Paragraphs (c) and (d) of Clause 1 deal with the question of having one system of collection of the tax in future. It raises the question of the poll-tax particularly in the Cape; the other provinces have a minimum earning below which the poll-tax is not collected. In the Cape Province there is no minimum. Every adult in the Cape Province is liable to pay £1 a year in taxation. Now in this Bill, the farm labourers and domestic servants and so on, earning less than R480, will be excluded from the operations of this Bill, so that the employers of those people will not be required to make a deduction of 4 cents a week from their pay. Because if it is only £1, it means a deduction of 4 cents per week, and to the Revenue Office it means a refund of 8 cents per annum in respect of the taxpayer. It seems to me rather absurd. But on the other hand, employers, factories and businesses, and so on will have to deduct 4 cents a week from all their employees, quite apart from whether they are income tax payers or not. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that they should be excluded from the Bill because it is going to involve a tremendous lot of extra work to the employers, because there are hundreds of employers in the Cape Province, who employ people who will not fall in the R480 a year category, and therefore they will not be liable for income tax. But all these people will have to be placed on the list and a solemn deduction of 4 cents a week will have to be deducted from their pay, which the employer will have to pay over. The system has never been satisfactory here in the Cape. The Revenue Office could never collect this £1 from these people. The province employed inspectors who go round trying to pick people up and to get them to pay their £1, with very limited success, I am quite sure that the cost of the inspector is considerably more than the 4 cents a week which the Treasury can get. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he might well look into the question whether the basic personal tax, as distinct from the income-tax, should not be excluded from the operation of this Bill, and that the Provincial Administration should continue to make what efforts they can to collect it themselves.

I understand the position is that as far as servants and farm labourers are concerned, if they do not earn more than R480 they are excluded from the provisions in regard to the deductions every month. When they go over R480, naturally they fall in the group which has to pay income-tax, and the personal tax and the income-tax are then merged and become one. I am not quite sure about the position of people who are not farm labourers or servants and whether they are also excluded.

No.

They are not excluded, so they fall within the ambit of this Bill, and the amount will have to be deducted, but I understand that of those people who are working in factories, etc., there are not many earning under R480. The factories and business people will in any case be employers, and the collection of these small amounts of personal tax will be undertaken along with the income-tax of the taxpayers and will not bring about a great deal of additional work. That is the position as I understand it. I do not think any representations have been made on that basis by the employers, but I shall give the matter further consideration if necessary and bring about further amendments in the Other Place, if necessary.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 7,

This clause gives rise to certain anomalies. It will benefit some people but not others. I have certain documents in my possession from one of the Chambers and I will read the first paragraph: “Under the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 21 bis, a special deduction in respect of the transitional year will be calculated either on the taxable income for the transitional year or on the taxable income for the year of assessment ended 30 June 1962 whichever amount will be the lesser. The Chamber finds this particular provision totally unacceptable and inequitable, for the following reasons.” I would like to point out to the Minister that the original idea of making the deduction the lesser of the two periods was to stop people holding up their income in 1962 and pushing it on to 1963 and then probably getting away with a lot of tax. The answer to that at the moment is, I think, that by far the vast majority of returns are in already for 30 June 1962 and therefore that particular difficulty of the Commissioner falls away. This document goes on to make certain suggestions, which I want to put to the Minister as being eminently sensible suggestions, namely that the average amount of the taxable income for the two years should then be two-fifths of the aggregate income over the period of 20 months. Then there will be no purpose in saying that business this year is better than it was last year. So if anyone had a bad time last year and is doing well now, there seems to be no real reason why he should be treated more harshly than someone who is not in the same position. The effect of this section, and taking the transitional period as being eight months, will have that effect. I suggest that the Minister give consideration to this suggestion that it will be more equitable to allow taxpayers to take two-fifths of the 20 months’ period and regard that as the free income in the transitional period.

Mr. Chairman, following on the argument of the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross), I think the Minister should take into account the fact that you get the anomaly of the taxpayer who has no previous income being tax-free in this transitional period, as against the taxpayer who had a lower income in the previous years. But I really want to raise another aspect which I think has been brought to the attention of the hon. the Minister of commerce and industry, the accountants and many other organized bodies. That is the question of the loss of the special allowances. As the House knows, these special allowances were introduced to endeavour to get commerce and industry to modernize their plant and to increase building activities. In terms of the definitions in Clause 2 (a), we find the position is that in most cases two-thirds of those allowances will be lost. It has already been put to the Minister, I think. So far in his wisdom or lack of wisdom he has said that it was impossible to adjust the position. I hope that as the result of the representations made the Minister will be able to adjust this position, because it seems unfair that if a man has met the Minister’s request and has modernized his factory he will find himself in the position of losing at least two-thirds of the special allowance benefits unless his income in the second period was much greater than in the first.

I do not think I can accept the suggestions of the hon. members for Parktown (Mr. Emdin) or Benoni (Mr. Ross). We already provide that it should be the tax year immediately preceding. We must have some kind of yardstick and our yardstick is the most recent tax year. If you want to go back two years, other people will say it should rather be three years. I think it is quite fair that we should accept this as a practical yardstick, namely the taxable income for the tax year ended 30 June 1962. But we also say that if your income is more than that and your estimate is not less than 90 per cent of your actual income for this period you will not be liable to taxation for the transitional period. So I do not think we can make it two-fifths of 20 months. Then we might as well go back further and use a longer period. I think this is a practical yardstick and we do not want to encumber it by people having to see what their income was not only last year but also the year before that.

The hon. member for Parktown raised another point, the loss of the special or incentive allowances of various kinds. But they are not entirely lost. Where you have to pay tax for the transitional period, that is taken into consideration—so it is not lost. We have tried as far as possible to give the taxpayer the equivalent of an absolutely tax-free period. It was impracticable to do it in that way only, because there was a danger that income for the new year could be telescoped into that eight months and then we would have a wrong picture for the new year. In order to do that, we did not give a completely tax-free period, but we did the second-best thing and gave a deduction. If we had been able to give a completely tax-free period, naturally if there had been any allowances which had accrued during that period, you could not have deducted it from any amount for the simple reason that you cannot deduct any amount from nothing. So this is the predicament in which we are and I think we have really done the best we could under the circumstances. But I want to emphasize that those incentive allowances are not completely lost because they are still being utilized for that transitional period to decide whether you have to pay for that period or not.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 14,

During the second reading I drew the Minister’s attention to the difficulty which will arise as far as deserted wives are concerned under the proposal that taxation is to be deducted at source from both the husband and the wife. In his reply he said he had considered this carefully and would give instructions that the greatest consideration possible should be given to these women. Now, our advice in Johannesburg is that there are large numbers of these women. Since the second reading I have had discussions with the National Council of Women and with representatives of Business and Professional Women’s Associations. I am afraid they were rather in ignorance of the general proposals but the Bill was explained to them, and the essence of their objection—and a very sound objection it is—comes back to these deserted women. In a short memorandum given to us by the Receiver it says that “the income of a married woman forms part of the joint income of a family unit and it is the income of such unit that is subject to tax and the husband is called upon to pay the tax on the combined income, but under the present Income Tax Law there is nothing to prevent the Commissioner from requiring each spouse to pay his or her share of the combined tax and that position is in no way affected by the proposed P.A.Y.E. system; each spouse will now contribute to the joint tax bill by means of deductions from his or her salary that applies reasonably to families which are on a normal footing, but when you come to these deserted women it is definitely unfair. The husband gets the children’s allowance. Even if the husband and wife have separate assessments, the husband still gets portion of the children’s allowance. In terms of this table which was issued, a woman earning R 1,000 per annum will have deducted from her income R48.71, and if she earns R1,200 she will have deducted R70.45. So the deductions are substantial amounts. If she were a widow with two children, she would pay no tax until she reached an income of about R1,500 per annum, but according to the table of the Commissioner—and again this woman who has been deserted by her husband is in no different position from a widow—she will have deducted from her almost R100 per annum if she is earning R750. I realize the Commissioner’s difficulty. I have had discussions with the Department and I made a suggestion which has met with the approval of the women’s organizations to whom I spoke, and I have their backing in making this suggestion which will remove, I think, the majority of their objections, namely that a deserted wife should be granted the children’s allowances. The suggestion is not going to give the Department much more work. They invite all taxpayers to come along if they have difficulties, and they will inform the employers what amounts to deduct. To me that is an eminently sensible suggestion and I think the Minister should accept it. The difficulty arises at the moment that I understand that no amendment can be made at the moment to the Income Tax Bill before us; we have to wait for the Income Tax Act, which will come later in the Session. I could go on at length on this subject but I will not. I just want to assure the Minister that there is a very large number of these women. It is no use getting the figures from the Social Welfare Department only, because many do not go there to ask for assistance, because they are too proud. The number which can be given by Social Welfare does not by any means reflect the total number of such women. We all know men of the type who just abandon their responsibilities, and it is unfortunate that these new proposals push this payment on to these women, and it should be taken off. I repeat that I can see no difficulty; if the Commissioner is prepared to interview every taxpayer a woman can go along and say: You are going to deduct R48 from my income, but I and my husband at the end of the year will not pay anywhere near as much as that, and the Commissioner will then give a directive to the employer to deduct less than the table shows. So there is no reason at all why he should not allow these poor women to be taxed as married women and be given the child’s allowance. The Commissioner is given the power to be reasonable and to postpone payments in case of illness, but he has no power to relieve them of any actual liability they have for income-tax, and if they live apart from their husbands the 1942 Act, as amended, leaves them with a certain responsibility to pay tax. I think that is very unfair. I know the Minister is not unsympathetic, but what he told me after the second reading does not meet the position and I hope he will go into this with his Department and see that the necessary protection is given to these women before the end of this Session.

Mr. Chairman, I gave this matter further thought after the second reading. I then gave the hon. member the assurance that in the case of a deserted wife who has difficulties because she does not know where her husband is, she can approach the Commissioner and he will then make the deduction and issue a directive to the Receiver of Revenue to deduct an amount which is more in line with her ultimate liability under the Act. Now, I have gone into the matter again. The difficulty is that we have the tables now and we cannot very well increase the husband’s portion of the tables because that would do away with the big bulk of people—married couples where the wife does not work—and it would throw out of gear the tables if we were to increase the husband’s contribution for those few cases. Then we would have to have a second set of tables. We find that actually, although in the first place it seems as if the wife’s contribution is excessive, there is ultimately a shortfall in most cases, although not in all cases, which has to be paid by the husband. I have here certain figures which prove what I have just said. A husband with an income of R 1,000 and a wife with an income of R300 have a joint income of R 1,300 and they would normally be liable for R45. The husband contributed R9.61 and the wife R4.12, which is altogether only R 13.73. In other words, there is a shortfall of R3L27 which has to be paid by the husband. There are some cases where there are no children. You will realize that there are so many permutations possible where the husband earns anything from R600 upwards and the wife anything less than that, that there are just unlimited possibilities. It makes it very difficult to get tables which will satisfy every class. But in the bulk of cases where there are no children —there is only one case of that in the various examples I have been given—where the husband does not ultimately have to pay up, although his contribution at the beginning is less because he gets the advantage of the deduction of the children’s rebate, ultimately he has to pay up. For example, where the income is 50-50, where they each have R1,000, the position is that ultimately the husband has to pay up an extra R73.29. In other words, where he has 50 per cent of the income, he pays 59 per cent of the tax. I have already said that under the existing system if a married couple applies for separate assessments that can be done and they can be separately assessed. If the husband asks for a separate assessment, the position would be the same. What we can do is what I have suggested, and then we can see in this first year, after we have tested it by experience and when we know whether there are many such cases and whether there are cases of extreme hardship—when we have had an opportunity of seeing how the scheme works, we can see whether there are any deficiencies which have to be made up. But it is no good arguing on theory now. We have gone into the theoretical part of it as fully as possible. We think that theoretically this is the best, but we are not prepared to be dogmatic about it and say that in practice that will be so. But we are not prepared to admit that everyone who thinks differently must necessarily be right. Therefore I think it is best for all of us to give the scheme an opportunity to demonstrate its shortcomings in practice, and if there are any shortcomings, then at the end of the year we will be in a better position to come here and not merely to argue but to have some basis on which to argue. I have taken it as far as I can, but I regret that I cannot consider any amendment at this stage. We have given the assurance that if there is a deserted wife she will be given due consideration by the Commissioner and he will issue a directive.

Mr. Chairman, I was not talking theoretically; I was giving the facts. There are thousands of deserted wives. It is not a question of the additional bit of tax with which the husband is charged at the end of the year. This is a case of women who have responsibility for their children because their husbands have run away, and all that I am asking is that you grant the Commissioner power to grant the childrens’ rebate to these women who are looking after them.

I have already said that we cannot now change the whole system.

I am asking you to consider an amendment to the actual Income Tax Act before the end of the Session, and not to change this P.A.Y.E. system, but to give the Commissioner the right to consider these cases of deserted women. I do not know how you can turn it down. There is no valid reason for turning me down. I am bringing before you a definite injustice that should be put right.

I have considered it.

But you turned it down.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 27,

I move the amendment standing in my name—

I think the intention of this amendment is quite clear. This is a requirement of the Treasury. We are deleting certain provisions from the Exchequer and Audit Act. Only (a)bis was deleted in the original amendment. We are bringing about this further amendment because the Act itself, in the Schedule, in paragraph 24, makes adequate provision which makes it unnecessary to retain paragraphs (a)bis to (e).

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 32,

I move as an amendment in the English text the following, which is already in the Afrikaans text—

I think I should again place on record our view that this Bill should have been postponed for 12 months before coming into operation. It is too late now to move any amendments because so many preparations have been made and so many people are committed to these things, so I do not think it is any good my moving an amendment, but we do want it on record that in our opinion this Bill should have been left over to come into operation on 1 March 1964, not 1963.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause as amended, put and agreed to.

Schedule put.

On paragraph 2,

There are two matters here to which I wish to refer. One is in paragraph

2 (1), under which an employer is required to pay to the Receiver within seven days of the end of the month the amount deducted from the employee. I do not know what the urgency of the Receiver is to collect this money in so short a while; I know it is nice to have but let me quote to the Minister what is perhaps an exaggerated case but a true case where the end of the month is Monday, 31 December. The Tuesday then will be a holiday and in this beautiful province of the Cape, Wednesday will be a holiday. Thursday and Friday are working days, Saturday and Sunday will be holidays and Monday will be the seventh day. So there is really very little time and I wonder whether the hon. the Minister will not consider extending the period of seven days to fourteen days or alternatively to seven working days so as to give employers an opportunity to attend to this matter. There is one other point in paragraph 2 (4) under which the only amount that can be deducted is a contribution to a pension fund or to an annuity. It seems to me here that another item that could well have been deducted is any payment to a medical aid or benefit fund. I realize that there is a problem in so far as deductions in respect of medical expenditure are concerned, because the taxpayer’s medical expenditure is an unknown amount until the end of the year. But I think it was two years ago that the main income-tax Act was amended so that a contribution to a medical aid plan could be deducted as part of the R200. Now, that is a fixed amount. The employer and the employee know each month what amount has to be deducted and it seems to me that instead of asking for directives or waiting until the end of the year, in this particular case it will be easier for everybody concerned if deductions in respect of contributions to medical aid societies or funds were allowed automatically. I know it may be argued that some sections of the taxpayers would benefit in that those who are members of a medical aid society would be able to have the deductions made whereas those who simply claim a deduction in respect of medical expenses at the end of the year would be penalized, but there are so many people who are being penalized is this legislation that I think this should be done.

I do not think that we should extend the period beyond seven days. I do not want to use this as an argument, but at any rate if the period is only seven days, then the opportunity to succumb to temptations will be so much less! I think it is a fair period. Even in the extreme example which the hon. member mentioned there were two or three working days and the employer should have no difficulty in complying with the provisions of this paragraph within that period. The other point raised by him has really been answered by the hon. member himself. He has pointed out that it would amount to discrimination if a person who is a member of a medical aid fund were able to have his contribution deducted in advance while a person who is also entitled to a maximum deduction of R200, would not be able to have his medical expenses deducted in advance. But here again we can see how this measure works in the first year, and if any of these irritating little points do crop up, then we can always come along after the first year and amend the legislation on the basis of the experience gained in the first year.

Paragraph put and agreed to.

On Paragraph 17,

I move the amendment standing in my name—

This is a small amendment which is being effected with some verbosity, but in reality the position is simply this, if I may mention an example: We are talking now about the provincial tax which can be deducted. We have the position that there is a normal income tax. There may be a surcharge from time to time of, say, 10 per cent, and at other times there may be a rebate of 10 per cent. What we are providing for is this: Whether there is a surcharge or a rebate of 10 per cent, the Provincial Administration’s share remains unchanged; it is a percentage of 100, the full normal income tax, and not a percentage of 110 or 90. That is the meaning of this provision and the amendment is being effected so as not to place Provincial Administrations in too great a difficulty when we reduce taxation. On the old basis, when we increased the tax, they also received a higher income, but now the position will remain the same as far as they are concerned. If there is an increase, they will not derive any benefit from it but if there is a reduction in income tax, they will not be detrimentally affected by it. That is the intention of this amendment, which is worded very clumsily, but I am assured that it cannot be drafted in a better way.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Paragraph, as amended, put and agreed to.

On paragraph 18,

I understand that some representations have been made to the Commissioner for Inland Revenue to broaden the categories suggested in paragraph 18 (2) (a) which deals only with those carrying on farming, fishing or diamond-digging operations. My attention has been drawn to persons who operate, as has been suggested in a letter to me, as agents for overseas firms—buying, confirming and shipping firms—and who are subjected to almost similar vagaries as these other categories in regard to the assessment of their income. The point that has been put to me is what the Minister’s Department would do in the case of those particular persons, or does he not think it would be in the interests of the taxpayers to add an additional category to include those who are subjected to similar vagaries as far as their taxable income is concerned.

It was not my wish to provide for these exceptions. If I could have avoided it I would have preferred to have made no exceptions, but the Select Committee suggested these exceptions and I am prepared to accept them but I am not prepared to include other categories.

As the hon. the Minister is aware, representations have been made by organized commerce and industry that amelioration should be given to them in respect of the three payments per year required to be made by provisional taxpayers. I should like to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that in the Select Committee, the former Commissioner of Inland Revenue expressed the view that after this new method of taxation had been in operation for a year or two, he thought it would be reasonable and correct to alter the three payments per year to two payments per year in the case of provisional taxpayers in order to meet the representations made by commerce and industry and the large number of people who now fall within the ambit of “provisional taxpayers ”. I accept that in the first year or two—especially in the first year— it would not be wise to have other than three payments, but I cannot see why the hon. the Minister cannot give this Committee, and the country, the assurance that after this Act has been operating smoothly for a year, he will assist commerce and industry and all provisional taxpayers, by cutting down the number of payments to only two per year. In addition to assisting the taxpayer, this will cut down the Department’s administrative costs considerably. and I feel that it will lead to a smoother implementation of this Act. I would like to ask the Minister to give the country some assurance as to whether this will not be possible after the Act has been in operation for, say, two years.

I am afraid I cannot bind any future Parliament by giving an assurance now that this will happen. The only assurance I can give is that naturally every Act is and will be consistently reviewed to see whether it can be improved. I do not want to go so far as to say that this will happen or will not happen, but I want the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Taurog) not to exclude the possibility that in two or three years’ time it may be that we will abolish it altogether!

Do you mean to abolish income tax altogether?

I cannot give an assurance either one way or another; it is a matter for Parliament to decide at the time.

Do you accept that the principle of two payments instead of three is practicable and advisable?

That would depend on the circumstances at that time.

Paragraph put and agreed to.

On paragraph 19,

I would like the hon. Minister to tell us something about the mechanics of this paragraph. In terms of this paragraph the provisional taxpayer has to submit an estimate of his total taxable income for provisional taxation, and the amount so estimated may not be less than his taxable income for the previous year unless the Commissioner, having regard to the circumstances of the case, agrees to accept an estimate of a lower amount. After the first four months the provisional taxpayer has to submit an estimate of his taxable income for the year; it must not be lower than his taxable income for the previous year, but it is only at the end of the fourth month that the taxpayer becomes aware of the fact that his income for the year is likely to be lower. In the meantime, however; you have to make your provisional payment. How are the mechanics going to work? On 29 June you may have to say to the Receiver of Revenue, “my income is going to be lower and I want your agreement to a lower estimate”, whereas on 30 June you have to send him a cheque. It seems to me that there are going to be difficulties here in actually assessing your income in relation to your payment. If you pay you may have difficulty in getting a refund because the hon. the Minister does not want refunds to be made to provisional taxpayers; he wants us all to be creditors until the end of the year. It seems to me therefore that you are going to have to pay the excess amount and then hope that the thing will balance out during the year. It is the mechanics of this paragraph that I would like to know something about.

I do not think that this is the place to discuss the mechanics of this paragraph. If the hon. member wants to know the precise mechanics I would advise him to approach the Commissioner, who, I am sure, would be only too happy to give him a full explanation.

Paragraph put and agreed to.

On paragraph 20,

In the second reading debate we had a discussion on whether the penalties should not be lowered. We and, I think, commerce and industry think that the penalties are too high. I know that the attitude of the Minister is that you only have to be 90 per cent correct, that you should be able to be 90 per cent correct, and therefore if you are not 90 per cent correct a 20 per cent penalty is not exorbitant. I think there is one issue here that might have been lost sight of perhaps and that is that at the end of the year you would have to lodge with the Receiver of Revenue a complete income tax return for the year. There cannot therefore be any evasion in submitting your estimate, unless you want to do it criminally. If you do submit a low estimate, knowing that it is on the low side, it is going to catch up with you one day. In other words, if in the first, the second or the third period you submit an estimate which is lower than you know your income is going to be, then when you submit your final return it is going to catch up with you. Under those circumstances we feel that 20 per cent is high; it is a very, very severe penalty. It is no good deliberately under-estimating your income because you are going to be found out. I know that there must be some penalty otherwise everybody would take advantage of the situation, but I want to suggest to the Minister that he should reduce the penalty by half.

Although the penalty is only 20 per cent the hon. member wants me to reduce it. The position is—if at any time before the end of the year an unexpected advantage accrues to the taxpayer and the Commissioner is satisfied—that the taxpayer is liable to pay additional tax, i.e. the penalty under sub-paragraph (1). If his taxable income for the year of assessment in question is affected by circumstances of which he was not aware at the time of the submission of the estimates referred to in paragraph (1), the Commissioner may in his discretion remit the additional tax or part thereof, and if the taxpayer is not satisfied with the decision of the Commissioner, he may object and appeal. I think 20 per cent is quite a fair penalty. We must try to get people to make their estimates as honestly as possible.

Paragraph put and agreed to.

On paragraph 28,

This paragraph contains a very harsh provision in a generally rigid system of tax recovery. The change in the system already means this: Whereas in former years the heavy hand of the tax collector was felt once in a year, under these changed circumstances it is going to be felt periodically, if not continuously throughout the year. That burden one must accept in the system, but why in addition should the tax collector be empowered to hold on to any excess payment by the taxpayer? In fact, why indeed must the Exchequer benefit because the taxpayer, by being honest, as the hon. the Minister has indicated, and by mistake makes an excess payment over what he is obliged to pay? If he pays too little he is subject to a penalty. Under the provisions of this paragraph he is also to be penalized now if he pays too much. It brings to mind the story of a taxpayer who was involved in a motor collision and left with a very obvious scar on his nose. Soon afterwards he went to the income tax offices to settle his indebtedness and the tax collector, perhaps kindly but nevertheless gratuitously, drew attention to the obvious and said to him, “did you have an accident to your nose?” To this the taxpayer said “oh no, but you see I have been paying through the nose to your Department so long that it is now showing signs of wear.” The effect of this paragraph will be an added injury to what already amounts to paying income tax through the nose. It may be true that the taxpayer has got pretty accustomed to excessive taxation over the past 14 years, but why should he be burdened in addition beyond his obligatory amount? He is now going to be deprived of the benefit of his own money, but even worse, under the provision of this paragraph the law of set-off is being altered and set-off is now no longer to be allowed at the option of the payer; it is to be at the option of the payee. Surely there is not justification of the change of the law in that regard. I understood the hon. Minister to say that the reason why refunds could not be made was because the machine would not operate that way. Well, he seems to have developed a sort of master machine which is able to collect but not repay, and the machine is now becoming a bigger democrat than the hon. Minister.

I wish I had that machine for myself too.

That is why I am drawing the Minister’s attention to this provision because here he has the power to make a change. The Minister has indicated that there might be shortcomings in this Bill. I suggest that this paragraph contains serious shortcomings which I hope the Minister will take into revision at an early date. After all is said and done, whose money is it? The excess money is the taxpayer’s money. I leave the bigger question because of this mechanical complication which the hon. the Minister has told us about, but so far as changing the law of setoff is concerned, there can be no justification for that at all. My amendment is therefore designed to restore the common law principle of set-off and to ensure that the option to use his own money as a means of set-off shall be at the option of the payer and not of the payee. After all, as I have said before, with whose money are we concerned. We are concerned with the taxpayer’s money and therefore at this stage I move the amendment which stands in my name on the Order Paper—

This wording seems to me to be wholly unnecessary and is one of the shortcomings which can be put right immediately.

I am prepared to accept the amendment.

This new system has considerable advantages to the taxpayer but I think the provisions of paragraph 28 (1) (a) under which any excess amount paid to the Receiver of Revenue on behalf of an employee shall be refunded to the taxpayer, who is not a provisional taxpayer, is the one particular disadvantage which will be suffered by the ordinary taxpayer and that is the considerable delay that will possibly have to be endured by the taxpayer in connection with refunds, because we know that in the past the mechanism of our tax-collecting machine has been to collect all the taxes payable and then, where any refund is payable, the machinery is put into reverse and the taxpayer receives the refund usually six or seven months after application for the refund has been made. The normal taxpayer who has been making a monthly contribution towards his tax commitments will in fact be overtaxed and will receive a credit at some later date. This particular point was raised during the discussion in the Select Committee and I understand that the former Commissioner stated that the Canadian system which is similar to the system being enacted here, was able to make such refunds within a period of six weeks. It would therefore be appreciated if the hon. Minister could give some assurance that the normal taxpayer who is entitled to a refund—and in some instances it might be a considerable refund where there has been a change in the number of dependants—will be given that refund expeditiously. I believe that this is the one disadvantage which the normal taxpayer will have to suffer and it can be alleviated to a certain extent if machinery is available to refund that amount expeditiously.

The position of the employee is very favourable. We are able to make the refund automatic. I understand that the time can be anything from six weeks to two months. We shall naturally try to expedite it still further but I cannot undertake that. But that is the period which I understand it is likely to take to make a refund to an employee.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Paragraph, as amended, put and agreed to.

On paragraph 33,

Sir, I move the amendment standing in my name—

This is a requirement of the Treasury; it is a question of budgeting. That is why we ask that it should be paid as a draw-back from revenue accrued, instead of a charge, otherwise it will have to be appropriated every year.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Paragraph, as amended, put and agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

When last I spoke in connection with this Bill, at the second reading, I said this to the Minister; “I hope in your reply you will give a more convincing picture of your negotiations with the men in connection with the anti-strike clause of this Bill than you gave in your introductory speech ”. I indicated then that if he could tell us with complete candour “that in every respect and in all aspects (I am again quoting from my speech) the men not only have been adequately consulted but that they entirely agreed with all clauses of the present Bill before us” I would be satisfied. The passage of this clause through the Committee stage will be facilitated by the fact that the Minister did, when forced by us, give a very long explanation of all the details which had been left out in his introductory speech and I can tell him that he will get an easy passage through Committee Stage. Now I come to Clause 2 …

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

I shall come back onto the rails of this railway line. Clause 2 gives parliamentary consent to shorten a railway line which has already been authorized by Parliament. The line was originally planned to run from Germiston East to Rietfontein farm, approximately 13 miles in length to serve the Native township of Katlehong. Permission is now sought to shorten this line and to make it stop at Kwesini. I want to ask the Minister this: Has there been any report from the Railway Board on this proposed shortening? I know that in connection with the construction of these lines the Railway Board has to be consulted. And I wonder whether the Minister can tell us whether the Railway Board has been consulted in connection with the suggested shortening. As we have not had it set out in the White Paper, I think we should have some idea of what the saving will be on the original estimate. I should also like the hon. the Minister to tell us if and when— he says in about 10 years’ time—it is decided to serve the southern section of this location will he come before this House with an additional construction Bill? Or does he think this is the end of the matter? Does he merely want to close his books? Does he feel that it will never be necessary to build the extra two miles which were called for in the original construction Bill?

I would also like a little more information from the hon. the Minister in connection with this railway line which is being constructed for the Native township in the Germiston/Alberton/Natalspruit area on the Witwatersrand. I am surprised that the plans for that railway line have so often been changed over the past years. In 1955 the intention was to build a railway line of 13.64 miles at a cost of R7,768, 600; in 1955 the length of the line was reduced to 13.10 miles—at the same cost incidentally— and now in 1963 we find that the length of that railway line is once again being reduced to 11.44 miles at a cost of R6,834,000. I have before me the Report of the Controller and Auditor-General on the South African Railways for the year 1960-61. On page 181 of this report there appears an explanation of differences between expenditure and allocations as supplied by the General Manager’s office. A certain item (g) appears on that page in which we find the following—

In other words, delays due to the actions of other departments. And under that item there is this one—

It is clear therefore, Mr. Chairman, that this is a case of poor co-operation between two Departments, the hon. the Minister’s Department and the Department of Bantu Administration and Development which was responsible for the development in that area. I want to say candidly that I do not think that the hon. the Minister is mainly to blame for this. I think that the Department of Bantu Administration and Development is far more to blame. Indeed, in this connection, we have seen what has happened in the case of the line between Bellville and Nyanga where rails and equipment worth millions of rand are rusting away. We hope that we will have less of this sort of thing in the future and that there will be better co-operation and planning between the various Government Departments. It is quite true that there has been a large increase in the number of Natives in that area. In the magisterial district of Germiston their numbers have increased from 85,000 in 1951 to 123,000 at present, an increase of almost 50 per cent. In other words, there has been a tremendous increase after that railway line was originally asked for, but notwithstanding that fact, the line is being shortened.

There is another technical point in connection with this railway line. As far as I can make out from the map the original idea was that the railway line would link up at Angus Station, but this will no longer be the case and the line will practically come to a dead end. I think it would have been far better to build this railway line so that it could have become a through line. It can become an important line because I understand from the report of the General Manager that about 15,500 passengers are transported along that line daily. I have no further criticism to offer on the building of this line and the delay in closing the account in this regard but I shall be pleased if the hon. the Minister can tell us something more in this connection and give us the assurance that the Department of Bantu Administration and Development will not be permitted to play the role of dictator in the Cabinet over his own Department.

This is a very simple matter. The municipality concerned is responsible for the development of the Native township. The Railway Administration has to receive its information with regard to requirements from the municipality concerned. Well, the railway line has been completed and has been in operation for some years except for this last portion. The Alberton Municipality has now intimated that the development which would have to take place to justify the last section will not take place in the next ten or 15 years. It is unnecessary to keep the accounts open for ten or 15 years until the whole line is eventually completed. Because of this it has been decided to amend the law so that that section of the railway line which Parliament originally approved of will be removed from the Bill since it is not going to be built. When the time comes for that line to be extended, we will again come to Parliament with a new Construction Bill.

The hon. the Minister states that this development scheme will not be completed within the next ten or 15 years. But this morning I received a reply from the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development to a question of mine in connection with that specific Native township. I asked the hon. the Minister when it was anticipated that the township would be completed and the reply that I received was not within ten or 15 years but that it would be completed in 1965.

If that is so I shall introduce a new Construction Bill.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 3,

It seems to me to be a sensible suggestion to place loans for housing on a five-year average interest basis. I think that was one of the recommendations of the committee of investigation on which the staff was represented. We agree to this clause. It is a businesslike arrangement, of which we approve.

I should like to associate myself with what the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) has just said, but I hope that we realize, I hope that the country realizes, that if this clause goes through as it stands an additional heavy burden will be imposed on the railway official when he wants to build a home for himself.

Where do you get that from?

That is the general implication of this clause. If the hon. the Minister will explain it, I shall resume my seat. But as far as I can see a railway official will now have to pay more for the money which he gets from the Treasury. In other words, a higher rate of interest will have to be paid on railway loans. We know that the Treasury is demanding higher interest rates nowadays. I think we have to pay 5⅜ per cent on the American loan. The railway official has always obtained his loan at a rate of interest which has not been higher than the rate which the Treasury has had to pay for public loans. Since the rate of interest will now rise to 5 per cent and even higher it is also possible that a higher rate of interest will have to be paid on these housing loans. If I am wrong in this respect I would like to have an assurance from the hon. the Minister that the interest rates on building loans to railway officials will not be increased.

The hon. member says “If I am not mistaken”, but then he is always mistaken. The staff will not be detrimentally affected. As things stand at present, the rate of interest is meddled with from year to year because the law provides that the staff must be charged the average rate of interest that the Treasury has to pay. When the average rate of interest is some decimal figure which cannot really be applied in practice, it is usually fixed at ½ per cent more or $ per cent less. All that we are now proposing is that instead of altering the rate of interest each year, it will now only be done once every five years. The rate of interest will then be determined in accordance with what has to be paid to the Treasury. The officials who already have loans will not be affected by this provision, even though they may only be paying 2 per cent. This is now being laid down for the next five years and it is based on the rate of interest paid to the Treasury, just as is the case to-day. It will apply to new loans.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 5,

I really think the Minister owes us an explanation on this clause. The White Paper clearly says that “The Minister, following long-standing practice, is only interested in those refreshment rooms where intoxicating liquor is sold ”. I think the Minister should explain why he is only interested in intoxicating liquor and not in tea and coffee.

It is a question of the delegation of power. The Minister has to give his attention to so many important matters that he cannot be expected to give his attention to matters which are really insignificant.

In connection with this clause, the White Paper contains the following provision—

Is this clause at all connected with the inquiry which is at present being held in connection with the financial activities of the Catering Department and also with the transfer of bookstalls from Publicity and Travel Section to the new Department? I am asking this because there is a steadily increasing loss incurred by the Catering Department. As the hon. the Minister knows in 1960-61 the loss was R569,000 and in the next year the loss was R818,000. This is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs and I want to know whether this clause has any connection with what is happening in the Catering Department?

No, it has nothing to do with it.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 8,

I just want to say that we think that the changes which are made in this clause are sensible and reasonable and we approve.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 14,

This clause, in its wording, is practically the same to all intents and purposes, as the wording of the Act of 1960 except for the change of name of the Conciliation Board and the substitution of State President for Governor General. But there is one significant change in this clause in connection with which I should like an explanation from the hon. the Minister. I notice that the explanatory memorandum has nothing to say about it. It merely says that Clauses 14 to 17 of the Bill are self-explanatory. We know from past experience that when you get such a statement in an explanatory memorandum, it is necessary to take a closer look at the section itself. Sub-section (1) of this clause is precisely the same as Section 27 of the Act it is amending. Sub-section (2) is also the same except for the substitution of State President for Governor General. But in sub-section (3) there is a significant addition at the end of the clause. I want to draw the attention of the House and of the hon. the Minister to this. I quote from the original Act, Section 27, which is being amended. It reads as follows—

In respect of three matters, Mr. Chairman, and they are—

But in the clause which we are now being asked to approve this is increased to four. It says this—

Now as I understand the position the Conciliation Board will be nominated in terms of sub-section (1). It will consist of an equal number of representatives of the workers’ organizations and an equal number of representatives of the Administration. The one being nominated by the Administration and the other being nominated by the staff associations concerned. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister this question: How can the Administration lay down the regulations in regard to the manner in which the staff associations must nominate their representatives? As I understood the Minister, under the old system the staff associations had a procedure to be followed for the election of their representatives to the Conciliation Board. The procedure is now that these staff associations will give their nominees to the Minister. If this is going to be a board dealing with employment difficulties, such as conditions of service, they are going to make the nominations. What puzzles me is how the Administration ca make regulations which will be applicable to the staff associations in the nomination of their representatives to the Employment Advisory Board. It seems to be entirely inconsistent with the other provisions of the Bill which have already been approved by this committee. For example, as far as the Disciplinary Appeal Boards are concerned, provision is made in Clauses 12 and 13 that members of the staff associations must be representative on that Disciplinary Appeal Board of those servants whose appeals are being heard. Let us assume that a dispute arises in the artisan staff association. But if the Minister is going to deal with the nominees on the Employment Advisory Board it may well be that the representatives sitting on the Employment Advisory Board will not be representatives of the artisan staff association. It can happen in regard to any association; I am merely using the artisan staff association as an example. I would therefore like to have an explanation from the hon. the Minister as to why these words have been added.

I can assure the hon. member that there is nothing sinister in this.

I am not suggesting that.

I can also assure him that it is such an insignificant matter that I thought it quite unnecessary to go into it in detail. I want to correct the hon. member in regard to one statement that he made in connection with the present procedure of electing members to the Conciliation Board and the other boards. The staff associations are not concerned with that. The staff associations do not elect the members to these boards under the present provisions. But the staff as a whole, whether they are members or not of the staff organizations elect the members to represent the different groups on these boards. It has nothing to do with the staff organizations. But at the request of the staff organizations I decided to change the procedure. Instead of having the election by all members of the staff I am now allowing the staff associations to nominate members to represent those staff groups on this board. Obviously regulations are required in regard to the procedure to be adopted; not the procedure that must be followed by a particular staff organization; that is entirely a domestic matter and that is a matter in regard to which they alone are responsible. But regulations must be made as to when these members must be nominated. Regulations must be made that paid officials of staff organizations cannot be nominated. Of course, that is a principle which has never been accepted. A paid official is not a servant of the Administration. He is a servant of the staff organization. Consequently you cannot allow the paid officials of the staff organizations to become members of the Conciliation Board. But their chairman can, members of their executive can become members of the board. Some regulations must be made in regard to the nomination procedure without intruding on the jurisdiction, the functions or the powers of the staff associations as such. The staff associations know that; they know why this provision has been introduced and they are quite satisfied.

I raised the issue for this reason. It seems to me somewhat anomalous. This committee is virtually approving of new conciliatory procedure in the sense that we are accepting the principle of compulsory arbitration in the end. But when a dispute arises there are certain stages of discussion and this is one of the stages. In the case of disciplinary appeals the whole procedure is laid down. But now we come to such an important body as this, because this is an important body; this is the most important stage before the stage of compulsory arbitration is reached. It is at this stage that discussion will take place if there is to be any hope of averting further stages. I think the Minister will agree with me. Therefore it seems to me most important that when you accept a principle such as that contained in this Bill the set-up of this Employment Advisory Board should also be laid down in greater detail. As it reads at the moment the regulations, the conditions, the functions are all left entirely in the discretion of the Administration.

There is no change from the present position.

I concede that. But I concede it in this sense that the system which operated before is a totally different system from the one we are now accepting.

Not as far as the Conciliation Board is concerned.

No, but the discussions at the Conciliation Board stage is becoming far more important now.

Not necessarily.

The Minister says not necessarily, but I think so. I think that this stage is going to be far more important. That is why I feel that in such an important matter as this the Minister should be able to give the House and the country a broader outline of what he actually has in mind with the establishment, the functions and procedure of this most important body and the nomination of its members, particularly as far as the representatives of the staff associations are concerned.

I can assure the hon. member that there is no change in the procedure or the functions of the Conciliation Board. The only change that has taken place is that it has been renamed the Conditions of Employment Advisory Board—at the request of the staff organizations. The only other change that is taking place is that the members are nominated by the staff associations instead of being elected by the staff. There is no other change. There are a large number of regulations in regard to the procedure and the functions of the Conciliation Board. Here I have them in my hand. These regulations have been in operation for many years. They are not new. I can give some of the headings: Interpretation of terms; Constitution of the Conciliation Board; Period of Office; Elected members to represent certain groups of servants; Method of conducting elections (Regulation No. 5). If there is a Conciliation Board, you require regulations to say when the Conciliation Board is to meet, what its functions will be, etc. Such regulations have been in operation for many years, and there is no change here.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 15,

I want to move the following amendment—

This clause makes provision amongst other things for the establishment of a commission. It provides that the State President will be compelled under certain circumstances to appoint a commission. In my opinion it will be an important commission because it will not only be the most important facet of the conciliation machinery but will in effect be an arbitration commission and as such will be an extremely important cog in the conciliation machinery. I think that it was also for this reason that the hon. the Minister thought fit to make the chairman of the commission a Judge or an ex-Judge. I do not think that there will be objection to the appointment of a Judge or an ex-Judge either on the part of the staff associations or on the part of the Administration. He will be a person with the necessary status and one who is impartial. Unfortunately, the clause does not end there because it goes further and states “if practicable ”. The position can of course arise where a Judge is not available and another person may perhaps have to be appointed who does not have the status of a Judge or ex-Judge and who may not also, according to public opinion, be as impartial as a Judge. I wonder therefore whether the hon. the Minister will not agree to our amending this sub-section in such a way that if a Judge or an ex-Judge cannot accept the chairmanship of such commission, a person will be appointed who will be acceptable to both parties concerned in the dispute. Such a provision can only improve the clause.

I am sorry but I cannot accept the amendment, and for very good reasons. I want to refer the hon. member to the principal Act because this is not a new provision. This provision has been in operation for the past 40 years. In Section 28 of the principal Act provision is also made for the appointment of such a commission by the State President under specified circumstances. The existing procedure is that if a serious dispute arises between the Administration and a large number of its servants, and if that dispute cannot be resolved and may perhaps lead to a serious dislocation of the service, the Minister must report the matter to the State President. Then the State President appoints a commission and the commission is entrusted with the task of investigating the dispute and making recommendations. Under the existing Act the commission will consist of the following (Section 28 (4)): “Any commission appointed under this section shall consist of not less than three nor more than five persons (not being servants of the Administration) and one of the members of the commission, who shall be chairman, shall if practicable, be a Judge or ex-Judge of the Supreme Court of South Africa.” That is the present position which has worked well for 50 years. But I have improved it. Under the existing provision, the State President appoints a chairman who has to be a Judge or ex-Judge, if practicable, and such commission shall consist of not less than three and not more than five members. But the whole matter is in the hands of the Administration. The Administration not only appoints the chairman but it can appoint all the other members if it so desires. In other words, all the other members may be members who are prejudiced in favour of the Administration’s case. For example, you may have three members who are ex-general managers of Railways. There is no obligation whereby one or more of the members must be appointed by the staff associations, that is to say, by the people concerned in the dispute. I have improved this provision. Now one of the members must be appointed by the staff association or associations concerned in the dispute. One of the members is appointed by the Administration. We also have an impartial chairman. He must be impartial and so we provide that he will be a Judge or ex-Judge. But it can happen that a Judge or ex-Judge is not available. Then the State President— who makes the appointment—must have the right to appoint another impartial chairman. But if we must accept the fact that such person must be a person acceptable to the staff associations, for example, it may protract matters very much. There may for example be six staff associations concerned in the dispute and each one of those staff associations must first be approached to find out whether they are all in favour of Mr. X. They may perhaps say that they are satisfied with him but staff association B may perhaps not be satisfied with him and then another man has to be found. The third staff association may possibly say that it is satisfied with him but the fourth may say: “No, I am not satisfied.” So if the amendment is accepted it is possible that instead of having a serious dispute resolved quickly and the commission being able to start its inquiry immediately, protracted negotiations may have first to take place which may run into weeks and months. That will not be to the advantage of either the staff or the Administration and so I cannot accept the amendment moved by the hon. member.

I find it difficult to follow the hon. Minister’s reasoning in view of the fact that this clause introduces a completely new principle in respect of the railway conciliation machinery in that it introduces compulsory arbitration. Now the hon. the Minister will know that one of the factors in regard to compulsory arbitration under the Industrial Conciliation Act is that the parties to the dispute must agree so far as the chairman is concerned. So the argument put forward by the hon. the Minister in relation to the position having existed for 25 years, falls away for the reason that in the past such a commission’s findings were not binding on the Administration at all. But they are now. A further point the hon. Minister has made is that in the past the Administration appointed all three members but now the Minister has taken the specific power to appoint one member—that is to say one member will be nominated by each side to the dispute. Therefore the position of the chairman becomes of key importance, and where the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Maitland is important is that if it cannot be a Judge or ex-Judge, then whoever it may be, such a person should be at least acceptable to the parties to the dispute. A further point that the hon. Minister has made is that it might be essential to settle a dispute quickly and that there can be delay in getting agreement among the staff organizations as to who will be acceptable as chairman. Surely the Minister has forgotten that he has at present a committee …

They have no executive powers.

But they have the same power that the staff organizations have in the nomination of a person to serve on this Board.

No they have not.

Well, now, should we not give them that power in the case here! I would put it to the hon. the Minister that if there is an issue that affects all of the staff associations and it is going to compulsory arbitration, then in the interest of all the staff associations surely they will come to a very quick decision as to whether a name of a person submitted by the Minister is acceptable or not—only where such a person is not a Judge or ex-Judge. I feel that the proposed amendment is in the best interests of the men in view of the fact that compulsory arbitration is now being introduced, a totally different concept to the existing position that has been in existence for the past 25 years. The main difference is that under the old set-up it was merely a commission whose findings were not binding upon the Minister at all, whereas now we are introducing compulsory arbitration. We are dealing here with an important issue for the very reason that the hon. the Minister has given that this provides for one person to be nominated by the staff association (or staff associations if it affects more than one), and one to be nominated by the Administration, and under those conditions the least we can expect is that the Minister should agree that the chairman must be a person acceptable to both sides.

I want to thank the hon. the Minister in explaining this matter, particularly for having taken me back 50 years, but I am afraid that he has not yet removed my dissatisfaction in regard to this particular point. With all due respect it looks to me as though we have to deal here with another sort of commission. As the hon. the Minister said himself, the possibility may arise where one finds that a chairman is appointed and that the staff associations are not satisfied with him. Where one has to deal here with an arbitration commission which is actually taking the place of the right to strike, I feel that it is most essential for the chairman of this commission to be a man who will be impartial beyond all doubt. The hon. the Minister said that the State President would appoint an impartial person of this nature but the question is whether he will be impartial in the eyes of the workers. Is the hon. the Minister therefore not prepared, particularly with a view to the new status of the commission, to accept the amendment?

Apart from the good reasons which I have already given as to why I cannot accept the amendment. I just want to point out that the staff associations are satisfied with this provision and if they are satisfied I feel that that is of far greater importance than the fact that hon. members are dissatisfied. They are after all the people who are involved in this matter and not hon. members. They are the people who will suffer if anything goes wrong and after they discussed this matter thoroughly and expressed their satisfaction with it, why should I change it merely to give hon. members their way?

This of course is the clause that gives the quid pro quo of compulsory arbitration for the prohibition of the strike (dealt with in the next clause). It is in connection with these two clauses that, during the second reading, we covered such a wide field of debate. Before letting this clause pass through the House, we want to explain that we, on this side, make no apology for having defended the principle of the workers’ right to strike. We wished to make doubly sure that, in agreeing to compulsory arbitration, the railwaymen were not cajoled but were persuaded. We know now that they agreed with open eyes. In surrendering the right to strike as is done in the next clause the artisan staff were prepared to take this quid pro quo of compulsory arbitration, and they gave up their strike right willingly. I am glad that the hon. the Minister—he did not do so at first introduction, nor in the White Paper—eventually went to such great lengths to tell us in his second reading reply of the patient and lengthy consultation which took place before these clauses were agreed to by the different staff associations. When he first mentioned these negotiations, he told us so little that we were justified when we suspected that he had not had thorough consultations with the staff associations. We know now that the matter was discussed for a period of nearly two years; that the separate Executive Committee of every staff association examined these clauses; that they saw the whole Bill and had a chance of putting forward their suggestions and objections to it; that they had the benefit of the legal adviser, Mr. Conradie, to assist them; and that finally the Federal Council was consulted and consented. We are now convinced that the men were fairly consulted. It is a pity that the explanation was so casual and cursory when the Minister introduced the Bill originally. The House may remember that I ended my speech during the second-reading debate by saying: “If I can get the assurance from the hon. the Minister that the men, before they consented, were properly and thoroughly consulted over every detail of the Bill, I will be satisfied.” Having eventually got that assurance, I am satisfied that the Minister’s quid pro quo was not forced on them, that compulsory arbitration is what they want in place of the doubtful right to strike. Even the Artisan Staff Association is prepared to give up its right to strike in order to have compulsory arbitration. I understand that some of the strikes that were instituted were in order to ensure arbitration. This Minister had often refused, for reasons which did not seem to the men to be sufficient, to go to arbitration. He had refused to advise the Governor-General, or the State President, to set up a Commission of Arbitration. Now that arbitration is compulsory and arbitration is binding on the Administration, the railway men—six out of seven of the staff organizations with enthusiasm—have accepted these clauses. Therefore I can say that I am satisfied, as I indicated I would be if I got a proper and full explanation. I am only sorry it came so belatedly. It would have saved time and misunderstanding if it had been sooner. We regard our job here not to act as bloodhounds baying at the Minister’s heels, but as watchdogs in the public’s interests. We felt that we have fulfilled that necessary function. We had to make doubly sure that nobody, and certainly not the men affected by this legislation, could in any way be prejudiced.

I thank the hon. member.

I would like to come back to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman). The hon. the Minister, in replying to the point raised, said that we should not be concerned about it because in fact the staff had been consulted on this point, and had accepted the clause as it stands. We would be more convinced by that explanation if the hon. the Minister could tell us that the particular point was before the minds of the staff when they accepted the clause. In regard to the main point, as the hon. member for Wynberg has pointed out, we are now sure of the position; but, in regard to this matter, the staff may have been so pleased to have got the concession that one of their own people could be nominated that they did not concern themselves further with the question of the chairman. I therefore think that the point made by the hon. member for Maitland is a very good one, and that this Board would carry a good deal more support if in fact it had as chairman either a Judge or an ex-Judge, or, failing that, an agreed chairman, and we therefore do ask the hon. the Minister again to consider whether he cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Maitland.

As stated by the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell), after the Minister’s explanation at the end of the second reading we know much more about the Bill. But, Mr. Chairman, when one looks at Clause 15 which replaces Section 28 (1) of the original Act, one wonders why the hon. the Minister put in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b). I think the hon. the Minister will agree that before any matter is referred to the Conditions of Employment Advisory Board, it must have been decided on by a majority of the staff association or staff associations concerned. If he feels, should there be a deadlock after that, that insufficient numbers of the men in the service are affected, or that it does not affect the public interest to any great extent, why should he then, if they want the matter to go further, insist upon a petition to be signed by a majority of the members? I wonder whether the Minister can put me right, I am under the impression that before a matter can be discussed by the Conditions of Employment Advisory Board, there must have been a majority of the members to put forward the case. I don’t think it could be a matter of two or three people deciding on it. There must have been a majority at that stage. Therefore I do not understand why (a) and (b) are necessary. I would suggest to the hon. the Minister that this seems to be a let-out clause. It does give him a breathing space. However, I want to ask the hon. the Minister to consider deleting (a) and (b), because I think he has got everything he needs. He has great confidence in the working of the new arbitration machinery and in the Conditions of Employment Advisory Board, but should they fail to agree in the end, then I suggest the matter should be reported to the State President, without going through the machinery of paragraphs (a) and (b). When you are dealing with industrial legislation, you cannot take up the case of a few people to bring this board together. There are other ways for them, such as going through their shop stewards, but—I do not want to repeat myself—a majority of the people must have come forward before he considers this matter, and before there is a dispute. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister can give us an explanation.

The hon. member has raised an important matter, and I did not deal with that point in my speeches during the second reading debate. The present provision in the principal Act provides that where one-fifth of the members of a particular group or grade submit a petition, then the State President may appoint a commission. He is under no obligation to appoint a commission. What I wanted to avoid is that insignificant matters, matters that really do not justify compulsory arbitration, should lead to the appointment of a commission and the coming into operation of this machinery. This machinery must only be utilized in the very last resort. Now what will happen is this: Any matter can be discussed by the conditions of Employment Advisory Board, where you have an equal number of members on behalf of the management and behalf of the staff. They can make recommendations to the Minister. If the matter is not settled there, the staff association has the right to approach the General-Manager and to discuss the matter with him. If they cannot get any satisfaction there, they approach the Minister, and it is only when it is a serious matter and a dispute results that this machinery should come into operation. Now a dispute will not result when there are 20 or 30 men out of 110,000 affected in regard to a particular matter. There are certain grades in the Railways consisting of about 10 or 12 men, and the matter may he quite insignificant. Such a matter does not justify the appointment of a commission. In a case where the matter has been discussed by the General Manager and the staff association and by the Minister and the staff association, and the Minister has decided not to agree to their request, but it is a small and insignificant matter, only affecting a very small number of men, then the Minister has the right to say: Well, I am not going to recommend the appointment of this commission; I regard the matter of very little importance or no importance at all. It might, however, happen that the staff association as such regards it as a matter of principle. I might regard it as insignificant, as a matter of small moment, as a matter affecting only a very small number of the staff, but the staff association as such might regard it as a matter of principle, an important matter, and they might want to insist upon the appointment of a commission and the coming into operation of this machinery. But then they must show me that not only the members of the executive but that the Staff association as a whole regards it as an important matter. That is why they must then circulate a petition to be signed by the members of that staff association, and if the majority of the members sign a petition asking for the appointment of a commission, a commission must be appointed. I do not want this machinery to become a farce and that it must be put into operation for small and insignificant matters. Only in the last resort when there is a serious difference of opinion, resulting in a dispute, between the Minister and the Administration and the staff, this machinery must be put into operation. This is one of the matters that was not only fully discussed with the members of the staff associations, but as the matter was originally worded, it was quite unacceptable to them, and then I suggested that they should make suggestions in an attempt to solve the problem, because they agree with me in principle that insignificant matters must not lead to the appointment of a commission. Only after putting our heads together and receiving suggestions from the staff associations, we came to this conclusion, as embodied in this particular clause, and after a very full discussion of the provision as it stands now, it was accepted by all the staff associations.

May we have this assurance from the hon. the Minister in relation to the election of the chairman of such an important commission that the staff associations, one or all of them, did not ask for mutual agreement in respect of the appointment of the chairman.

No. It was never raised.

That is something to know. I want to move an amendment to sub-section (6), which is the key-note to the whole of the compulsory arbitration. It says—

The words the Minister should give some further information on are those following the word “effect”, viz., “as expeditiously as reasonably possible ”. I think the hon. the Minister will agree that if a commission of this sort were to suggest that there should be an increase in payments to a section of the staff, and the Minister is faced with a similar request from other sections of the staff, the cost may be beyond the Minister’s means at that time. Now that clause gives the Minister a right to wait until such time as he has the means before giving effect to the commission’s recommendations.

Not as interpreted by the courts. I cannot deliberately delay the implementation of the recommendations.

But if you are not in a position to give effect to them for financial or other reasons …

That is one of the dangers I realize.

I realize that also. It appears to me that the commission’s powers will be greater than those of Parliament. It is a very important consideration. That is why I am asking whether there is any specific meaning to be attached to the words here. I know, I am not a legal man, but I do know that the courts have interpreted certain words in certain ways in a context of this sort. I believe that it might be a “let-out” for the Administration if the Administration were able to say that they are not in a position to give effect to the commission’s recommendations for one or other reason, and if the clause were to read “the Administration shall be obliged to give effect to every recommendation of the commission subscribed to by at least two of its members,” that would be definite, and there could be no argument. But I do not quite like the words “as expeditiously as reasonably possible ”. It sounds like a “let-out” as far as I am concerned.

I think it would be more dangerous. The Minister would have more opportunity to delay a matter if that suggestion is accepted. He can then merely accept the recommendations without saying when they must be implemented. If these words “as expeditiously as reasonably possible” were to be deleted, it would mean that the Minister could accept a recommendation and only implement it in 12 months’ time, or even two years’ time, if he pleases. This was discussed with the Federal Council and the legal adviser. Suggestions were originally made that a definite time limit should be inserted, such as six months, but it was found to be quite impracticable to do that. One does not know what the recommendations might be, or whether the management will be in the position to make the necessary arrangements to implement them within a specified time. For instance, in regard to consolidation, it took months before the management was ready to apply it. It was after very full discussion that these words were inserted, and we were assured by the legal adviser that it meant that there could be no deliberate delay, but that it would be done as expeditiously as possible, and it was generally accepted that unless something unforeseen happens which makes it quite impossible to implement the recommendation, it must be done within the shortest possible time.

Coming back to the point I made just now, I can see the Minister’s point that small matters should not be treated as matters in dispute, but he knows that it is usually the small matters which cause most of the trouble. I take it that before a matter is brought before this board, the Executive of the associations concerned must have discussed it. I want to know whether an individual can bring a matter to this board, or must it go through the machinery of his association?

It must go through the association.

Then the position is that the association comes forward as an association representing the majority of members and therefore they have a complete mandate. Would not the Minister agree that that mandate is strong enough without its going to a petition? Because it does not happen outside the railway service. In commercial firms if there is a breakdown of negotiations with employees, there is nothing in the industrial machinery whereby the members of the union have to get a petition signed. But here where you have a staff association which has the full confidence of its members, and it comes forward with a proposition and a deadlock is reached, a dispute is declared and the management might decide that the matter is of such minor concern that it does not affect the general running of the railways and they decide not to inform the President. The men in turn have to go back and get a petition signed. I am inclined to think that this is a let-out clause. The Minister will know the difficulty there is in having a petition signed throughout the Railways. It is not easy, and if you delay a matter like this for months it causes dissension. I think the whole secret of industrial legislation is to nip any dispute in the bud. I would still like to appeal to the Minister to consider deleting (a) and (b), because I think he has everything that he requires.

Amendments put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 20,

I move the following amendment—

This will make it possible for an annuitant, i.e. a railway pensioner, who has been nominated, to serve on the Joint Superannuation Fund Board. This amendment, I believe, is something which the Committee should consider very carefully because there are over 12,000 pensioners in the Republic to-day, and judging by the amount of correspondence I receive it is quite clear that a lot of them feel very dissatisfied with their lot as pensioners. I believe it would be a good thing if they retained a direct link with the Superannuation Fund Board by way of a representative nominated to serve on that board.

There is another reason. The Minister will know that recently there has been considerable activity amongst the pensioners themselves to get an association formed which will enable them to have a channel of approach to the Minister, and I can think of nothing better than such an association having a spokesman on the joint board by way of an annuitant member. It may be that the Minister will not be satisfied with the amendment I moved, but that does not alter the principle. If the Minister is prepared to concede that it would be advisable that the pensioners should have representation on the board, then words could be introduced to give effect to it. But I think that until I hear what the Minister has to say, I would like my amendment to stand.

I have every sympathy with the pensioners, but I think there is a lot of misunderstanding with regard to their position. It must be remembered that when a servant becomes a member of the pension fund, not only on the Railways but outside also, he enters into a contract and he has no claim on either the insurance company or the Superannuation Fund after that contract has been completed. The contract is that a certain amount must be paid monthly by way of contribution by the member and at the end of the stipulated period he receives a certain amount as pension, but he has no further legitimate claim. I have every sympathy for the pensioners, and that is why the Government years ago gave them an extra allowance, and merely out of sympathy they have had their pensions increased from time to time when it was found by the Superannuation Board that the fund could bear the additional cost, but there was no obligation on the fund or on the Administration to increase the pensions.

Why I cannot accept the amendment is for the following reasons. First of all, by appointing a pensioner it will disturb the balance of the Board on which there are an equal number of members representing the Administration and the staff. If a pensioner is appointed, he will hold the balance of power if there is a deadlock and that is not advisable. Secondly, the pensioner has nothing to do with the day-to-day administration of the fund. He will only be there as an applicant for increased benefits to the pensioners. That will be his job. But another reason why I cannot accept the amendment is this, that the staff associations cannot nominate a pensioner because he is not a member of a staff association. Which staff association will nominate a pensioner? The hon. member will see that apart from the principle it will be entirely wrong and it will serve no purpose to bring a person from outside the Railway service to serve as a member of the Board and there are also practical difficulties which make it impossible.

The first objection the Minister has is that if this amendment is accepted, the pensioner will hold the balance of power. That is why I said that perhaps the Minister will not accept the amendment as moved. The reason he has given is quite a valid one, but if the Minister were prepared to accept the deletion of the word “servants” and introduce the word “persons” there is no reason why the Administration could not appoint an annuitant and let the staff associations do the same, and the balance of power will be retained. But what is of more concern to me is that the Minister has left the impression with the Committee that what happens to the fund has nothing at all to do with the pensioner members, because they are receiving a pension as the result of a contract. But I think I must remind the Minister that an alteration has been made to the fund for the benefit of pensioners in the past whenever there has been an increase in their pension. As the Minister knows, there was a dispute on the Joint Superannuation Fund Board as to whether there should have been a further 10 per cent increase or not, and surely the pensioners themselves should have some say in issues of that sort. It would be interesting to have the reaction of the pensioners to a suggestion of that sort. The Minister may well find that the pensioners will be opposed to it because some of them are receiving high pensions and some very low pensions, and they may suggest a differential rate.

Do you want to change human nature? Everybody takes what they can.

No, I want to give effect to the principle that it is human nature that those whose need is greatest should receive most. It appears to me that if machinery were established to make it possible for the viewpoint of the pensioner to be put to the Board when they are deliberating things of this sort, it will be a good thing. It is quite clear to me that the Minister is adamant about this, but I hope he will take this thought back to the staff associations so that if in future they ask him to do this, he will do it.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses, Schedule and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendments.

I move—

More than two members having objected, Bill to be read a third time on 5 February.

I move—

The object of this Bill is to consolidate existing legislation applicable to traditionally rural Coloured Areas and to amend it. This legislation centres around the old and unilingual Cape Mission Stations and Reserves Act of 1909 which has already repeatedly been amended. The many amendments and the fact that the Act appears in one language only have created a general and recognized need for consolidation, something which has already been raised in this House on numerous occasions. That is why this Bill embraces various Acts such as the Act of 1909, Act No. 12 of 1949, No. 35 of 1955, No. 32 of 1959, No. 64 of 1960 and Act No. 31 of 1961. In spite of the numerous amendments there are still defects and obsolete provisions. The effective development and administration of the areas require measures for both their material and spiritual rehabilitation. Hence the need for amendment. The object is to make one Act available in a language which can be understood; to make provision for better conditions in regard to property rights; the better utilization of land; to eliminate undesirable conditions and to promote the development of towns and farming communities.

A large number of the clauses of the Bill are already in existence and I shall therefore not refer to them on this occasion. The bilingual character of these areas gives rise to special circumstances which call for special measures. Some areas are still State property. In the case of others the occupiers are already the owners. Furthermore you have rural areas on the one hand, areas which are potentially agricultural areas and which if they are properly developed and put to proper use, will provide a means of livelihood to a large section of the rural Coloured community. On the other hand, due to the gradual and recently accelerated congregation of the inhabitants, residential areas have developed which have more and more assumed the character of towns. These towns have to meet to an increasing extent the educational, cultural, social and other needs of those people. They are also to an increasing extent becoming the homes of a class of person who has grown away from agriculture and who makes his living by following a profession or a trade. This diversity of interests requires not only specialization in the development of these areas, but specialized knowledge as well. In the agricultural field the interests of the bona fide farmers must be given priority. In the case of the residential areas there has to be the necessary planning in conformity with modern standards, with due regard to health requirements so as to prevent them from degenerating into primitive towns where slum conditions prevail. The board of management is financially and otherwise not capable of doing this while administrative regulations lack the necessary authority. Another defect which is inherent in the existing system is the concept of joint ownership, a concept which deprives the individual of his initiative and hampers sound development.

The Bill therefore envisages a reorientation by providing for the following in Clauses 21 and 49—

1. (1) the planning of each area in conformity with local circumstances—to lay out residential areas in accordance with recognized standards; to make the best use of the agricultural potential and to create a group of bona fide Coloured farmers; and to develop other possibilities such as afforestation; and
2. (2) the granting of property rights after planning has taken place in order to encourage individual initiative and pride. The said right to own property will be free from the present limitation to the effect that it can only be let, mortgaged or alienated with the approval of the Minister.

In Clause 43 provision is made for the laying out of closer settlements in those areas where the land, if suitable, will be put to more intensive use.

Moreover provision is made in Clauses 33 to 36 for an alternative system of local taxation in accordance with the well known system of paying taxes according to the value of the property. Under the existing system taxes are levied per erf. In order to make the proposed development a reality it will be necessary to clear up unhealthy conditions where they exist and to re-adjust the rights of the inhabitants. In Clause 49, therefore, provision is made for rights to be taken away in unplanned areas where those rights do not fit into the picture of the proposed planning. That will, however, be subject to compensation either by means of exchange or cash payment. This arrangement is more or less in conformity with the principle which governs the re-planning of towns.

Clauses 6 and 7 contain further provisions for the clearing up of existing unhealthy conditions. A special procedure is laid down for the administration of estates in various circumstances. There are a few areas, one of which is Suurbraak, where, because estates have not been administered, landed property has not been transferred for four or more generations. In those cases it is hardly possible to determine who the rightful owners are and to pass transfer or it is practically impossible for the interested parties to take transfer on account of the high costs connected with it. According to the proposed procedure the rightful owners can in those special cases come into possession of their inheritance by means of a simplified and cheaper method. (Similar arrangements were authorized in 1906 by the Cape Parliament in respect of the Coloureds along the Kat River.)

The Bill further ensures that land which is earmarked for agricultural purposes will indeed be used for those purposes. Provision is therefore made in Clause 49 that the right to own State property in existing areas will be subject to the condition that the land is put to beneficial use. If a owner neglects his property the Minister can warn him and if he ignored that warning, the property can be sold to somebody else who will indeed put it to beneficial use. If it is sold, however, the purchase price is paid over to the owner.

Under the existing provisions peculiar problems are experience by the boards of management in collecting taxes. The existing procedure is that if anybody is more than six months in arrear with his taxes the moveable property of such a defaulter can be attached and sold. If he has no moveable property or too little to meet the tax and the costs his right can be cancelled and sold. Many of the occupiers are not as yet aware of their responsibility towards their boards. It has been cheap or easy to get land or a place to live. Consequently many of them do not mind if their rights are cancelled and sold. As a result the boards are rarely in a position of tackling anything in the interests of their areas due to the lack of funds. All the boards feel that this is a great defect. Five boards called a meeting of their own accord and decided unanimously that the non-payment of taxes should be a punishable offence. The other boards got to know about this and without exception asked for the same thing. In other words, this provision is really being inserted at the request of the boards themselves. Provision is consequently made in Clause 37 for the existing procedure to be substituted by that suggested by the boards of management.

Clause 51 contains a new principle in respect of minerals in certain areas. It is suspected that there are rich deposits of minerals and precious stones (diamonds) in certain of the areas which is State property, particularly in Namaqualand. The land and the mineral rights belong to the State. When property rights are granted as provided for in Clause 49, the occupiers will be surface owners who, in terms of the mining laws, will have the right to prospect for and mine minerals. A real danger exists that there will be a rush and that unhealthy conditions may develop. To ensure therefore that order is maintained and that the said mineral wealth is used in the interests of the country, it is provided that the State will reserve to itself its existing right to minerals of whatever nature. Despite the granting of property right the areas listed in the Second Schedule to the Bill or those which will be added from time to time, will for that purposes of the laws governing the prospecting for and the mining of minerals, as defined in the said Clause 51, be deemed to be unalienated State land. The occupiers of land in such areas are therefore given property rights, rights which they do not have to-day, without the possibility of endangering possible mineral deposits.

The most important principles of the Bill, except the one in regard to mineral rights, were submitted to the Coloured Affairs Board and they were all supported with interest. In the case of the provision regarding the collection of taxes it was felt that it was a departure from normal procedure, but in the particular circumstances the necessity for it was realized.

This Bill provides a proper basis for the development and rehabilitation of these areas and their people; it places them on the road ultimately to exist as full-fledged agricultural communities and authorities. This, Sir, is a short summary of the most important principles of this Bill.

We have listened to what the hon. Minister has had to say and we accept the importance of this measure which we have before us. As the hon. the Minister has said there are a number of measures on the Statute Book which are being repealed by this Bill—very important measures. This matter is one that will be dealt with in the Committee Stage in far more detail than we are prepared to discuss it in the second reading debate, but I do want to raise just one point for the consideration of the Minister and that is in the clause which permits him to delegate his authority under this Bill entirely to a member of the Civil Service. A measure of this kind where virtually consolidation is taking place in regard to a lot of old laws, new provisions are being brought in and streamlining has taken place—what I might call the new deal for the Coloured people that is envisaged by the hon. Minister (I think that is a fair way to put it)—is something which in the opinion of this side of the House should be in the hands of the Minister. All of us have numerous problems associated with the Coloured folk of this country. The hon. the Minister has been a Court of Appeal in regard to many of these matters and we do not want a change. We know that it may place a tremendous burden on the shoulders of the hon. the Minister; he has a lot of other legislation which he has to administer in respect of Coloured people and Coloured Affairs. I want to say that it may well be that he has in mind the Secretary for Coloured Affairs as the person to whom he is going to delegate his authority. That is a man who as far as I know carries the full confidence of all the Coloured people and of the Whites of this country and that might be a most admirable choice. But, Sir, our laws must not stand on persons. The Minister is answerable to us here in Parliament and there is no possibility then that an official may be placed in a position of having to give evasive answers to precise questions that may be placed before him from time to time. The crisp points which will require solution are not for him to decide because he is an official. This point will be raised more strenuously at a later stage. I now wish to move—

I second.

Agreed to; debate adjourned.

I move—

As hon. members know the Coloured Development Corporation came into being last year. This institution was established by Act 4 of 1962 with the specific task of encouraging and promoting the advancement of the Coloureds in the field of trade, industry and finance. The Coloured population has shown great interest in all aspects of development in these directions, amongst others also in mining and fishing. Individual Coloureds, as well as already existing Coloured companies, have approached the Corporation on various occasions in the latter regard, but unfortunately the Corporation has not been able to help.

The difficulty is that as Act 4 of 1962 now reads, the Corporation itself is not empowered to establish or assist companies for mining and fishing. According to legal opinion its power in this regard is limited to industry other than primary industry. Hon. members are aware that there is great interest in the mineral potential of the North-Western Cape particularly in the Coloured areas and also by the Coloureds themselves. Whereas this Corporation was established especially to promote the interests of the Coloured community in various directions in the field of economy, the Corporation finds itself tied by the narrow interpretation of the expression “industry” and it is not able to establish companies for the exploitation of minerals or semi-precious stones, or even to assist companies financially or otherwise.

The proposed expansion of its objects would not mean that the Corporation would receive any preferential treatment. On the contrary any application by the Corporation, or by a company established by it, would still have to compete on merit with any other applications for mining rights submitted in terms of the laws which may be applicable.

As regards expansion of its objects to include fishing, it is the experience of the Corporation that interested persons can not always be assisted by the Fisheries Development Corporation. The norm applied by the latter Corporation is often beyond the means of individual Coloured fishermen, who may be interested in such a project. It is by no means the intention that the Coloured Development Corporation must or would supersede the functions of the Fisheries Development Corporation, but rather that it should be supplementary as far as Coloureds are concerned. It was indeed in this spirit that the legislation in respect of the Coloured Development Corporation was passed. Only after adoption of the Bill it was discovered that by reason of the narrow interpretation given to the expression “industry”, the required power was not included in the scope of the Coloured Development Corporation’s activities. No help can, therefore, be given to a Coloured company, which cannot be assisted by the Fisheries Development Corporation.

A White person usually has other sources of assistance available, but with the Coloured it is not always the case. As hon. members know, this Corporation is a special aid to assist the Coloured. I wish to emphasize that it does not replace existing institutions, but merely acts as a supplement. As far as the interest of the Fisheries Development Corporation is concerned, any such assistance, or consideration thereof would be given in closest collaboration with that body. I am also prepared in the Committee Stage, if necessary to amend the clauses to that effect.

We are prepared on this side of the House to give this Bill our support. We feel that it is closing a gap which exists in the present legislation so far as the Coloured people are concerned, to provide them with an opportunity of being put on the basis of fair competition with other sections of the community—the White people—and it is entirely in line with our own policy. We feel that every encouragement should be given to the Coloured folk, that they should be given an opportunity to lift themselves and that here and there they should be given a helping hand. This Bill will give them an opportunity to be assisted in the few fields which are mentioned here, that is to say, mining and fishing, and will enable them to come forward and play their part in the development in the economy of our country. We are willing to back this Bill because it is designed to help them; we believe that it will have a very beneficial effect so far as those members of the Coloured community are concerned who have the initiative and drive and who are willing to come forward and play their part and take their share of the burden and the responsibility. We are willing to help them in the future which lies for them to take and to use for the benefit of themselves and of our country.

My colleagues and I wish to indicate that we give this measure our support. We feel that this is a step in the right direction in the sense that it extends the activities of the Corporation and will enable the Corporation to give help to those Coloured companies and persons who desire to engage in the further activities envisaged in this Bill.

The Bill itself has been drafted in very wide terms. It indicates that for the purposes of this Act mining and fishing will be additional activities in which this Corporation can engage in providing finance, and the Bill then goes on to say that it shall also be entitled for the purpose of this Act to lend its support in respect of any other activity which the State-President may by proclamation in the Gazette declare to be an industry for the purposes of this Act and that such industries shall then be regarded as industries for the purposes of this Act. There is one aspect of this matter that I want to raise with the Minister. I think he has already indicated this in his second reading speech this afternoon but I think we ought to get some clarification of the situation. A lot of Coloured people feel that they are entitled to receive— and I am sure it is the wish of the Government that they should receive—financial support from this Corporation when they seek to engage in industry and commerce, but the fear has been expressed by some of them that as the Act is now worded the time may come when the Corporation itself may become engaged in the operational side of particular industries. In other words, the fear is held by the Coloured people that this Corporation may invest its money in the acquisition of shares in a company and take over control of the company which will operate in the field of mining or fishing or any other industry without the Coloured people themselves taking an active part in the operational side. I am sure—the hon. Minister has indicated by shaking his head—that is not the Government’s intention. I think I am putting the position correctly when I say that it is merely the Government’s intention that this Corporation should give financial aid to any Coloured institution or company or person who desires to become engaged in mining or fishing operations if the Corporation is of the opinion that that financial aid is warranted. I am glad to hear from the Minister that that is the position, in addition to which I am also glad to hear from the Minister this afternoon that the Coloured companies that will receive this financial aid from the Corporation will have to operate on a competitive basis with other industries in the country. In those circumstances my colleagues and I support this Bill.

May I ask the hon. Minister to have a look at the English wording of the proposed amendment because I think it is rather inelegantly stated, and I am sure that with a very slight effort the English can be improved and made to conform more accurately with the Afrikaans.