of funds. Time and again in recent years, as a result of the unabating heavy demand for building society loans, the Government has had to introduce tax and other concessions—to which I shall refer again subsequently—to building societies, as well as other measures, for example deposit rate control, so as to enable building societies to draw sufficient funds to meet the demand for housing finance to a reasonable extent without an excessive increase in rates of interest. In addition to these concessions and other measures the Government also, as hon. members are definitely aware alleviated the burden of interest on the smaller borrowers through the payment of an interest subsidy in respect of loans up to an amount not exceeding R12 000, on houses with a value not exceeding R16 000.

The Government is still sympathetically disposed towards the housing needs of the population, and in particular towards the endeavour of individuals to own their own homes, but it is already being said by some that housing in our country is too luxurious and too expensive, and it is therefore necessary to guard against the demand for better and more expensive houses getting out of hand as a result of over-generous financial assistance to prospective home owners. It was consequently decided that certain brakes had to be introduced to curb the excessive demand for building society loans for the more expensive houses and other kinds of buildings and in so doing alleviate the constant pressure on building societies and on the Government.

The first brake which is being proposed is that the principle of compulsory differentiated rates of interest for small house loans on the one hand and large house loans and all other kinds of loans on the other, be introduced. In order to prevent too large a portion of a building society’s funds being applied to finance the more expensive houses and blocks of flats instead of assisting for the most part persons in the lower and middle income groups in acquiring their own dwellings, the Act at present provides that the total amount of a building society’s advances in excess of R15 000 each may not exceed an amount equal to 25 % of the association’s total assets at the end of the preceding quarter.

As a result of the continual and considerable rise in house prices during the past few years it has become increasingly difficult for building societies to keep their advances above R15 000 within the 25% limit, even when they subsequently granted virtually no advances on flats. Consequently the societies have in recent years made repeated representations requesting that the amount of R15 000 or the percentage of 25, or both, should be raised. They argued that the limit of R15 000 is simply not realistic any more in view of the high house prices, particularly in the urban areas, and that purchasers of ordinary houses who were unable to obtain an advance in excess of R15 000 from a building society were left, for the balance of their financial requirements, to the mercies of the second mortgage market, where they had to pay maximum rates of interest.

In accordance with the discretion granted to him by the Act, the Registrar has as an interim measure already raised the percentage from 25 to 27½, but it is clear that as continual upward adjustment of the proportion of “large” advances to the total does not by any means offer a permanent solution. Every increase of the proportion as well as any increase of the said amount is in itself an incentive to higher house prices in any case.

It is being proposed that this proportion limit be replaced by a provision to the effect that the lowest current rate of interest on mortgage loans with building societies will apply only in respect of house loans up to R15 000, while higher rates of interest should be charged for larger house loans and all other kinds of loans. The Government cannot be expected, by means of tax concessions and other assistance to building societies, to make it possible for the rate of interest on a house loan of, say, R50 000, to be the same as that on a loan of only R15 000. In my opinion the “big” borrower should himself be required to make a greater contribution as well to the financing costs of his dwelling.

To be able to make adjustments as a result of changing circumstances or on the basis of experience with the necessary expedition, it is being proposed that the differences in the rates of interest be prescribed by the Minister by way of notice in the Gazette.

The difference which the Minister will prescribe is a “minimum”, and a building society will therefore be at liberty to have larger differences in its rates of interest. With this arrangement the higher rates of interest will be able to approach more closely to a free market condition.

Since building societies, owing to the higher rates of interest on house loans of more than R15 000 each, will be inclined to give preference to such loans, which would be more profitable to them, it is being proposed that a limit be placed on the number of larger house loans by limiting the amount which may be applied annually for such loans to a specific percentage of the annual total amount in regard to loans. It has to be possible to alter this percentage from time to time according to circumstances, and therefore it also has to be determined by the Minister by way of notice.

As a second brake on the demand for housing funds it is being proposed that the permissible collateral security in regard to mortgage loans to enable the borrower to borrow a larger amount than the maximum which the building society may advance against security of the property alone, be limited.

The Act provides at present that a building society may, in the case of a dwelling house, advance up to 82½% of the value of the property, and in all other cases up to 80% of the value of the security offered. However, if collateral security is also furnished, which may, inter alia, be a bank guarantee or a guarantee approved by the Registrar, up to 100% in aggregate of the value of the property may be advanced. It is being deemed necessary that the prospective borrower should make a greater contribution to the financing of the total costs of the property. In this way the pressure on building societies for funds will, in my opinion be alleviated directly and indirectly in that the larger amounts which will be required from borrowers will temper the demand for more expensive houses.

It is therefore being proposed, firstly, that without the furnishing of collateral security an amount not exceeding 80% of the value of the property may be advanced in all cases and, secondly, that all other collateral security which is not cash with the building society or fixed deposits with or shares in a building society, i.e. security which in itself does not represent cash in the hands of a building society, is to be supported by cash or fixed deposits with or shares in a building society to the extent of at least 50%. In practice this means that at least 50% of the 20% shall be in the form of cash or fixed deposits or shares. In respect of the latter requirement two exceptions are being made. In a case of a loan which does not exceed R10 000, and a loan to an official of the building society, and where in each of the cases a dwelling house is being constructed on the property, the said collateral security will not have to be thus supported.

In view of future requirements for high density housing, building societies will in future have to make a greater contribution to the financing of flats and other types of group housing. To enable them to do this it is being proposed that they be allowed to apply a specific percentage of the amount of their annual total advances for mortgage loans to blocks of flats and other group housing schemes. This percentage will also be prescribed by the Minister by notice in the Gazette so that it may be adjusted rapidly from time to time, according to prevailing circumstances.

The maximum amount which a building society may at present advance on one property, i.e. R400 000, is inadequate at present prices for larger housing projects. To enable building societies to make a suitable contribution to high density housing, it is further being proposed that building societies with total assets of between R20 million and R200 million may make individual advances of up to R600 000, and societies with total assets of more than R200 million, advances of up to R1 000 000.

On the basis of the recommendations of the previous Technical Committee on Banks and Building Societies legislation, building societies have since 1965 been unable to accept savings deposits from other companies with limited liability as associations registered in terms of section 21 of the Companies Act. Last year building societies were authorized to accept quite exceptional moneys from companies on savings account, i.e. if these moneys represented key deposits accepted from tenants in terms of the Rent Act.

On several occasions building societies have made representations to be allowed to accept money on savings accounts from companies in general. It has been decided that a concession may be made to building societies in this regard provided such savings accounts are prevented from being used merely as quasi current accounts. It is therefore being proposed that building societies may accept savings deposits from companies, but only if they are subject to the conditions that only one withdrawal per month may be made, and deposits and withdrawals shall be in amounts of not less than R100. The same concession to banking institutions are being proposed in an amendment to the Banks Act which is also contained in the Bill.

The Act provides at present that loans which a building society grants on buildings utilized for business purposes in any financial year may not exceed 5% of the total amount of advances granted by it during that financial year. Owing to the various tax and other concessions which they enjoy, building societies should not really grant loans outside the sphere of housing. However, they argue that it is in fact necessary to grant such loans for the sake of good relations with major investors, and also because such advances include loans to church organizations. It is being proposed that loans on buildings for industrial purposes be prohibited, while loans on buildings for other business purposes be allowed, but that the percentage represented by the latter loans of the annual total amount of loans be determined from time to time by the Minister subject to a maximum of 5%.

†Mr. Speaker, I now come to the last but one of the amendments to the Building Societies Act. The repayment instalment on his housing loan is of vital importance to the man with a moderate income. This instalment is substantially affected by the period of the loan. The Act provides that a loan not exceeding R15 000 on a dwelling house may be repaid over a period of up to 30 years, while all other loans are to be repaid within a period of 20 years.

Having regard to the present level of the prices of houses and the recent increase of the maximum loan under the 100% civil servants’ scheme from R15 000 to R20 000, which increase would be of little avail to civil servants if the repayment instalment on loans exceeding R15 000 is to be based on a repayment period of 20 years, it is proposed that the maximum house loan that may be repaid over a period of 30 years be increased from R15 000 to R20 000.

Finally, as far as the Building Societies Act is concerned, I wish to refer to the matter of subscription shares. These shares are paid up over a period of years—in terms of the Act, a minimum of three years—by way of periodical contributions of fixed amounts plus the dividends on the paid-up contributions credited to the account. This type of share accordingly constitutes an ideal method for promoting thrift amongst persons with moderate but regular incomes like salaried persons and wage-earners, not the cases which the hon. member for Parktown has in mind.

In terms of the Income Tax Act, the dividends credited on these shares are exempt from income tax without limitation while the Building Societies Act limits the amount of such shares which may be issued by a society to any one person, to amounts ranging from R15 000 to R150 000 depending on the size of the society. I think the criterion here is whether the assets of the society are in excess of R20 million. This means in effect that a person with the necessary means may take up with each and every society in the country the maximum amount which the relative society is permitted to issue to one person, thereby obtaining an enormous share investment, the return on which is fully exempted from income tax. Furthermore, the issue of these shares are not regulated in detail in the Act and during the last few years definite cases of abuses in connection with the issue of these shares to large investors have come to light, for example cases where the maximum number of shares were subscribed to and paid up by way of only three yearly instalments.

It is proposed to limit the issue of subscription shares to one person by all societies jointly to the amount which a person can at present subscribe to with one large society. i e. R150 000. and to insert in the Act further provisions to regulate the periodical contributions on and the transfer and repayment of these shares.

Mr. Speaker, the Building Society Movement, through the Association of Building Societies, has been consulted in regard to these proposed amendments and I am pleased to inform the House that the Movement supports all the material proposals which I have outlined.

Mr. Speaker I wish to emphasize that during the last few years when building societies continually experienced difficulty to draw sufficient funds the Government granted a number of tax and other concessions in order to stimulate the flow of funds to building societies and to make available to them further sources of income.

The main concessions are the following:

1. (1) Societies were allowed to establish their own insurance companies and property development companies;
2. (2) Societies were allowed in August, 1969 to issue paid-up fixed period shares carrying a guaranteed dividend over the full period of the share;
3. (3) Since 1968 societies were permitted to issue special indefinite period shares, the dividend on which was exempted from income tax: Shares to the value of R6 000 could be issued to a person and dividends were tax free for three years;
4. (4) In 1969 the amount of tax-free shares that could be issued to one person was raised to R10 000 and the period of tax exemption extended to five years from date of issue.
5. (5) The limit on savings deposits was increased from R6 000 to R10 000 per person in August, 1969 and again raised to R15 000 in August, 1971.
6. (6) The requirement to hold prescribed assets over and above their liquid assets was suspended in August, 1971.
7. (7) Since 1971 dividends on paid-up shares of building societies in the hands of shareholders were treated on a par with dividends on company shares for income tax purposes.
8. (8) Since August, 1971, societies have been permitted to renew a fixed deposit once for a shorter period than 12 months.
9. (9) Since 1970 the Government has been subsidizing the interest rate on building society loans not exceeding R12 000 on houses valued at up to R16 000.
10. (10) A housing savings plan was introduced in 1972 under which the Government pays an additional 2% interest on special savings accounts with building societies specifically intended for the acquisition of a house.
11. (11) In March, 1972, interest rate control was introduced mainly to assist building societies in the competition for funds.

These concessions materially assisted building societies to weather the storm during an extended period of scarcity of funds, but they cannot all be regarded as permanent. Since the introduction of interest rate control in March, 1972, the flow of funds to building societies has been satisfactory and certain further measures contained in the Bill before the House should further relieve the pressure on societies.

Mr. Speaker, I now come to the amendments to the other Acts. The proposed amendment to the Banks Act is necessary to allow banking institutions like building societies to take certain savings deposits from companies.

The amendment to the Stock Exchange Act relates to the appointment of Auditors.

In the case of financial institutions such as banks, insurance companies, etc., it is already standing practice that the appointment of an auditor by a financial institution must be approved by the Registrar of Financial Institutions. The Stock Exchanges Control Act, however, does not contain a similar provision and in the light of the recent failures of certain broking members of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange, it is deemed necessary to make the appointment of an auditor by a stockbroker also subject to the approval of the Registrar of Financial Institutions. This measure is in the interests of the Stock Exchange as an institution, its members and the investing public in general.

Finally, I wish to deal shortly with the amendments to the Securities’ Transfer Act, 1965.

Prior to the amendment in 1971 of the Stock Exchanges Control Act, section 13(6) of that Act empowered the Minister of Finance to recognize foreign stock exchanges for the purposes of that section. The effect of such recognition was that members of a recognized foreign stock exchance had more or less the same rights as local stockbrokers in so far as the payment for securities bought and the delivery of securities sold were concerned. The recognition also applied for the purposes of the Securities’ Transfer Act and accordingly the transfer form prescribed by the Securities’ Transfer Act for use in respect of stock exchange transactions between local brokers, was also valid for the transfer of securities between members of the Johannesburg Stock exchange and members of a recognized, foreign stock exchange.

As a result of the amendments to the Stock Exchanges Control Act in 1971, the Act no longer requires recognition of foreign stock exchanges, but now allows the concession which previously applied to members of recognized stock exchanges to apply to any person in another country where a part of his regular business in that country consists of the buying and selling of securities. Corresponding amendments should have been made to the Securities’ Transfer Act and I may mention that according to legal advice transfers in respect of transactions entered into between local stockbrokers and foreign stockbrokers since the commencement of the amended provisions of the Stock Exchanges Control Act on the 30th August, 1971, could probably be invalidated if resulting amendments are not made to the provisions of the Securities’ Transfer Act with retrospective effect. As it was not the intention at all to disturb the arrangement which existed prior to the amendment of the Stock Exchanges Control Act in regard to the transfer of securities and as it is essential that share dealings with foreign countries should not be disrupted, the provisions of the Securities’ Transfer Act are now brought into line with the amended provisions of the Stock Exchanges Control Act with effect from the 30th August, 1971.

The opportunity is taken also to provide clearly in the Act that a securities transfer form and a brokers transfer form prescribed by or in terms of the Act remain valid transfer forms notwithstanding subsequent amendments to such transfer forms.

This Bill is an omnibus Bill and amends a number of Acts. The Deputy Minister has dealt in very great detail with the provisions of the Bill and has referred to the fact that in so far as the clauses dealing with building societies are concerned, it has been considered by the technical committee and by the building societies themselves and that adjustments are being made to modernize the Act and to keep it in line with everyday requirements. But the hon. the Deputy Minister made a statement which concerns me somewhat. He listed the privileges which are given to the public today when they invest with building societies, particularly in regard to shares and deposits which are free of taxation, and he said that these cannot be regarded as permanent. Now I think we all realize that the time may come when the building societies have so much money in their coffers that it will not be necessary to attract funds to the building societies. But on the other hand, unless the hon. the Deputy Minister has something in mind at this point of time, I think it becomes dangerous to say to the public that these privileges are not permanent. In other words, I do not believe that there is any need to say so unless the privileges are about to be withdrawn shortly. Events will take care of themselves and when the time comes for these privileges to be withdrawn they will be withdrawn, because they have periods for which they run, irrespective of withdrawal. I would like to have some clarity from the hon. the Deputy Minister of what is behind this rather bald statement that these privileges are not to be regarded as permanent.

Now, to come to the Bill itself, the first clauses deal with the appointment of auditors as far as stockbrokers are concerned. We have no objection to these provisions. They fall into line with the position in the case of banks and insurance companies. Clause 4, which deals with the banks, as the hon. the Deputy Minister has rightly said, now permits once again public and private companies—not section 21 companies—to invest savings with banks and, in terms of clause 6, with building societies as well. These were privileges which existed previously and which were withdrawn. Now we have never understood why this privilege was taken away, not from the point of view of the company which was investing but from the point of view of the houseowner who wanted a mortgage. It has always been our view that a business in the form of a public or a private company should be permitted to invest particularly in the building societies, although it is recognized that it would be a short-term investment. The line we took in this House was that if you permitted this there would be a sufficient pool of businesses that would invest their money, even on a temporary basis, with building societies, and that it would give you a floating amount which would always be available to the public to assist them in their desire to own their own homes and for the provision of bonds by the building societies. We are glad that at long last the hon. the Deputy Minister has listened to our words of wisdom. [Interjections.]

Clause 5 is the one that the hon. member for Pinetown and I particularly welcome, because in terms of this clause sectional title units will now be able to obtain bonds from the building societies. In point of fact, had this clause not been in the Bill we would have had a rather foolish and anomalous position since the law provided for home-ownership through sectional titles but there was no provision for the normal way of financing a home of this kind through a building society. We welcome this clause indeed.

Clause 7 deals with what the hon. the Deputy Minister has called a person with a moderate income; that is, a person who is able to invest R150 000 in a building society by way of subscription shares.

This, of course, applies to Cabinet Ministers because they are not part of the poorer section of the community.

I presume it is merely a question of standards. Standards are very hard to define. In my own personal way I would say a man who can invest R150 000 in subscription shares in a building society is a very wealthy man and not a man with moderate earnings. However, it is true that I think that there has been a misunderstanding regarding this provision. The hon. the Deputy Minister said it had been abused. I do not like the use of the word “abuse” in the sense that he used it, because everybody who made use of this provision was doing it within the law, because the law provided that one could invest R150 000 in subscription shares in a number of building societies; any building society, as the hon. the Deputy Minister said, that has total assets of over R20 million. I think one could have invested something of the order of R1,6 million. I know of someone—I know him very slightly and he is not a close friend of mine—who has invested R1,25 million in the building societies in this manner.

Why did you not try to know him better?

I give all credit to him because he has performed a great service in assisting people to build their homes. There is one aspect of this clause to which we should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to give consideration. The question may be asked why these subscription payments should be made monthly. Why can subscription shares not be paid for on the basis of a quarterly payment or a half-yearly payment? There are many people whose investments are such, in shares, for example, that they get a dividend twice a year and they might want to put these dividends into subscription shares. There are other people who have investments which return to them interest yields which are paid quarterly and they might wish to invest these yields quarterly. It seems to me that limiting the payment of subscription shares on a monthly basis is something which might be looked at further.

Like the hon. the Deputy Minister we welcome this clause 8 which provides that bonds of R20 000 can now be repaid over a period of 30 years whereas at the present moment only bonds of R15 000 enjoy that privilege.

Clauses 10 and 11 gave us a little bit of trouble when we considered this Bill, but having listened to the hon. the Deputy Minister’s explanation of these clauses, I think we can accept them. You now have a series of provisions in these clauses. The first is that you have the right of differentiated interest. We go along with the right of differentiated interest because we know, for example, that if you want a bond of R300 000 or R400 000 for a block of flats, you cannot get it at the building society rates; you have to go to an insurance company or another type of financial institution and the rate may be 1% higher.

We also believe that it is a good proviso to make this flexible because, fortunately, we know that conditions do change. Last year, even 18 months ago, the liquid position of the country was somewhat depressed. Today money is so plentiful, not for poor members of Parliament but amongst certain sectors of the community that they are finding it difficult to invest. We like this flexibility so that the position can be adjusted to the needs of the day. We are concerned about the fact that the limitation of the lowest rate of interest is fixed on a bond of R15 000. In this day and age, particularly after the remarks of the hon. the Deputy Minister in regard to the cost of housing today, we would have thought that this would have been raised to R20 000 so that the minimum interest rate would apply to all mortgages up to and including R20 000 and thereafter have a rising rate depending upon which group of loans you fall under. We also go along with the idea that instead of fixing within the Act the ratios of loans that can be made in regard to dwelling houses, flats and business premises, this again should be done after consultation. Flexibility in this case is a good thing.

I now come to clause 13. In regard to this clause I am completely at sea. I just do not understand what is going on but I am prepared to accept that it is due to my abysmal ignorance. However, I really find it difficult to follow. There has been a change from 82½% to 80%; that I accept, but previously you were able to get a bond of 100% provided you furnished a guarantee of 20%. This is now done away with. What you have to do instead is to provide the cash for 10% and guarantees for the remainder. In other words, a householder today cannot in effect get 100% bond irrespective of whether or not he can provide the necessary guarantees. He must now have 10% in cash. If hon. members will look at the explanatory memorandum on the Finance Bill which we received this afternoon, they will see the following on page 4—

This is the section we are amending at the moment—

It seems to me that we are going on a long and roundabout way here. Surely, the simplest thing to do was to say that a person cannot get a mortgage for more than 90%. Then you know you have to find the cash for 10%. The easiest way would have been to say that a building society cannot provide a mortgage for more than 90% and that you must then provide 10% of the cash for the house yourself. Now it is done differently. You can get a bond of 100%, 80% of it a normal bond, 10% against guarantee—here we have an improvement since before the Registrar had to approve the type of guarantee but now the building society approves it—but you still must deposit 10% in cash. I am afraid I do not know quite what it all adds up to. We would have preferred to see the old provision remaining. Under the old provision you could get a 100% bond. I know that it is said that this will enable more people to participate, but the hon. the Deputy Minister is already telling us that the building societies will probably have too much money and therefore some of the privileges of investment with them are going to be taken away. Therefore it is not a question …

That is your own deduction. I have not said that.

I think it is a logical deduction. Why not allow people to guarantee their bonds and get the 100% from the building society instead of having to find 10% in cash?

I now want to come to clause 14 which the hon. the Minister dealt with and which deals with share transactions and overseas brokers. The hon. the Deputy Minister put the case extremely well. We have had an hiatus in this situation. Up to 1971 an overseas broker for purposes of the Stock Exchange Act was regarded as if he were a broker in South Africa. After the amendment of the Stock Exchange Act in 1971 through a slip—nothing more, nothing less —that position was changed, and in effect, an overseas broker had no status whatsoever. Although it is true that the broking community carried on as the hon. the Deputy Minister said as if the old position was still extant. I think it is right that that should have been the position but we now have this problem that the Bill put before us puts the position back to where it was in 1971, retrospective to 1971. I do not think we have any option but to do so, because if not, all contracts, as the hon. the Deputy Minister said, entered into since 1971 with overseas brokers could be void and thus could lead to chaos. Representations were made to me this morning, of which the hon. the Deputy Minister is aware, because I advised him of them, about a transaction entered into between a local person and an overseas broker which is subject to a court case as a result of the fact that at the moment, the overseas broker is not a broker in terms of our law. Therefore the contract for the sale of these shares is void, or is voidable. By making this provision retrospective to 1971, it would appear from the evidence I have, although I do not have all the details, that the person concerned will no longer be able to take the point that this was a voidable transaction. I am not going to discuss the merits or the morals of this situation, because I am not in a position to do so, but there are two factors of which I think we should take cognizance.

The first is that the person who is sueing the overseas broker is already involved in costs to the extent of many tens of thousands of rand. Secondly, we have a rooted objection to retrospective legislation. I think everyone in the House objects to retrospective legislation unless it is completely unavoidable, as it appears to be in this case. I think we have to make it retrospective, otherwise, as I have said, we will have chaos. It has been suggested that the hon. the Deputy Minister might give consideration to amending this provision to say that where legal proceedings have already been initiated, the retrospective provisions of this particular clause should not apply, because people have entered into litigation on the basis of an Act as they see it and which is the law of the land. It is on the basis of the law of the land that they have taken action. Now they find that by an Act of this Parliament they will have no hope of succeeding with such an action. I should therefore like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to give consideration to this matter.

We welcome this Bill, and we think it will improve the situation between the building societies and the public. We think it is a Bill of merit and it has our support.

Mr. Speaker, it not my intention to repeat the statements made by the hon. member for Parktown in support of this Bill. I just want to thank him briefly, first of all, for his support of the principles contained in this legislation. I want to say at once that his statement in respect of the right which companies with limited liability have to invest money in savings accounts, is qualified by two principles which I consider to be important, and I think the hon. member will agree with me. We want to prevent the account from being regarded as an ordinary current account, which should rather be with a banking institution. I also want to make another statement in this regard, namely that by making this concession to building societies and also to banking institutions, we believe that even with the conditions of one withdrawal per month and a minimum of R100 per withdrawal, the building society will be enabled to channelize a greater flow of money to the building societies as institutions. Now, this immediately brings me to the other point which was mentioned by the hon. member, namely that I had given a list of the various concessions received by building societies over the past number of years, from which he concluded that I would not have done so if I did not have in mind the repeal of these benefits or concessions, especially with regard to income tax. I want to say at once that the hon. member is aware of the fact that, in the first place, these concessions were temporary concessions in a time when the flow of investment money to building societies was small. In the second place, I want to say that by way of this measure, i.e. by permitting them to handle the savings accounts of companies, we have created a further possibility for the flow of funds to building societies. Let me hasten to say that at this stage it is by no means the intention to change these benefits to which I referred. I have done this for one specific reason, namely that in the light of this legislation, by means of the measure in respect of savings investments of companies and by means of the other measure in clause 13 with regard to the 50% of the collateral which has to be in the form of cash, one has to keep an eye on the position in respect of the flow of investment capital to building societies. I hope that I have now reassured the hon. member that it is by no means being contemplated to withdraw some of these benefits.

The hon. member also referred to the question of subscription shares. I want to say at once that if the word “abuse” worries the hon. member—and I think that there may in fact be grounds for the hon. member saying that the word is actually not relevant—the fact of the matter is that people did make use of the legislation in order to invest the maximum amount of R150 000 in this specific form with various building societies, and that that did not amount to abusing but in fact to using the provisions of the Act. I want to say at once that the intention was originally that there had to be a limitation. All we are trying to do now is to give effect to the original intention, namely that there has to be a ceiling on the amount which may be invested in this form, because, for some reason or other, regard was not had to the fact that, as the Act reads at present, it was possible to do this at various building societies. That is why we just want to remedy the position now.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question? Will those people who have investment in subscription shares to a greater extent than R150 000 be able to maintain the subscriptions in respect of which they have shares at the moment and will they be able to extend them as they are able to do at the moment?

The reply to the question is, firstly, that these investors will be entitled to retain their investments in this particular form.

To retain or to maintain?

To maintain them. Secondly, since the minimum period for these shares is three years, if these people were to enter into an agreement with a building society—it is a contract between the building society and the investor —and the building society extends the period now, it would be perfectly legitimate and the investment will be maintained.

*Then the hon. member wanted to know why people could not be allowed to make the payment in this particular form of investment on a quarterly, half-yearly or yearly basis as well. The reply to that is that this form of investment was in fact intended for people wanting to save on a monthly basis. The Building Societies Act offers many opportunities for other forms of saving, also with resultant tax concessions, in which such an investor may invest money. Unfortunately I cannot concede the point to him that we should change the amendment in this particular regard.

The hon. member welcomed the amendment with regard to the repayment period for loans of up to R20 000. In this regard I just want to remark that the limit of R20 000 is also in keeping now with the various other measures announced by the Minister of Finance in his Budget.

The next point raised by the hon. member was that he did not understand the clause which provided that 10% had to be in the form of cash. He says it would in that case have been much better to provide in this specific case that the maximum loan which may be granted shall represent 90% of the value of the property, of which 80% may be in the form of a loan on the strength of the security of the property offered and the other 10% in the form of guarantees on other securities which will be acceptable to the building society. If this idea of the hon. member were to be carried into effect, it would mean that the building societies would not have any funds flowing to them. They would only be able to grant a 90% loan on the basis of the value of the property and the other securities. This provision means that whereas in the past the 17½, which now becomes 20%, could be guaranteed, or other security could be offered, which could represent only 10% of the total amount, as compared to the 80% which it could advance on the basis of the security offered, the position at present is that when it grants a 100% loan, such as in the case of the housing scheme for public servants, a cash payment of at least 10% has to be made to the building society. Administratively this is the way it will more or less work: in the case where public servants qualify at present for the 100% housing loan scheme and the advance made by the building society amounts to 82½%, whilst the other 17½% is covered by a guarantee given by the State on the strength of the security of the public servant’s pension fund contribution, the building society will now advance 80% on the strength of the security offered by the insured property, and instead of the building society advancing 20% on the strength of the guarantee given by the State by virtue of the security of the public servant’s pension fund contribution, the State will invest with the building society an amount of 10% of the total value in a deposit account, which will enable the building society to obtain additional funds. This is the whole motive behind the provision.

Finally, the hon. member made a remark in connection with the problem which had arisen because of the fact that a consequential amendment in the legislation relating to the transfer of securities had not been effected by way of the amending legislation in 1971 in respect of the control of stock exchanges. Now I want to concede at once that this particular matter was overlooked. But in spite of this oversight, the stockbrokers carried on, as they did prior to 1971, as though no change had taken place. It must therefore be realized that if we do not wish to subject the transactions that have taken place on the Stock Exchange since 1971 to a possible annulment, we shall have to make the legislation retrospective. [Interjection.] I have already conceded this point. For the sake of the record I just want to say that it was just as much the duty of hon. members on the other side of the House, who were also involved in the Commission of Inquiry into the Stock Exchange, to draw attention to this implication. I do not think we have any reason to level reproaches at one another in this regard. We are handling a factual situation. In other words, the first aspect mentioned by the hon. member, namely that the legislation should have retrospective effect, is an essential one.

Now I come to the second point mentioned by the hon. member. I want to say at once that the hon. member came to me to discuss this point. In a particular case which came to his notice, a lawsuit was instituted on the strength of this particular omission. Like him I, too, do not want to comment on the moral considerations which apply here, but if I had to accept at this stage an amendment which would result in the legislation having retrospective effect except in cases where any action since 1971 has already led to a legal process, it seems to me as though I would be endorsing the actions of that particular person, and unfortunately I cannot consent to that at this stage. I would suggest that if the hon. member so wishes, we may discuss this matter further at the Committee Stage.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Earlier this session I held out the prospect that legislation to amend the Bantu Labour (Settlement of Disputes) Act was going to be introduced this year still in order to improve the system of consultation and communication between Bantu employees and their employers, and in general to expand the machinery of the Act in such a way that greater emphasis would be placed on the prevention of labour disputes.

A draft Bill for general information and comment was published in the Gazette on 4th April, 1973. The draft Bill evoked wide interest, and comment as well as proposals for its improvement were received from most of the major employers’ organizations, from trade unions, individual employers and other bodies.

With a few exceptions the reaction to the proposals was positive, and the preponderance of this comment points to a marked desire for the existing Act to be made as effective as possible. Quite a number of useful suggestions were received and have been included in the Bill. After consideration of the comment further amendments were decided on, with the result that the Bill differs considerably from the published draft Bill.

The draft Bill was also submitted to the 12 regional committees established in terms of the Act. The proposed amendments were, with a few exceptions, welcomed by the regional committees. The regional committees are in favour of the existing system being retained and expanded.

I want to avail myself of this opportunity to express my gratitude and appreciation to all who, through their proposals, made a contribution to the measure.

Mr. Speaker, the clauses of the Bill are explained in the explanatory memorandum which I laid upon the Table. I should now like to furnish hon. members with further particulars, and I begin with clauses 3 and 4 which propose six new sections in the place of section 7 of the Act.

Firstly, before I deal with the proposed new sections, it is perhaps necessary to mention that the present section 7 confers upon the Bantu employees of an industrial establishment in which not less than 20 of them are employed the right to request that they be afforded an opportunity of electing a works committee. Up to now Bantu workers have not availed themselves to any great extent of this right, but at quite a number of establishments committees which do not fall within the Act have been established on which the employer as well as his Bantu employees have representation. These non-statutory committees are generally known as liaison committees.

There have been requests from various quarters that not only should statutory recognition be granted to existing liaison committees, but specific provision for the establishment of such committees should also be made, the advantage of a liaison committee lies in the fact that it brings the Bantu employees and their employer into direct contact with one another, and, with a view to keeping the system of consultation as supple as possible, the Bill is also making provision for liaison committees. Because a liaison committee will be established on a voluntary basis between an employer and his Bantu employees, the proposed new section 7 is leaving the arrangements for the establishment of a liaison committee to the parties in question. They may also decide on the composition of the committee, although at least half of the members shall be elected by the Bantu employees themselves.

Where an employer and his Bantu employees are not desirous of having a liaison committee or cannot agree on the establishment of such a committee, the employees may in terms of the proposed new section 7A request their employer to take the necessary steps to enable them to elect a works committee. The employer may also on his own initiative make arrangements for the election of a works committee if the employees do not take the initiative themselves.

More than 20 employees have to be employed in an establishment before a works committee may be elected. Furthermore, it is being provided that a works committee may also be elected for a section of an establishment, provided more than 20 employees are employed in the section. More than one works committee may therefore be formed in an establishment. This will facilitate consultation and communication in establishments in which large groups of Bantu employees are employed in separate sections. The maximum number of members which may comprise a works committee is also being raised from five to 20 in order to ensure better representation where large numbers of Bantu employees are involved.

The Act provides at present that the Bantu labour officer for the area concerned shall convene a meeting of employees with a view to the election of a works committee, and that the meeting shall be presided over by him. The proposed new section places this responsibility on the employer or his authorized representative, but provides that the Bantu labour officer may attend the meeting. Problems are being experienced in convening a meeting of a large group of employees, or where the employees work shifts. For this reason it is being proposed that an employer may make other arrangements for the election of a works committee than the holding of a meeting. Such other arrangements, which may entail for example a poll by means of ballot-papers, shall however, be approved by the Bantu labour officer.

For the rest the proposed new section 7A deals with matters such as the election of office-bearers, the filling of vacancies, the acceptance of rules for the holding of meetings, and liaison with the employer and the regional committee. I do not think hon. members will want me to elaborate further on these matters at this stage.

I have already mentioned that it will be possible for more than one works committee to be formed for an establishment. Hon. members will agree with me that in such a case it will be desirable that the functions of the various committees be coordinated. Consequently it is being provided in the proposed section 7B that the works committees of a specific establishment may, after consultation with the employer, form a co-ordinating works committee. Such a co-ordinating committee will consist of the chairmen and secretaries of the respective works committees.

The proposed new section 7C recognizes any existing committee which is performing the functions of a liaison committee, a works committee or a co-ordinating works committee.

For the administration of the Act it is of course necessary that my department should have cognizance of the existence of liaison committees, works committees and co-ordinating works committees. The proposed new sections 7, 7A and 7B place an obligation on an employer to notify the Divisional Inspector of Labour concerned if a liaison committee, works committee or co-ordinating works committee is formed in his establishment. Failure to do so will constitute an offence.

Similarly the proposed new section 7D requires an employer to notify the Divisional Inspector of Labour in question when such a committee ceases to function.

The proposed new section 7E provides that a liaison committee, co-ordinating works committee or works committee shall be consulted in regard to a dispute which arises in the establishment concerned, and also in regard to the settlement of the dispute.

Mr. Speaker, clauses 3 and 4, which I have just dealt with, are aimed at enabling Bantu workers not only to consult with their employers on conditions of service and other matters affecting their interests, but also to assist actively in preventing and eliminating labour disputes. The knowledge, skill and experience which Bantu workers acquire of their avenues of employment in this way could in addition be put to good use to achieve the objects of the Act. The amendments proposed in clauses 2 and 5 of the Bill are of importance in this connection.

Section 4 of the existing Act provides for the establishment of regional Bantu labour committees which have to promote the interests of Bantu workers and assist, inter alia, in the settlement of labour disputes. In terms of the first amendment proposed in clause 2 of the Bill, members who are in future appointed to regional committees shall, as far as is expedient, be elected from among Bantu members of liaison committees, co-ordinating works committees and works committees. The second proposed amendment envisages that when a regional committee co-opts members, such co-opting has to be effected from among the members of liaison committees, co-ordinating works committees or works committees which exist in the trade and area concerned. Furthermore, it is being provided that a regional committee has to co-opt such a member or members when it is dealing with a labour dispute.

Section 9(2) of the Act authorizes the Central Bantu Labour Board to attend a meeting of an industrial council and to make representations there in regard to conditions of service which will affect Bantu workers. The Board may also direct the White chairman of a regional committee (who is the Bantu labour officer in question) to attend a meeting. The amendment proposed in clause 5 also authorizes the Board to direct members of a regional committee to accompany the chairman. Members who are thus directed may participate in the deliberations.

Employers frequently find it necessary to improve the wages and other conditions of employment of their employees. However, an employer cannot simply of his own accord proceed to increase wages if his competitors are not also required to do the same. The Wage Board is not able to examine every possible case for higher wages and better conditions of employment, and besides that the procedure prescribed by the Wage Act for the making of a wage determination requires considerable time.

Clause 6 of the Bill therefore proposes another procedure, additional to that of the Wage Act and the Industrial Conciliation Act, by means of which it will be possible to effect wage regulation in respect of Bantu workers. In terms of the proposed section 11A the Minister of Labour will have the power to declare any proposals by a group or association of employers in a specific trade concerning wages and other conditions of employment binding on that trade. The group or association must, however, be adequately representative of the employers in the relevant trade.

Hon. members will observe that such an order cannot be made in respect of a trade for which an industrial council has been registered. I want to make it clear that with the proposed amendment no interference in the affairs of an industrial council is being envisaged, and that the existing basis of wage regulation, as laid down in the Wage Act and the Industrial Conciliation Act, will remain unimpaired.

Hon. members will also observe that the Wage Board and the Central Bantu Labour Board will be consulted before an order is made in pursuance of proposals by a group or association of employers.

Wage regulation will be able to take place in this way for an industry such as the civil engineering industry, which finds it difficult to establish an industrial council.

In order to make the administrative provisions of the Act, as well as those of the proposed amended section 18, applicable to such an order as well, it is being proposed in clause 1 of the Bill that the definition of “order” be suitably amended.

Another method of expediting and facilitating wage regulation is being proposed in clause 7 of the Bill. The proposed new section 14A therefore provides for the application of orders and wage determinations to additional trades and areas. However, it will only be possible to extend an order in terms of the proposed new section 11A (that is, an order in pursuance of proposals by a group or association of employers) to an additional area. It will therefore not be possible to apply it to another trade.

In terms of the Wage Act a wage determination may only be extended to an additional area. The proposed, subsection (2) provides that a wage determination may also be applied to another trade.

A provisional notice has to be published in the Gazette before an order or wage determination is applied to another trade and area. Persons who may possibly be affected will therefore be afforded an opportunity of lodging objections. Just as in the case of the proposed new section 11A, it will not be possible to make such an application in respect of an industry which is subject to the jurisdiction of an industrial council.

The Act does not make direct provision for the granting of exemption from the provisions of an order. The proposed new section 14B will supply this deficiency. The amendment which is being proposed in clause 8 of the Bill, results from this.

I come now to one of the most important clauses in the Bill, viz. clause 9. As hon. members know there is a total prohibition on strikes by Bantu workers in the existing Act. This prohibition did not in the past deter Bantu workers from striking. Even before the recent events in Natal there were from time to time cases where strikes occurred. Prosecutions were only instituted in exceptional cases, and with the strikes in Natal it was clear that steps would have to be taken against the instigators rather than against the workers themselves.

It has now been decided to bring the strike provisions in respect of Bantu workers into line with the principles which apply to other workers in terms of the Industrial Conciliation Act.

It is consequently being provided in the proposed new section 18(1), in the first place, that strikes are unlawful during the first year of the term of application of any wage measure which is binding on the trade concerned. In regard to this provision hon. members will have observed, however, that I intend moving an amendment during the Committee Stage which will prohibit strikes in the case of wage measures under the Conciliation Act during the duration of the currency of such a wage measure.

In the second place it is being provided that strikes will be unlawful if the workers are employed by a local authority or by employers who are involved in the provision of processing of perishable foodstuffs or other essential services as envisaged in the application of section 46(7) of the Industrial Conciliation Act.

In the third place it is being provided that strikes will be unlawful if the matter which constitutes the subject of dispute has in terms of section 11(1) of the Act been referred to the Wage Board for a recommendation.

In all other cases a strike will be unlawful unless the dispute has been referred to a liaison committee, a co-ordinating works committee or a works committee, and if such committee is unable to effect a settlement or if no such committee exists, a report shall be submitted to the Bantu labour officer in question and subsequently a period of 30 days has to expire so that the regional committee concerned and the Central Bantu Labour Board will have the opportunity of giving the necessary attention to the matter.

The provisions concerning strikes are of course applicable to lock-outs by employers as well.

I trust that full use will in future be made of the machinery of the Act and that workers will not allow themselves to be persuaded to have recourse to unlawful strikes. I also want to issue a warning to everyone that the course of events in Natal should not be regarded as being in any way an indication that steps will not in future be taken against strikers and inciters if the Act is not adhered to.

As hon. members will have observed from the explanatory memorandum the Bill covers all labour disputes involving Bantu workers, and not only certain disputes as defined in the existing Act.

Finally, I want to draw attention to clause 10 of the Bill in terms of which workers are protected against victimization because of any participation in the establishment or functions of any committee as provided for in the Bill.

Owing to the wider scope of the Bill it was decided to amend the title of the principal Act, as is being proposed in clauses 12 and 13.

With reference to what certain persons and bodies still have to say about Bantu trade unions I want to express it as my considered opinion that this measure offers our Bantu workers every opportunity to look after their own interests, and that they will be able to do so better to effect in this way than any way which could be envisaged by the advocates of Bantu trade unions.

I trust that the measure will receive the support of the House.

Mr. Speaker, before I discuss the Bill itself, I want to convey the appreciation of the Opposition to the hon. the Minister and his department for the opportunities they have offered us to take note of the details and the intricacies of the Bill, not only by way of the explanatory memorandum, this White Paper which has been submitted to us, but also by way of other contact with the department. We want to express our sincere thanks for that.

I listened attentively to the hon. the Minister. On this occasion he confined himself to his notes more than he usually does, and this is understandable because he was dealing with an extremely complicated matter, a matter charged with problems and emotional aspects. I think he would appreciate it if we on this side of the House were to consider this Bill in the same spirit as that in which he delivered his speech and were to refrain from regarding it as a matter of political dispute or politicizing, but as a very difficult problem which affects the interests of South Africa and which will have a great deal to do with racial harmony in South Africa in the future.

There are two aspects of the Bill which we want to consider when we get away from the detail and concentrate our attention on the principles underlying this Bill. The first is that this is an attempt to bring about improvements to the communication that has existed between employer and employee in South Africa up to now and to make communication possible where it has not existed up to now. Part of the same aspect is the fact that it also acknowledges the right of Bantu employees to strike under the same circumstances as, those applicable to White workers, and to enforce their rights upon their employers through the means at their disposal.

The second aspect of this Bill, which interests us a great deal, is that it is an attempt to expedite the processes in terms of which working conditions and wages of Bantu workers may be improved. In the past we were often critical of the fact that the Wage Board took years to complete a circle amongst the industries and employers’ organizations of South Africa so that better wages have to be paid in South Africa. We find it interesting that by way of this Bill a positive attempt is being made to find— means whereby that process may be expedited.

It is unavoidable that under the circumstances in South Africa, those provisions of this Bill dealing with the right of the Bantu worker to strike have received most attention in the Press in particular, because this is something spectacular and dramatic which happened. However, I want to suggest that in considering this legislation, while not omitting to give attention to the significance of this aspect, we should realize that it is not the most important aspect of the legislation. The most important aspect of the legislation at this stage is that this is an attempt to create better means of communication between employer and employee and to speed up improvements and changes in the working conditions of our non-Whites. But then I must say—because one must be realistic—that this acknowledgment of the right of Bantu workers to strike, is breath-taking in the South African context. It is amazing and it is virtually unbelievable in the South African set-up. Only a year ago it would have been unthinkable, not only for the Nationalist Party Government but for any government in South Africa, to have come up with a measure which would legalize strikes by Bantu workers. I remember that in 1946—that is a very long time ago—the then Minister of Labour, Dr. Colin Steyn, prepared a Bill for recognizing Native trade unions in South Africa. One of the interesting provisions of that Bill was that although it would have recognized trade unions, it would not have given those trade unions the right to strike. Today, under Nationalist Party rule, we have legislation which refuses to recognize trade unions for our Bantu workers but does give them the right to strike. That just goes to show how, with a pragmatic and practical approach to the problems of South Africa, one may find that the wheel is turning, that the wheel is rolling on, and that no one can foresee what will be possible tomorrow although it may seem impossible today.

At this stage I want to admit frankly that whether or not this step taken by the Government, revolutionary as it is, is going to succeed, is something we cannot say today. This is a question to which history will supply the answer; it is a question to which the budding development of labour relations in South Africa will supply the answer. We can but hold our breath and hope and trust that things will take the right course.

It is very interesting to note that when the bill was originally published in the Government Gazette, the reaction of most of the commentators in the Press was one of doubt. I read in the newspapers that the right to strike was now going to be granted to the Bantu, but that it was limited and surrounded by restrictions. The emphasis fell on the insignificance of the right to strike and on its limitations. It was only as the Bill became better known and as it was discussed that the commentators realized that the right granted to the Bantu to strike was mutatis mutandis the same as that granted to the White workers, the Indian workers and the Coloured workers of South Africa under the Industrial Conciliation Act. The restrictions which the Bill places on the right of the Bantu workers to strike are virtually the same as those which apply to White, Indian and Coloured workers under the Industrial Conciliation Act.

The Minister mentioned the restrictions. Under section 46 of the Industrial Conciliation Act strikes may not take place in certain essential trades. Strikes may not take place while negotiations or legal investigations in regard to the problems of the workers concerned are still in progress; strikes may not take place in cases where there are recent agreements or determinations defining the circumstances of the workers; and strikes may not take place during a cooling-off period of 30 days which is laid down by the Act under specific circumstances. All the things which appear in the Industrial Conciliation Act, also appear in this legislation. They are not peculiar to the Bantu workers of South Africa.

Something which worries me a little and to which I hope the hon. the Minister will react when he replies, is that where as it is provided in the Industrial Conciliation Act, and also in the Railway Administration Bill which deals with the same matters, that workers may not strike in cases where the work is of an essential nature or for the other reasons I have mentioned, provision is made for compulsory arbitration. I want to know what the position of our Bantu workers is. Will they in cases where they are not granted the right to strike, also enjoy the right of compulsory arbitration, arbitration by means of which the question of whether or not they have a case to plead could be settled impartially.

This revolutionary step in regard to the right of our Bantu workers to strike is the result of realism on the part of the Government, on the part of our employers and on the part of public opinion in South Africa. It is nothing but the acceptance of realities as they exist in South Africa. We have learnt since January—I do not want to expand on that—that when one has a total prohibition on strikes by a group of workers in South Africa, such strikes nevertheless do take place. Then they take place illegally and under circumstances in which even a vigorous government would be unable to invoke the Act and apply punitive measures to the people who have broken the law. One of the primary principles of jurisprudence is that a law can only be applied when it is accepted as being necessary and just by the public to whom it is applied. As things have developed in South Africa, it simply happened that at the beginning of 1973 the Bantu workers of South Africa indicated by means of a demonstration—whether or not agitators were involved, is beside the point—that they could not obey this law. They violated it, and the Government had to realize that the Bantu workers could not obey it. For that reason, and I want to praise the Government for this, they accepted and appreciated the reality of the circumstances in South Africa and came up with this amendment of the Act.

The other important aspect of realism involved in this Bill, is that by taking this step the Government is now admitting that our Bantu industrial workers in the White areas of South Africa, because that is where the problem really lies, are with us for good. They are part of the permanent industrial and economic organization of South Africa. And any attempt to brush this aside with illusions and fantasies is doomed to failure. The interests of these Black workers in the industries of South Africa are the interests of industrial workers and not those of people eking out a hand-to-mouth existence on inadequate smallholdings in remote reserves or homelands. Here one is dealing with the actual, realistic problems of people who are integrated with the production processes of the wealth of South Africa. One cannot deny this and one can not brush it aside. That is why we have the position that the Nationalist Party Government has stolen a march on the United Party and come up with a measure to make strikes possible for Bantu, something which the United Party would perhaps have hesitated about. Perhaps our policy would not have caused the drama which this Government’s policy has caused and which has brought home the truth so profoundly, so intensely, so irrefutably to the public of South Africa. In this respect this measure is revolutionary, and we must accept it. I do not want to be sarcastic nor do I wan to rejoice at the difficulties of the Government. I think it does the Government credit that in this matter it had the courage to bow to the inevitable. The ultimate test of a good government is whether it is able to accept the inevitable realities of life and act accordingly. This the Government is doing in this matter, and I wish they would do the same in regard to other matters. I hope I shall have the opportunity in the future to pay tribute to the Government for its acknowledgement of the inevitable in other matters as well. One thing is certain: We have now come to a watershed as far as the future industrial life in South Africa is concerned. After this measure industrial life in South Africa will never be the same again, because this is a measure which drastically changes the Government’s view of and standpoint in respect of the Bantu industrial worker of South Africa. Never again shall we be able to have debates on the “temporary-permanent” presence of Native workers in our midst. This is an admission that they have come and will remain and are indispensable to the production process of South Africa.

He remains a member of his people.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to argue with my good friend the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation, because he is being sportive again tonight. I shall concede that he remains a member of his people, but he remains a member of a people which is permanently integrated in the economic life of White South Africa; that is the point I want to make. I am not arguing now about matters such as one’s ethnic context or one’s language, but I am referring—I hope objectively—to the fact that these people are integrated in the production process of South Africa’s economy. This is a fact which we must face. This is the admission of the end of a dream, the end of a fantasy. That dream, that fantasy, is that we in South Africa are a White community which may separate itself from the other national elements in South Africa and may use them in our own interests only, that we, in the words of the late Dr. Verwoerd, may make use of them as long as we can use them in the interests of the White man, as long as it is in their interests to identify themselves temporarily with the White man’s way of life but that they actually have no presence.

Your standpoint has changed just as much. You have supported the principal Act all these years. You were against the strikes.

I am pleased that the hon. the Minister is helping me. He has always been one of my best friends in the Cabinet. I just want to refresh his memory. In 1953 he was Minister of Labour, and it was he who introduced the principal Act. We of the United Party told him, and he congratulated us on it, that we did not agree in detail nor even on the principle of the Bill, but that we were dealing with a thorny problem and that we accepted that he was introducing a measure which he wanted to put to the test to see whether it would perhaps be the answer to our problems, and that we would support the measure in that spirit.

Yes.

Well, in that case we are in agreement. Perhaps the Minister unwittingly created a wrong impression. We supported that measure as a pragmatic approach to this problem. We also support this measure as a pragmatic approach, but we do not necessarily accept it as the final and only solution to the problem.

You have never advocated the right of the Bantu to strike.

The trouble with my friend the hon. the Minister of Transport, who was Minister of Labour at that time, is that he knows that the United Party standpoint is correct, but he is always looking for a formula by which to suggest that he has another way of presenting the United Party’s standpoint, which then justifies his saying that we differ with each other.

You have never advocated the right of the Bantu to strike.

I have just said that in this respect the Government has stolen a march on us. I concede that; I said that that only went to show how the facts of reality in South Africa were compelling people to take up standpoints which were unthinkable a year ago.

Precisely.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister is wasting his time; our time does perhaps not matter, but surely his time is precious. After all, he knows that the idea of our acknowledging the right of the Bantu to strike was unthinkable in South Africa a year ago.

On both sides.

Precisely. Mr. Speaker, I do not know why it should take me so long to get the Minister to agree with me on statements I have already made. We must be realistic now. I want to repeat what I was saying when the Minister interrupted me: South Africa will never be the same in this sphere, because the Minister and I, as well as hon. members opposite and hon. members on this side, have realized that we should not regard our Bantu workers in our industries as being foreign to South Africa, that we should regard them as being part of South Africa. That is the reason why we …

[Inaudible.]

Let the Minister shout if he wants to, but these are the facts. We are now dealing with the acknowledgment on both sides—and here the Government has forestalled us—of a factor in our lives which we cannot brush aside, namely that the urban Bantu is no longer a subsistence farmer in the reserves, but in essence an industrial worker in the White area of South Africa.

The Bill has nothing to do with that.

I want to repeat, since the Minister is continually interrupting me, that our standpoint as regards this Bill is the same as it was in 1953. Our approach at the time was that the Government in power came up with a measure, a measure with which we did not agree in detail—I shall say more about that—but which we regarded as an attempt to take action in a situation which was difficult, dangerous and caused anxiety. We are therefore willing to tell the Government that we are prepared to give this measure a chance, on a pragmatic and experimental basis, to show what it can do. But then we must realize one fact: The previous time we said this, was in 1953. It is now 1973. I do not think that we shall be granted another 20 years to go ahead with this muddle. This is a temporary measure. It is a measure which will require from us faster adjustments and concessions on the basis of reality in South Africa than were possible for us between 1953 and 1973; because life in South Africa is moving faster now than it did before or after the war. This we must realize. In that spirit and with that realization and that appeal to the Government to be adaptable and alive and to realize how the problems of South Africa are changing, increasing and developing, we are willing to lend the Government our support for this measure.

There is another group of provisions in the Bill to which the Minister also referred and which we are able to welcome with greater enthusiasm. These are the provisions in terms of which the right of our Bantu workers to collective bargaining is acknowledged. This is being acknowledged hesitantly and timidly, with many restrictions and limitations. But it does mean that the Bantu worker of South Africa will in future be granted some say, indirectly and at a great distance, for example in our industrial councils, in terms of the Industrial Conciliation Act. This is an attempt on the part of the Government to grant the Bantu worker, also by way of works, liaison and regional committees, a real right to negotiate in his own interests.

On a previous occasion during this session we discussed with one another the lack of effective communication between employer and employee which led to the series of strikes in Natal, the Transvaal and also in parts of the Cape during January and subsequently. Now the Government is making an attempt here to create something by means of which this communication, this ability to negotiate between employer and employee, may be rendered possible. We on this side of the House welcome this with greater enthusiasm than we do the first part to which I referred.

But there are weaknesses in this attempt. For example, there is this weakness that the Minister has abandoned his original draft, which he published in the Government Gazette, in terms of which the Department of Labour, too, could take the initiative in the establishment of works committees where liaison committees did not exist. I think that it was a retrograde step to remove this from the Bill, but I can understand that the Minister did this on the recommendation of interested parties who were concerned about it. As it is I can only express the hope—and I hope that the Minister will support me in this —that while this will not be done in future under statutory authority, the Department of Labour will never the less avail itself of its tremendous administrative powers and opportunities so as to encourage and expedite this process of the establishment of works committees in as many undertakings and industries in South Africa as possible.

I am also very pleased, Sir, that we on this side of the House can promise our support to the Government, whereas it is taking special measures, in regard to a matter which I raised in a previous debate, i.e. to protect the enlightened employer—not in the sense of Wimpie de Klerk, but the enlightened employer in the economic sense —where he is willing to make concessions to his workers, especially his Bantu workers, against the unfair competition of other employers who do not take up the same standpoint and who make use of cheap labour in order to compete unfairly with the man who is willing to do the right thing by his employees. In our opinion this is one of the finest and one of the most important provisions in this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have now mentioned a number of matters in respect of which we see eye to eye, but that does not mean that the Opposition is not critical of this Bill. The greatest difficulty we have with this Bill, is that it creates a large number of fragmentary organizations for the Bantu workers of South Africa; that it does not provide for some more substantial link between the works committees, or the liaison committees, which would imply responsibility extending beyond a particular enterprise or a particular area in South Africa; and that of course is where a trade union is far better in serving the interests of the community, the interests of the economy, than is a works committee, because a trade union is not confined to the immediate grievances or problems of a small group of workers in a particular enterprise. A trade union has a responsibility which extends over a whole industry or over a whole area or a whole province, and it must weigh the interests of one group against those of the others and see to the interests of the whole industry. When I talk about fragmentary organizations, it is my view that this is one of the tasks which will shortly require the attention of the Government and which will make it essential for the Government, if it remains in power, to think again about the question of these fragments it is creating by way of organizations which are intended solely for individual enterprises.

There is something else we should take into account. There is another member on this side of the House who will talk about this in greater detail—I shall just mention it—and that is that recently certain things were said by the leaders of the Bantu in South Africa talking from platforms created for them under the apartheid policy of the Government, things which create certain problems for one with an view to this Bill. Here I refer to their disillusionment with the policy of separate development and their insistence that the Bantu should immediately be given a bigger share in the wealth of South Africa, and their stated realization that their most powerful weapon against the White set-up in South Africa is the fact that under Government policy they were going to have control over the workers active in the industries of White South Africa. One should bear in mind, Sir, that these hundreds of smaller committees in the individual industries of South Africa will be able to form a link between refractory governments in the Bantustans which could cause us a great deal of distress and major problems in South Africa.

Trade unions would be much worse.

No, I do not think so. We have spoken about this before in the course of this session, and I think that at that stage the hon. the Minister agreed, judging from his attitude at the time, that we should realize that there should be common interests between the worker and the employer to keep an industry going before one could really have negotiation and a trade-unionism in a country. If one has workers who are not finally and exclusively dependent for their existence and their livelihood on the industries in which they are involved, workers such as these homeland Bantu who come and work here under the government’s policy as temporary labourers, but who have their being and their roots in the Bantustan, then one gives them an alternative for their livelihood which counterbalances their need to ensure that the White industries of South Africa continue to exist in peace. And in that I see—and I do not say this with a view to chasing up hares; I say it with great realism—that we should guard against these small groups, these small units, being abused by people whose motives are to prejudice and complicate our economy in South Africa.

Is your policy the acknowledgment of trade unions for the Bantu?

Sir, I do not like making the same speech over and over again. The Minister must be fair now. He sat there when, earlier this session, we stated our standpoint on the matter with the greatest clarity and courage, i.e. when the strikes were taking place in other parts of South Africa. We made it clear that we saw this problem and had to tackle it on three levels—firstly, on the level of the sophisticated Native worker, in which respect I mentioned the example of the Association of Journalists of South Africa, which has a trade union. Secondly, I said that we should try to satisfy and help our Natives in their period of transition by offering them affiliated membership of existing trade unions; and, thirdly, I spoke about the tribal Native, the un-urbanized Native, the man who still does have his roots in the homelands, and said that we should accept the works committee system for him. I made this clear. The Minister heard it, and therefore I do not want to repeat it. I have given a brief summary of that speech because I am eager to make this clear—and I want the Minister to accept it. But I find it very interesting that the Minister of Transport still feels from time to time that in essence he is still the Minister of Labour, that he still has such a tremendous interest and does perhaps to some degree lack confidence in the present Minister of Labour, and therefore has to act because the Minister is apparently embarrassed. [Interjections.] But I must say that I think that the present Minister is a good Minister of Labour. It is just a matter of his policy being wrong. But I mention this, and I am patient in these matters, because, really, this is one of the major matters in South Africa on which we must and shall differ and about which we shall have to argue, but we shall argue at cross-purposes if we do not grasp and respect each other’s standpoints. I am willing to try conclusions with the Government at any time in regard to their labour policy, but then I hope that the Government will help me to do so in regard to the facts of their policy, and I hope that the Government will help me to face the facts of our policy and not try to debate something which does not exist, a misrepresentation of a policy which does not form part of the reality of political life in this country.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill is, for the reasons I have mentioned, a step in the right direction, and therefore this side of the House will support it and not delay unnecessarily its being passed in this House. There are other members who have a standpoint they want to state, and I know that the hon. the Minister will not begrudge them the opportunity of doing so. However, our support must not be construed to mean that we accept this measure as the final solution to the problem of labour relations in South Africa. It must also be accepted that we feel, as we have already pointed out, that this Bill, although it is an attempt to face up to the situation as it exists at present, does in itself create new problems in South Africa which are going to crop up in the future in a way which will make it essential for us to discuss this matter again. We shall have to deliberate on the matter of labour relations in South Africa again, because this is not something which is static. What we are dealing with is a dynamic relationship which is constantly changing, and changes are taking place faster now than was the case in the past 20 years. I believe that many of us sitting in this House tonight will also be here when, on a next occasion, it will be necessary to conduct a debate in order to take account of developments and complications which we may not be able to foresee at the moment. In that spirit the Opposition will vote in favour of the Second Reading of this measure.

Mr. Speaker, it just so happens that when we deal with labour matters it is either the hon. member for Yeoville or myself who speaks first, and this has happened again this evening. In the circumstances in which we are discussing this Bill, I shall try to navigate in the same calm waters as those in which the hon. member for Yeoville navigated. He mentioned a few aspects from which he tried to draw political poison, and I shall deal with them very thoroughly when I come to them.

It is very important that we should discuss this Bill which is currently before us, in a very calm atmosphere. This is important because at the beginning of the year, when we discussed similar matters, there was a stormy atmosphere prevailing throughout South Africa in that we had had strikes at the time and had to deal with influences which incited the Bantu to strike. Consequently we could not and neither did we discuss this matter in the same calm atmosphere.

This Bill will to a large extent determine our future industrial peace and quiet, particularly in so far as it affects the Bantu worker in this country. For this reason it is important that we discuss the matter in this frame of mind. This Bill will determine the future relationships between employer and employee as far as the Nonwhites in this country are concerned. It is important not only for the economy of the country, but also for every employer and employee. It is important that the future relationships between employer and employee should be regulated in such a way as to promote interests of every inhabitant of this country.

What we have achieved up to now in regard to the regulation of Bantu labour and the settlement of disputes in connection with Bantu labour, we have achieved by means of a law that was placed on the Statute Book in 1953. I think we cannot do otherwise on this occasion than to pay tribute to the creator of that piece of legislation, namely Minister Ben Schoeman.

But it did not work.

The hon. member says it did not work; in other words, that it was not successful. I say that the proof that it has succeeded up to the present lies in the fact that over the past 20 years we have experienced what I am sure has been the greatest measure of industrial peace and quiet. This is the testimonial we wish to give the hon. the Minister of Transport, because he was the father of that legislation. What is more, during the twenty years that this Act has stood on the Statute Book, only one amendment has been made to one section of the Act. That Act has functioned effectively and over the past years each one of us sitting here today has had the privilege of experiencing the good fortune and prosperity that this Act has brought for South Africa.

Every member sitting in this House, even the hon. member for Houghton, is still enjoying the prosperity that that Act has brought us. We wish to pay tribute to the creator of this legislattion. What a wonderful piece of legislation this is that was placed on the Statute Book! At the beginning of the year we did start experiencing problems. Let us be honest and admit that there were influences at work behind these strikes. If we want to be reasonable we must admit that there were certain weak spots in the Act. When one has a law, one cannot say that one will never amend it. I wonder which of the laws passed by the United Party are still on the Statute Book today. There are very few of them, because we had to amend all of them. Now hon. members make it out to be such a terrible thing when a law is amended after 20 years. We are going to continue to govern the country for the next 20 years on the basis upon which that Act was founded. It is necessary for us to make only minor changes in that Act.

Let us be honest. Why was it necessary to amend this Act? Hon. members must cast their minds back somewhat to the time when the White workers also participated directly in strikes. This was nothing strange. However, with the implementation of the Industrial Conciliation Act we created machinery for bargaining, negotiation, reconciliation and arbitration. It is only when this machinery has been put into operation and has failed that the Whites can strike. What is the shortcoming in the existing legislation? There is sufficient machinery in this legislation to settle a dispute once it has reached the dispute stage. This was also the reason why the Act was called the Bantu Labour (Settlement of Disputes) Act. The shortcoming in that Act was that there was insufficient bargaining machinery and that not enough mechanisms existed for the Bantu by means of which he could negotiate. There was certain machinery in the principal Act, but because of the laxity of the employer and the laxity of the employee that machinery was never used or improperly used. This Government was faced with two alternatives. The one was to amend the present Act and the other was to apply the Industrial Conciliation Act to the Bantu. The latter would have entailed a very simple amendment. It would simply have meant amending the definition of “employee” so that the Bantu could be included in it. We have a very clear policy on this aspect. The National Party has never hesitated to say—we have said it consistently over the years and during this session—that we are not in favour of Bantu trade unions. In this respect we are completely at variance with the hon. member for Yeoville. If we were to amend the definition of “employee” so as to include the Bantu he would have precisely the same bargaining rights as those that exist under the Industrial Conciliation Act. We have repeatedly given the reasons why we are not prepared to recognize Bantu trade unions. We do not hesitate to say …

You have not yet told us why it cannot be settled.

… that there are elements which will misuse it, and those hon. members know this just as well as I do. The doors will be opened to the same militant influences that we had just recently in Natal, which will enable them to get right into the trade unions and to control them in order to achieve their own aims and not to act in the interests of the Bantu.

They used to say that about White trade unions.

The hon. member will get an opportunity to speak. We know what she is; she is a complete toady to the Bantu. As far as she is concerned there is no longer such a thing as a White skin in South Africa. It is a great pity that she adopts this attitude while we are dealing here with serious matters. We could have amended the Act in that way but then we would have created that opportunity. If we give recognition to Bantu trade unions, we shall create greater unrest and perhaps have more strikes than we already have had to deal with. We know what the attitude is of, among others, the Confederation of Labour. They have stated very clearly that they are not in favour of Bantu trade unions. I shall come back to this later. There is only one institution in South Africa that has always advocated Bantu trade unions, and that is Tucsa. After these strikes had taken place—I think this House and the country will express their appreciation to the Minister in this regard—the hon. the Minister said at the beginning of the year that he would have the relevant legislation investigated. The Minister told the people of South Africa: “I shall investigate this Act and introduce legislation during this session.” It was not just talk on his part. Immediate action was taken and an immediate investigation was instituted. There was consultation with industrialists, with employers and even with trade unions. This evening we have the privilege of having this legislation before us. What more do we want? In the first place—and this is the aim of this legislation—we want to create a mechanism for bargaining and negotiation so that the non-White can negotiate with his employer. That is what we have in mind. But we want to create that mechanism in such a way that the militant elements will be excluded, elements which do not want to bargain and negotiate in the interests of the Bantu, but which want to negotiate in order to misuse the Bantu. We want to exclude those influences. I think the beauty of the Bill before us is that the Minister has established machinery by means of which the Bantu will be able to negotiate for himself through his own people.

There is another matter to which I wish to devote a few moments of my time. We had the works committees in the past, as I have said, but these were unsuccessful because there was laxity on the part of the employee and laxity on the part of the employer. On the other hand again, things were going too well and consequently many of these employers used the Bantu as it suited them. I am speaking from experience, and not lightly about matters of which I know nothing. I had the privilege of working for nearly 20 years as staff relations officer in the staff office of one of our large organizations, where we had to deal with something like 8 000 or 9 000 Bantu. The organization for which I worked established the necessary machinery under the Act. It had a Bantu department. It had people with whom it could discuss matters. It had people with whom it could carry on a dialogue. Notwithstanding all those thousands of Bantu who were employed there over all those years, I do not know of a single strike that took place. But they were treated properly. If even the existing Act with the existing machinery had been used correctly, this sort of situation would not have arisen. Now, however, we are creating more and better channels. We admit— we do not try to run away from reality— that over the years only 31 works committees and about 161 non-statutory committees were established. These committees did not function effectively and were unsuccessful. The hon. the Minister is going very much further now. In the first place he is giving recognition to those non-statutory committees in the form of liaison committees in that the Bantu in an industry will be able to approach their employer and jointly with him set up a committee on an equal footing and on a 50/50 basis. On that committee the Bantu themselves can discuss their wages, their working conditions and their conditions of service with their employer. Those liaison committees, which had no statutory powers in the past, will now be recognized as statutory committees. Immediately this measure comes into operation, 161 non-statutory committees will become statutory bodies.

The hon. the Minister went even further. The system of works committees that existed in the past where there were 20 Bantu in an industry, is now being extended by the Minister. In an industry one can even establish a works committee in respect of a portion of that industry which has 20 or more Bantu workers so that they can consult and negotiate with their employer by that means. That is the beauty of this Bill. Where one has a large industry the work situation of one group of employees is different to that of the others. In such a case those people can establish their own works committee with their own members on it, a works committee which can negotiate with the employer in regard to their particular wage. Their working conditions may be such that they have to work under conditions of extreme heat. If so, they can negotiate in regard to protective clothing and all sorts of things. Another employee may work under different conditions. He will then be able to have a works committee of his own people to bargain or to negotiate for him if necessary.

What about White workers?

The White worker is covered by his trade union.

Ah, that is the whole point!

Yes, the hon. member wants to draw a comparison now, but once again she wants to create an opportunity for those militant elements which want nothing to do with that work situation but which want to use the Bantu and prey on them for their own nefarious ends. That is the opportunity the hon. member wants to create. We therefore have this system of works committees but the Minister has gone even further. The hon. the Minister has now provided that where one has a large industry, one can also set up a co-ordinating committee on which the chairmen and the secretaries of those works committees will be able to serve in the future. Where can one find a better arrangement than this? The hon. the Minister has even made provision for regional committees. While in the past the regional committees consisted only of Whites, the chairman of a regional committee—we have 12 regional committees in South Africa—will in future be a White official of the Department, but will be assisted by members whom the Minister may appoint from liaison committees, co-ordinating committees and works committees which have an interest in the matter. In the future they will themselves be able to negotiate when disputes arise.

Multiracial committees!

[Inaudible.]

Study the Bill, then you will see what its provisions are. Let me go further. The Minister also put forward the fine idea that when there is a dispute a regional committee must co-opt a member of the works committee or coordinating committee concerned. That is a fine idea. When some other matter has to be dealt with, that regional committee may co-opt people to negotiate for them in regard to their working conditions. This is the machinery which the hon. the Minister has set up. The beauty of this whole Bill is that the hon. the Minister is setting up this machinery for the man who has a direct interest in the matter and not for the man who wishes to exploit the position. We will now have the mechanism by means of which the Bantu will be able to negotiate, will be able to discuss their working conditions and their work situations. The hon. the Minister went further. He said that when these works committees, co-ordinating committees or liaison committees cease to exist, the employer must notify the Department that this has happened. I believe that these provisions will prevent our experiencing the fiasco which we experienced in the past.

I now want to proceed to the other clause to which the Hon. the member for Yeoville referred, namely, the strike clause.

The Honourable?

Yes, I am actually honouring the hon. gentleman! I want to discuss the right to strike. In the first place I want to associate myself with the point made by the hon. member that it is a great pity that of all the provisions contained in this fine piece of legislation, our Press only wants to highlight the question of strikes. I have here a report which appeared in the Daily Mail under the heading “Strike rights for the Blacks on the way”. I also have another article under the heading “Bloody conflict on labour coming, says Tucsa chief” (translation). This is a great pity when Tucsa’s chief is the secretary of an affiliation of a certain number of trade unions, the man who has to ensure that the interests of the workers are looked after. It is a pity that that person has been so irresponsible as to react in that way. I quote, Sir (translation)—

What a tragic day when a responsible trade union leader acts in this way! Instead of trying to bring about peace and quiet among the workers of South Africa, he tries to incite the Bantu worker. This report appeared in Die Transvaler of 17th May, 1973. This was after the draft Bill had appeared in the Government Gazette, therefore after he had become aware of the fact that the Government was going to introduce legislation in terms of which the Bantu would also be able to negotiate in the future. I say, what a shameful thing to do! With all respect, I do not know whether one can tolerate people of this nature in this country much longer, because they certainly do not act in the interests of any worker, irrespective of race or colour.

This right to strike which is now being given to the people and to which the hon. member for Yeoville also referred, is being over-emphasized but our Press has failed hopelessly to point out the importance of this machinery for bargaining and negotiation. They should have done this so that the Bantu could have known what this Bill holds for him, what prosperity it can bring him and what recognition is being given to the Bantu who is prepared to work for South Africa. No, only the right to strike has been emphasized. It is tragic.

The hon. member spoke about permanence. Shame! Does he want to try to draw political poison out of that as well? Sir, I never realized that the right to strike gives a person permanence! I want to ask him a very simple question: Every immigrant worker in South Africa has the right to strike—what permanence has that given him? Absolutely none! We on this side of the House have never hesitated to say that we will make use of Bantu labour. No, Sir, we have always admitted that we will make use of Bantu labour. I just want to tell the hon. member that even if the Bantu should want to strike in regard to the question of permanence, the Industrial Conciliation Act provides quite explicitly that one can only strike in regard to employee/employer relationships. If the Bantu should strike on the question of permanence they would be turning a lawful strike into an unlawful one. That is what the situation would be. The hon. member should not resort to such cheap politicking. We are dealing with serious matters.

I think it is also necessary for us to consider to whom the Bill relates in the first instance. This legislation does not refer to the Bantu on the farms, on the Railways, in the Public Service or in the mining industry.