When the business of the House was interrupted yesterday I was pointing out that there was absolutely no necessity for the railway staff to have the right to strike or the right to go on a go-slow strike. I pointed out that there were periodic discussions which offered excellent opportunities to the staff organizations to submit their demands to the Minister and the Administration. But apart from the discussions which take place from time to time with the Minister and the Administration the hon. the Minister also created excellent and effective conciliation machinery in the 1963 Act. Up to 1963 the position was that any staff group had the right, in the case of a dispute, to request the State President to appoint a commission of inquiry, but such a request could be refused. If such a request were granted, a commission appointed and such a commission made certain recommendations, the Minister could still refuse to accept those recommendations or ignore them. But in 1963 legislation was passed which provided that if the majority of a staff group asked for the appointment of a commission such a request had to be acceded to. It was further provided that the Minister had to accept the recommendations of such a commission and that they had to be carried out. The 1963 Act also provided that the commission of inquiry had to consist of a Judge or former Judge as chairman, with two members, one appointed by the Minister and the other by the staff organization concerned. In 1963 three important concessions were therefore made to the staff of the S.A. Railways as far as their conciliation machinery was concerned: A request for a commission had to be acceded to; if such a commission made recommendations they had to be accepted and carried out by the Minister; and the third concession was the right given to the staff organization concerned to appoint a member to such a commission of inquiry. Sir, where will you find more reasonable conciliation machinery than that? The position is simply this that if a staff organization can justify their case, if there is substance in their case, they have the conciliation machinery at their disposal whereby they can try to get the Minister to change his mind and force concessions to be granted. The hon. member for Yeoville now asks the Minister why this procedure was not followed to settle this particular dispute. Why does the hon. member for Yeoville ask the Minister that question? He should put that question to the staff organization concerned. The Minister is not responsible for that. The position is simply this, that that is not the duty of the Minister; it is their duty to approach the Minister and if they cannot come to an agreement with him, the procedure is there for them to follow. Why does the hon. member for Yeoville put that question to the Minister? Before the hon. member for Yeoville accuses the Minister of having adopted an unsympathetic attitude and of having neglected his duty, it would have been more reasonable and fair on his part to have asked the staff organization, the Air Force technicians, why they did not follow this procedure to settle the dispute.

The hon. member for Yeoville agrees wholeheartedly with me that the 1963 legislation created infinitely improved conciliation machinery compared with the previous machinery, such excellent machinery that it is not necessary for the railway staff to resort to a strike or a go-slow strike to force compliance with their demands. I find that in 1963, when this matter was discussed, the hon. member for Yeoville said the following—

He then went on to confirm the confidence he had in that conciliation machinery—

What has happened in the meantime to that confidence of the hon. member for Yeoville? It is understandable that the confidence of the hon. member in his own party must have been rudely shaken but surely that is no reason why he should regard everything and everybody with suspicion. I think this clause remedies a defect which has been discovered in the law. In conclusion I want to say that neither the United Party nor any staff organization have any moral right to oppose this clause because in 1963 they unequivocally accepted and subscribed to the principle that strikes on the part of the staff of the S.A. Railways should be prohibited.

Before dealing with Clause 57, to which the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) (Mr. van Rensburg) devoted most of his speech, I wish to make one or two observations on certain other provisions of the Bill. I refer in the first instance to Clause 58 where it is suggested that a savings fund levy should now be established for non-White servants of the Administration. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) indicated yesterday that we support that proposal and we on this side of the House think that it is a forward step. But I would like to ask the hon. Minister: With the policy that he is now applying of using more and more non-White servants—not only labourers but officers in the sense that Coloureds are used in ticket-offices to serve the travelling Coloured community on the Railways, and where you find that certain Indians are being employed and non-White servants of other categories—whether the time has not arrived for the establishment of a superannuation fund for this type of servant. It does not exist at the present time. The fact that the hon. Minister has accepted this suggestion, which it is stated in the White Paper, comes after consultations and discussions with representatives of the non-White staff, raises the question why the hon. Minister does not go a step further and establish the necessary fund, Sir, it is quite clear that these non-White servants of the Administration are no longer going to be employed on a temporary basis; they are going to be there permanently if the railway service has to function satisfactorily. There is now an ever-increasing wider category of these servants. On the Johannesburg Railway Station they are being employed as clerks and ticket-officers and even in some instances, I understand, as ticket-examiners. They are reaching a status of employment in the railway service equal to that of any White servant, and it is quite clear, I emphasize, that they are going to do that in a permanent capacity and in ever-increasing numbers as the transportation services expand. I therefore would like to suggest to the hon. Minister that possibly the time has arrived for the establishment of such a fund.

Arising from this there is a second question which I would like to put to the hon. Minister. The White Paper says that “with the concurrence of the representatives of the servants concerned” this has been brought about, in other words with the representatives of the non-White servants.

Coloured servants.

Am I to understand that the hon. Minister has now taken the step of recognizing the establishment in the Railway Administration of a staff organization representative of this class of servant?

That has always been the case.

I am glad to hear that. Will the hon. Minister indicate whether these “representatives” are only confined to the Coloureds, or also the Indians and Bantu servants?

Only Coloureds.

I hope the hon. Minister will deal with it more fully when he replies to the debate.

The second point I would like to refer to is the proposal here in regard to the use of funds of the Level-crossing Elimination Fund for the establishment of flicker lights and other warning devices at level-crossings. I am well aware of the representations made, but I do feel that an assurance should be given by the Minister, because obviously the objective of the fund, and the use of the moneys accruing to the fund in terms of the Act, were the elimination of level-crossings. If moneys are used for any other purpose, even of a temporary nature, it will have the effect of depleting the amount of money available in the fund. I hope therefore that the hon. Minister will give an assurance that this is considered as a temporary measure until level-crossings or other safe crossings are devised by the committee concerned, that he is not going to use this provision in order to meet what I would consider to be normal capital expenditure as far as the Railway Administration is concerned—that has been the practice for a great number of years in establishing these warnings wherever a public highway crosses a railway line. I hope that the hon. Minister will give us an assurance in that regard that this fund is not going to be used for what may be considered as normal capital expenditure on the part of the Railway Administration in erecting normal warning lights.

Then I want to say a few words on the provision of retaliatory measures that the Minister may adopt against foreign shipping whenever the laws of our country are transgressed, in the sense for instance of fishing within the 12-mile limit. The point occurs to me, as I am sure it has occurred to the hon. the Minister, that there are many ships that go under so-called “flags of convenience”. I do not want to name the countries here. The hon. Minister is well aware of the circumstances. The point has occurred to me that the crew and the captain may be of a country whose actions have been inimical to the interests of our own country; in other words action under this clause as it now reads against such ship would obviously mean action against the flag of convenience, the country in which the ship is actually registered. Could the hon. Minister indicate to me whether the clause as now worded takes care of such a situation as far as shipping is concerned which operates under so-called flags of convenience? It occurred to me that there is no provision in the clause as I read it to take care of such a situation that may arise.

Turning to Clause 57, I want to say to the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) that it is no good coming here and making statements in respect of the attitude of this side of the House in regard to this clause. The hon. member said yesterday that we on this side of the House were prepared to make ourselves the football of any section of disgruntled workers in the Railway Administration. Let me say to the hon. gentlemen that we are prepared to make ourselves the football of any registered staff association which has grievances against the manner in which their interests have been looked after by the Minister of Transport and where they can get no satisfaction from the Government in any direction; in such a case we are prepared to air their grievances and to defend their interests. At the same time we are not prepared, as the hon. member attempted to allege, to throw overboard the principles enshrined in the provisions of the Act of 1963 in regard to strikes and the conciliatory machinery that does exist. May I remind the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East), however, that when the original provisions were introduced in 1963, the Minister at that time said that he considered that neither on moral grounds nor on legal grounds there was any right on the part of any of the transport workers of South Africa to strike. Therefore the Minister at that time adopted the attitude when the present conciliatory machinery was written into the Act, that those provisions were a quid pro quo. The Minister said: Because I take away your right to strike, I am now establishing conciliatory machinery, which binds me to accept the decision of any conciliatory board that may be established in the future to deal with the grievances of any railway servant. A quid pro quo, because the Minister recognized himself, as becomes clear when one reads the debates of that time that there were certain staff associations, and in particular the Artisans’ Staff Association, that did have written in their constitution the right to strike, and they were prepared to let that go as a result of the step taken at that time by the hon. Minister to have a staff representative on a conciliation board (which they had never had in the past) and (b) that the Minister was prepared to bind himself to any decisions or findings of a conciliation board established by the State President, also something that never existed in the past, because the Minister formerly was never bound by the findings of any commission which sat on any differences or dispute that existed between himself and the staff. Mr. Speaker, if that is the position, then why this step? Of what use is it at all if conciliatory machinery is established? The Minister said at the time that we had the most perfect conciliatory machinery that had ever been embodied in an Act. Then why this step? You see, Sir, what the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) forgets when he says that the Minister said in a public statement that he had never been consulted by this section of the staff (the technical personnel of the Airways) and that therefore he could not understand their actionȄwhat the hon. member for Bloemfontein forgets is that this dispute, the difficulties being experienced by the technical personnel of the Airways, was not only a matter of knowledge to the Minister but was a matter of which the management certainly was not in ignorance, because the public of South Africa were not in ignorance about the matter. It has been a subject of Press comment for some six to seven months.

Now you are talking nonsense!

These are the facts. Hon. members sitting on the Government benches know of the disgruntlement of the technical staff of the Airways. Everybody know about it. But what I want to ask the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) is this—if he tries to build his case on the fact that they never approached the Minister for any action then why did the management, or even the Minister, aware of the discontent of the personnel of the Airways, not at the time take steps to satisfy the personnel? Why did the personnel have to go to the extreme of a go-slow strike? The reason is that nothing was done to satisfy their position. Now, they have been met and the position has been put right. That is the question to the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) that he does not want to answer. Why, when the hon. Minister was aware of the discontent, why did the hon. Minister not take immediate steps to either have a board established or give special instructions that the position of this section of the personnel of the Airways should be immediately looked into? I want to remind you, Sir, that when the hon. Minister introduced the Bill of 1963 and set up the new conciliatory procedure, that was also preceded by a go-slow strike. At that time it was forced on the Minister through a go-slow strike, also initiated by the Artisans’ Staff Association. But when the Minister introduced the Bill at that time, which we supported, he had a great deal to say. He stated the circumstances that we all know about and the agreement that he had come to to settle the dispute. Here we have a clause written into this Bill dealing with precisely the same matter which goes very, very much further than was ever intended in the first instance when the Bill of 1963 was introduced. But what does the hon. Minister say? He says—

The hon. Minister merely dismisses the discontent on the part of the staff by this summary statement to the House when he introduces a measure just as far-reaching as he did in 1963.

But this is the most interesting aspect of the lot: The Minister justifies his previous action in removing any right to strike and in setting up the new conciliatory procedure in 1963 by this statement—and the whole of the hon. Minister’s introductory speech and his reply to that debate is dotted with the assurances that he gave from time to time that he fully consulted the staff associations in regard to the provisions and that all staff associations were perfectly satisfied with what he was doing. Sir, there is no such statement in the speech the hon. Minister made in the present case, and I wish to put the direct and pertinent question to the hon. Minister (and I hope he will deal with it): Did the Minister consult the staff associations before he took the step of coming with the provisions that are written into Clause 57? Did he have the full agreement and concurrence of the staff associations in respect of the provisions that are now written into this clause? I think it is important that the House should be fully informed in regard to that point.

There is one other aspect to which I would like to direct the House’s attention. The hon. Minister can come with all these measures, but he must remember that he is dealing with organized trade unionism in the Railways. He himself has said, and is on record of having said that many times, that there is no more responsible body of men that he has had to deal with, either as Minister of Labour or as Minister of Transport, than the leaders of the major staff associations of the Railway Administration. I ask the hon. Minister: If there is obvious negligence on his part, on the part of the management in dealing with the interests of the railway servants and those railway servants do decide to strike or go-slow, what then is this clause worth? He under the conciliation machinery can handle one or two men, they can be prosecuted, but what is this clause actually worth in the circumstances I have mentioned? Can he take 600 or 800 men of the technical personnel of the Airways and charge them in the courts if they decide on any action as a result of the negligence of the Minister or the management to adequately redress what they consider to be wrong or see to their just rights in regard to pay, or whatever the complaint may be? If 11,000 members of the Artisans’ Staff Association decide to go slow on the Railways, can the Minister prosecute 11,000 or 12,000? It does not mean a thing, because he knows he cannot. What is the value of a clause of this nature? When it comes to the transportation needs, to essential public services and workers employed by the state in essential public services and you write in the Act that there is no right to strike, then in our view there rests a greater onus on the Government and the Minister concerned to see that the just rights of such servants are properly and adequately attended to. and it is clear from the case of the technical personnel of the Airways that there was a degree of negligence displayed by the Government in attending to the just rights of that section of the personnel of the South African Railways.

When you look at the Bill before the House, Sir, you notice that the object of its important clauses is only to improve further, as is done practically every year, the conditions of service, pensions, etc., of the railway servants, White as well as non-White. Practically every year the Minister improves the conditions of service obtaining on the Railways. I am particularly grateful for Clause 58 which is being introduced this year because it establishes a savings fund for Coloured employees as well. Over and above the gratuity a Coloured employee receives after a certain number of years of service (it is calculated according to a scale) a savings fund is now established and the Coloured railway employee is compelled to pay 1½ per cent of his monthly wages into that fund. In this way the Minister and the Administration compels the Coloured employee, while he earns, and with the approval of his representatives, to save for his old age and also for his family when he retires. That money is then invested in government stock at 4 per cent and when that Coloured employee retires because of his age, or because of a disability, he receives, over and above his gratuity, the amount he has saved during his years of service. If he dies his widow or heirs naturally inherit the money he has saved in that way. This savings fund has not been forced on the Coloured workers. As the hon. the Minister explains in the explanatory memorandum it was with the approval of the representatives of the Coloureds that it was decided to establish such a savings fund. I am grateful for that. We know that many people save practically nothing during their lifetime and that the Coloured is only human too and is also inclined to spend everything he earns. In this way the Minister is once again showing that he is really also interested in the Coloureds. In this way the Minister is continually adapting and improving the conditions of service, salaries and pensions of all railway workers. The Opposition approves of all these amendments but the Opposition sees a danger in Clause 57 which greatly frightens them as Opposition.

Yesterday the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) said the following (I am grateful to him for having made a copy of his Hansard speech available to me)—

In terms of the legislation passed in 1963 they must be opposed to such a go-slow strike. The hon. member admits that the Opposition was sympathetic towards that legislation and that they voted for it but then he says the Minister is now going too far. The hon. member for Yeoville concluded with these words—

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the speech by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) (Mr. van Rensburg) yesterday who dealt with the matter in a convincing way—I wish to congratulate him on his speech and his arguments and the logical way in which he argued his case—I really thought he had convinced the devil that there was no case. I also thought he had convinced the Opposition that they had no case, but to my surprise I have to learn this afternoon that the Opposition is adamant about opposing this clause in the Committee Stage. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) stated very clearly that in 1963 Mr. Liebenberg, president of the technical staff, had agreed in 1963, according to a report in the Rand Daily Mail of 23 January 1963 that in view of the fact that an Advisory Board regarding conditions of service had been established, the necessity to strike had fallen away. The Opposition then supported the Bill by way of mouth of Mr. Russell, the then member for Wynberg. The entire Opposition supported it. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) also pointed out that there was a defect in the Act and that Clause 57 of the Bill before us would remedy that defect.

When a staff group work according to the manual what is it other than a go-slow strike? And what is a go-slow strike other than a strike? The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) has said that the Opposition was always prepared to be the football in the interests of staff organizations, that they would always be prepared to step into the breach for staff associations. When you consider the composition of the Advisory Board and its duties, Sir, you realize to what extent the staff is being met. The chairman has to be a Judge or a former Judge, one member is appointed by the Minister and one by the staff and it is a condition that the findings of that commission must be accepted by the Minister. The Minister has to abide by them. But on the other hand the staff associations too must abide by the findings of that Advisory Board. I now wish to put a few questions to the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn). Has the Minister ever been unwilling in the past to listen to the grievances of staff associations?

Yes.

When?

I can’t remember.

No, that is not true. There is nothing of the sort. Let me tell the House what happened in the case of the airways technicians when they demanded a salary increase of 30 per cent. They addressed a letter to the Secretary of the Staff Association to Salstff, on 17 September. Prior to that, on 13 August, Salstaff had had an interview with the Minister about various matters and on that occasion, on 13 August, the technicians of the airways did not say a word about a salary increase of 30 per cent. There is another question I want to put to the Opposition, particularly to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) who has been a railway servant for years. Will he agree with me when I say that wherever the Minister could make concessions in the past, when such an association had a strong case, he had done so; that he had never refused? The airways technicians had the opportunity, they had every right, after submitting their case to the General Manager and finding him unsympathetic—I do not know what the position was—of approaching the Minister through their trade union, through their secretary, and putting their case before him. But they did not do so. The secretary of their group admits here that they did not do so. On the occasion when they met the Minister they did not say a word about that demand for a 30 per cent increase. To-day the hon. member for Turffontein talks the biggest nonsense I have ever heard, levels accusations at the Minister and asks why, when those people worked according to the manual, the Minister did not go to them and ask: Surely you have a grievance, why do you not come to me? Is that an argument to advance? I think a child in a kindergarten will not talk such nonsense. They have every opportunity they wish to have, the machinery is there, they have a sympathetic Minister who will meet them on every occasion and who has never yet refused to do so, but the hon. member for Turffontein says the Minister must go to them and ask them whether they do not want to come to him with their grievances. The Minister must go hat in hand. In other words, it is the Minister and not the staff association who is to blame. I want to ask this further question: Does the Opposition agree that there has never been a more sympathetic Minister of Transport than the present one?

Have you ever heard of Mr. Sturrock?

I also want to know whether, in view of all the facts I have mentioned, the Opposition approves of the action of the airways technicians of working according to the manual and not following the procedure they should have; of taking matters in their own hands and not acting through their secretary; of simply deciding to work according to the manual, of causing R500,000 worth of damage to the airways and damaging the good reputation of the airways because services had to be curtailed, etc.

Who built up that reputation?

They did, together with the Minister, but I am surprised at them for having broken down everything they have built up simply because they did not follow the correct procedure. I have no objection to their salaries being increased. If they can make out a case for that I am sure the Minister will give them a sympathetic hearing but then they themselves went and damaged the wonderful reputation of the Airways, not because the Minister had refused anything, but because they had neglected to go to the Minister. But the hon. member for Turffontein says it is the fault of the Minister and not that of the staff. Do you approve of it that many of the services had to be curtailed and that flights had to be delayed? The Opposition call themselves the friends of the railwaymen but is it an act of friendship to encourage them to act in such an irresponsible way when channels have been created whereby they can take their grievances to the Minister? Naturally the Opposition will say they are the best friends the railwaymen have because an election is in the offing, and whether or not the staff were right, they approve of their actions.

But my further question to the Opposition is this: Suppose they were to succeed in voting this clause down so that it does not go on the Statute Book, do they realize what position can develop on the Railways? It would mean that every staff association would have the right to work according to the manual. Sir, can you imagine the chaos that can develop on the Railways in such a case? It will be nearly as bad as the chaos which exists in the United Party itself. If the train staff decides to work according to the manual how many trains will have to be cancelled?

May I ask whether the instructions set out in the manual are incorrect and whether the employees should not follow them?

I do not think it is worth the trouble to reply to that question. The manual is there only as a guide.

Are the instructions wrong then? [Interjections.]

Have the Opposition thought about what would happen if the shunters were to work according to manual only? I am thinking of the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) and I wonder what would happen to her at Danskraal and in what chaotic state the train service would be there. Have hon. members an idea what the results would be if every railway association worked according to the manual only? There would only be losses on the Railways with the result that salaries will not be increased but decreased, it will be necessary to reduce holiday bonuses and other privileges will have to be curtailed. That is what the friends of the railwaymen, the United Party, would achieve if they vote against this clause. I want to warn them that they will be the enemies and not the friends of the railwayman if they vote against this clause. What would happen to the economy of South Africa? Because of the irresponsible actions of the Opposition who, for the sake of an election, only wish to catch a few railway votes the economy of the country will collapse. I want to assure the Opposition that they are underestimating the intelligence of the White railway servants in South Africa. They do not allow themselves to be hoodwinked easily, much less will they be hoodwinked by these methods of the Opposition to try to catch the votes of the railwaymen.

May I take up a little of the time of the House to deal with a few points raised by the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. Knobel)? He has made great play of the fact that the railwaymen and other Government employees will suffer hardships and losses of benefits if they are to work to the manual. It seems obvious to me that the manual must be hopelessly out of date. The instructions in it must be inadequate or obsolete, and I am surprised to hear a responsible member like the hon. member for Bethlehem saying that it is almost impossible to work to the manual, because surely that is what every employee is expected to do, and, if he does more than that, he must be compensated and be recompensed for the additional time that he spends on the job. I think it is a fatal mistake on the part of any Government or any employer or group of employers to restrict or to prohibit the employees from having the right to withhold their labour from the employer if they so wish. That is a fundamental right. The principle involved in this instance is just spelt a little differently. Sir, if everything was so fine in the Department of Transport, and if the relationships were on such a happy level, why was it necessary for these people to take the action they did, and why is it necessary now for the Minister to take the action he contemplates? As an employer of labour, he should have known first whether his employees were satisfied or not and he should have taken action promptly and immediately because of the essentiality of the services involved, together with the responsible manager of that Department of the service. I therefore think that it ill-behoves hon. members opposite to suggest that this is a vote-catching stunt. Nothing is further from the truth. We are as concerned about the conduct of essential services like the Railways and the Airways as anybody else. I go further and say, that the persons employed in those services are equally concerned. The reason why we have such a good service both on the Railways and the Airways is because we have efficient, dedicated men who are working far beyond the requirements of what they were engaged to do or in terms of their handbook. These are the people who should be commended, and not the Minister.

I wish to refer to the clause which deals with the deduction from Coloured persons of portion of their wages, and I would like to know whether I heard correctly that the sum of money to be deducted is 1½ per cent of their earnings? I Want to emphasize what was said by the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant), that the Minister of Transport should reconsider this position and establish a superannuation fund for Coloured persons immediately. To expect the employee to make provision for his old age through this small deduction, and to keep it for him at a rate of interest which will be specified later by the persons responsible for the investments, will mean that a man, after long years of service, will get back his own money, and, at the rate money is depreciating at present he will get a very much depreciated sum. Therefore, I ask the Minister on behalf of the Coloured community to go back to his staff association and to convert this deduction as a contribution to a pension fund and to act generously out of his surpluses and pay in on a rand for rand basis, so that this amount will build up and there will be something worthwhile to draw by the time these people retire. Lastly, I want to draw attention to the fact that the Minister now intends—and I think it is to be commended—to make some redress for the fact that African workers are being thrown out of the Railway Service after years of service, and, as he says in his explanation, through no fault of their own. I say that the intention to pay these people some gratuity is to be commended, but I would just like to highlight the fact that the hon. the Minister himself has been paying these gratuities and endeavouring to get away with it under the guise of reorganization. Now the matter is highlighted, and I hope people will understand what is really meant; that Africans who have spent 10 years or more working on the Railways and who have given faithful service and have no criminal records, and who have wives and families, are going to be arbitrarily discharged and that they will get a gratuity to salve the consciences of the persons responsible for the legislation responsible for it. Worse still, those with a service of less than ten years will get nothing. In the days in which we live, and with the Railways in the flourishing state in which they are, the Minister can ill afford to lose the services of servants who have served him for 10 years or more. I feel that if he wishes to keep the Coloured person employed and wants to encourage him to join the Railway Service, as many of them wish to do, he should have established a pension fund. He should do that without further ado, and I am quite convinced that the Association which has been negotiating with him will be very happy to give him advice as to what they could be expected to pay.

Finally, I want to reiterate what I said before. It is the right of all men to protest, whether they are children or adolescents or adults, and protestations are made in the industrial world by people withholding their labour from their employers. I think it is a fatal mistake and a blot on the Statute Book that so fine a body of men as we have in the transport undertaking, should be legislated against because they worked to the manual which, is produced by the Railways itself and on which they are employed in the first instance.

The hon. members for Bethlehem (Mr. Knobel) and Bloemfontein (East) (Mr. van Rensburg) have dealt with one aspect of this Bill, namely the clause being inserted to close a loophole left by the 1963 amendments to the conciliation machinery. That being the case, before I deal with that same subject, I want to touch on one or two other points first.

The first of these is the amendment which is going to make it possible for servants of the Administration to become contributors to the new pension fund and thus to improve their pensions considerably. I do not think anyone has any objection to the re-opening of this new fund to those who have not as yet availed themselves of the better benefits, but it does seem that there is this hardship to those who retired in 1949 and it would be impracticable, I think, to suggest at this stage that the Minister should compensate those who, through no fault of their own, were not in a position to elect to join the new fund. But there is no doubt that there are going to be many representations made to those of us who are familiar with the Railway Administration as to why existing pensioners will not be able to get the benefit which will be made available, once this Bill is passed, to servants still in the service of the Administration in respect of joining the new fund. Now, I know that we generally frown on legislation which gives retrospective benefits, but I feel that here the Minister should make it quite clear that in the cases I have cited those in the service who were not made aware of what it would cost them to become members of the new fund—and there cannot be many of them—they could be sympathetically dealt with if they were to apply by way of petition to the Select Committee on Pensions. The number involved cannot be very great. I have had a look at the actuaries’ report on the fund which was tabled yesterday. There is an indication of the number of pensioners who are still receiving benefits under the original Act, but there is no indication of the number of people who have yet to go on pension and who are members of that fund. Perhaps if the Minister could give us this information it would make it easier for us to appreciate what this concession will mean, firstly in respect of the numbers who will be involved, and secondly whether it will have any effect at all on the financial position of the new fund. I note from the actuarial report that the deficit is now R57,000,000.

It is impossible to say how many will avail themselves of this benefit.

But how many are there still in the service who could avail themselves of it?.

That has not been determined yet.

I do not think it can be a great number. I am quite sure that all those who are in the service now will avail themselves of this opportunity to join the new fund, particularly in view of the increased benefits which will come their way. That, in turn, will have an effect on the actuarial position of the old fund, and of course it will have an effect on the new fund as well, although I do not think it will make a great deal of difference. But I think we have to bear that point in mind. Now, the requests we will get from pensioners, to which I referred earlier, will have to be met. I refer to those who went on pension since 1949. I do not know what the Minister has in mind. I think by way of interjection yesterday he made it clear that this will only apply to existing servants, and not to pensioners. I think we should look at that more closely and see whether something cannot be done, because it makes a tremendous difference to the pensions of those who have been retired since 1949.

Now I turn to Clause 57 of the Bill, which deals with the alleged loophole which was referred to by the non. member for Bloemfontein (East) in respect of the strike clause. The Minister has not given us a picture of what actually happened which made it possible for this machinery not to be used, and for the work-to-the-service-manual strike by members of the Airways staff to take place. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) said we must not blame the Minister because this section of the staff association had no discussions with the Minister at all before they got involved in their work-to-the-service-manual strike. That is a grave statement, but the hon. member did not say that the association had not had discussions with the Administration. They had, but the fact that they had not got as far as the Minister is not altogether the fault of the staff association, and we must remember that.

Why?

Mr. EATON: The hon. member asks why. Let us have a look at the amendment which was passed by this House in 1963. I am putting this forward now to the Minister as a possible weakness in this legislation. Although I have not had any discussion with the Airways staff, I am putting a construction upon the Act which the Minister may be in the position to refute or comment on when he replies to the debate. But it appears to me that there is this weakness, and if the Airways staff saw this weakness and have not commented on it they are to blame to that extent. The point here is this. In regard to disputes, it says that “whenever representations have been made to the Administration by the staff associations jointly, or by one or more staff associations individually”, certain things must be done. So the onus is on the staff association, and not on the group of workers represented by that staff association. And if this group—and this is the technical section—could not persuade their staff association to take their case forward, then we have a weakness in the Act. Let us take the matter one step further. It says further on “in connection with an improvement in the conditions of service of the staff or of members of any such group, or other matters, and it has not proved possible to reach agreement, through the Conditions of Employment Advisory Board or otherwise”. The point here is this, that there were discussions between these representatives of the staff association, or group of technicians, and the management. There is no denying that those discussions took place and that an agreement could not be reached.

You are quite wrong.

Well, if agreement had been reached there would have been no dispute.

There were no discussions.

Well, the information which was conveyed to us through the Press was that there had been discussions and that no agreement had been reached at all. Now I am not going to believe that the work-to-the-service-manual campaign took place without any discussions between the Airways personnel and the Management at all, whether it was the Assistant General Manager (Airways) I do not know. But I do believe that discussions took place. It may be true that they did not get to the Minister.

That is quite wrong.

Then the Press has been misinformed. You see, Sir, we have no other way of getting this type of information. The Minister cannot say in this House that nobody from the General Manager downwards, know that there was trouble in the Airways section. It has an important bearing on the legislation which we are now discussing. I want to take this matter a step further. In terms of the amendments which we passed in 1963, the staff association, if it were to take the initiative and make representations to the Management in respect of a section of the staff, would be in order. I must remind the hon. the Minister that this particular staff association with which we are dealing now has very little in common with the Airways personnel. They are a technicians section which was formerly associated with the Artisans’ Staff Association where there was a common interest, but because of disputes and difficulties there, the Minister has now placed them in Group A. The Airways technicians have very little in common with the rest of the staff in Group A. That brings me to this next point as far as the Act is concerned: If the Administration is not satisfied that the grievances put forward by a section of the staff are valid, then they do not proceed to take the necessary steps to have a commission appointed to go into the dispute, and at that stage the initiative returns to the section of the staff concerned. But what have they got to be able to do before they can get the State President to appoint a commission? That is dealt with in Section 28, sub-section II of Act No. 7 of 1963.

The majority of members of the staff association concerned—not the majority of the members affected by the dispute. Sir, it is quite clear to me that this is a weakness in the Act. How does this group of Airways technicians, for example, get redress if the Management is not prepared to accept that they have a legitimate complaint and do not as a management, take the initiative and refer the matter to the State President? If they do not do that then how on earth is this relatively small section of the staff in Group A, going to persuade the majority of those in Group A, to support them in their petition when the majority have absolutely nothing in common with these Airways technicians? It is perfectly clear from this that the machinery that has been substituted for strike action has this weakness in it.

I do not agree at all.

Well we can disagree on this point.

The staff organizations do not agree with you either.

Let us look at the matter as it would appear to anyone who looks at it impartially. Here we have the Airways technicians who are associated with a group of staff associations represented by Group A, and they have what they consider to be a genuine grievance; they make representations to the Management; I do not think there can be any argument about that; they did make representations to the Management. The Management is in a position either to do something about it or to tell them that it is not going to do anything about it. In terms of this same amending legislation of 1963, there are two conditions which are imposed on the Management, conditions which they have to be satisfied about before they refer the matter to the State President. These two conditions are the following—

Secondly—

I cannot believe that the Management were not aware that if this section of the staff were to go on a work-to-the-service-manual campaign, it would not have an effect on “he public interest in general or the efficiency of the Service in particular”. The Management must have been aware that if a campaign of that sort were to be embarked upon it would have that effect, and if they were satisfied that it would have that effect, then the Management, not the staff associations, were obliged in terms of this Act to apply to the State President for the appointment of a commission. That was not done and one can only assume that the Management was satisfied that the legislation we passed in 1963 would prevent any such action by the Airways personnel and then thought to themselves, “well, what can they do? They cannot go on strike”. I say therefore that the onus was on the Administration, not on the staff association to apply for the appointment of a commission of inquiry. But if the Administration were correct and they were satisfied that these conditions to which I have referred did not apply, then the onus becomes that of the disgruntled personnel to convince a majority of the members in that staff association to support them. Now, this is where I say the weakness exists: The Airways personnel would know in advance that they are not likely to get the majority of the members of Group A, the salaried staff, to support them in this action; they would know that in advance, so what can they do? The Administration has failed to act in terms of the Act because they are not prepared to accept that the grievance is genuine and that if the grievance is genuine it is not going to lead to any sort of disruption, so they take no action in the matter.

Your information is entirely wrong.

Sir, the Minister will be in a position to reply to the debate and we will then be in a position to appreciate what made it possible for the action taken by the Airways personnel to take place. According to the Press, representations were made to the Management—not to the Minister but to the Management—and I say it is unfortunate that the whole position developed in that way, because this was a test as to whether the legislation introduced in 1963 was effective or not in meeting what had been known in the past as strike action. If there is any weakness here we should consider that before we consider the steps which are now going to be taken by the Minister if the House approves of the amendments which he has put forward to-day.

Let me deal with the amendments themselves. The Minister has made it quite clear that he does not want any further development along the lines of a work-to-the-service-manual campaign. What does this involve? It is difficult to see how the Minister is going to meet the position if there are service manuals in existence which lay down what has to be done by the personnel and the personnel decide that they are going to carry out those instructions and that they are not going to take any short-cuts. The same thing would apply if other sections of the staff were to say that they were going to work to the regulations. The Minister is in fact going to be faced with the position that there are sections of the staff who can be charged in terms of the regulations for not carrying out their duties efficiently. We all know that in many, many instances no charges are preferred because what has become customary has almost become universal and the regulations are being broken but it is done almost with the consent of both sides. There are cases of that sort and working to the service manual is another illustration where, if it could be proved that the service manual has not been abided by, servants could be charged with neglect of duty. As long as it is possible for the service manuals to be used for disciplinary action, I find it extremely difficult to know how criminal sanctions can be applied against staff if individually or collectively they decide to take the type of action which they took in this case.

The Minister knows as I do that everything is put down in these service manuals, particularly as far as aircraft is concerned, but tests made by the manufacturers have shown, and possibly our own experience has shown, that it is not necessary to work strictly to the service manual all the time, and it would appear to me that the supervisory staff at Airways or the management generally will have to go into this question of the service manual to make it possible for the supervisory staff to issue instructions which would be carried out in the event of any further trouble of this sort. Let me put the position to the Minister in another way: During the period when the work-to-the-service-manual campaign was in progress, what power did the supervisory officers have to say to the personnel, “Do not do this, or do not do that?” and make the personnel do precisely what they normally do? What powers have the supervisory staff to do that? I think they have full powers but if they do issue such instructions they have to carry responsibility. That is where we find that the difficulty arises. The supervisory staff can hide behind the service manual at any time by saying to the staff under them, “Yes, you should have done that; you know what is stated in the service manual.” That is why I say to the Minister that it seems to me that he either has to make up his mind to have the service manual revised or he has to give specific instructions to the supervisory staff to make quite sure that the correct procedures are adopted by the staff and that it is not left to them to determine what should be done and what should not be done to ensure the safe working of the Airways. Therefore I say that we are in this difficulty and it is not correct for Government members to say to us that we are now going back on what we supported in 1963 in respect of strike action. What we are endeavouring to do is to point out to the Minister that this machinery that was set up to take the place of strike action is defective and has been shown to be defective by the fact that it has been possible for a work-to-the-service-manual campaign to be proceeded with and the Minister has not been able to do anything in terms of the Act, as it read then, to put the matter right. Under these conditions therefore we as an Opposition see in this amendment a most unfair weapon to be used against the staff when the machinery provided for does not give them the protection they require when they feel that they have a genuine grievance. I think that the Minister with the long experience he has had in the Department of Labour as well as in the Railway Administration will be the first to admit that if machinery does not exist for the proper settlement of disputes, then it is futile to introduce sanctions of the sort that we have in this Bill against the staff where they have a genuine grievance. We must remember that there must have been a genuine grievance because as a result of the work-to-the-service-manual campaign they did get benefits. If they had not been given those benefits, one would then assume that they did not have a case to begin with, so one cannot argue that they got involved in a dispute of this sort without having a genuine grievance. I know that the Minister when he replies to this debate will tell us where the breakdown took place. If the breakdown took place as a result of weaknesses in the Act and the Minister has not drawn attention to those weaknesses by way of amendment, then I say that we are justified in saying that we are not prepared to accept what he is doing in Clause 57 in respect of the widening of the definition of “strike”. I think it is a fair proposition to put to the Minister: Amend the machinery if it can be shown to be faulty, and if that is not sufficient, then come along with an amendment such as the one he has suggested. But at this stage I am convinced that the weakness lies in the existing legislation, because I cannot conceive of a section of the staff of the Railways taking the action which they did if there had been a way to overcome their difficulties by the utilization of the machinery provided for in the Act. For these reasons, Sir, I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate, he will spend some time in giving us details as to what happened to bring about a breakdown in the negotiations between the Airways personnel in particular and the management in respect of grievances which they claimed they had, because it can have an important bearing on the attitude that we adopt in the Committee Stage of this Bill.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) has tried, in all sorts of ways, to explain this inconsistent attitude on the part of the United Party Opposition in respect of this amendment and the attitude which they adopted when the principal Act was passed in this House in 1963. The hon. member did not succeed, however, in convincing anybody on this side of the House that this action of theirs is anything but a transparent, opportunistic deed with an eye on the forthcoming Provincial elections. The hon. member, in his attempt to explain why they are now opposing this amendment, tried to place the blame everywhere except where it belongs. Amongst other things, he said that the existing conciliation machinery, which was created in 1963 and which they supported, did not come into its own in the case of the problem of the Airways technicians, not as a result of the attitude of the people who were involved in the go-slow strike, but as a result of the attitude of the management and the Minister. He tries to place the onus on the Administration and not where it properly belongs. He says that it was due to the failure of the Administration to act that no request was made for the appointment of a commission of inquiry. Sir, as I read the Act, it is clear to me that the majority of the members of the staff association concerned must ask for the appointment of such a commission. The onus rests on the majority of the members of the staff association concerned to ask for the appointment of such a commission; it does not rest upon the Administration, as he tried to represent here.

Work-according-to-the-manual amounts to nothing but a go-slow strike and the Opposition cannot get away from that. It is nothing but a camouflaged strike. Sir, I do not think that the Opposition are so short-sighted and so stupid as to try to make themselves believe that this is something other than a camouflaged strike. The fact that they tried to create a different impression here is due to pure willfulness on their part.

You misread the Act.

That hon. member knows nothing about the Act. The fact of the matter is that according to the existing industrial legislation the staff engaged in certain essential services are prohibited from striking, and our national transport service is one of those essential services. This is a principle which is subscribed to by the Opposition. In terms of the legislation which was passed here in 1963, and which the Opposition subscribed to and supported, staff associations are not permitted to go on strike. What is the difference between work-according-to-the-manual and a go-slow strike?

There is a very great difference.

In 1963 when we passed the Act here which prohibited strikes by members of the Railway staff, Parliament at the same time provided adequate conciliation machinery in terms of which any dissatisfied trade union can settle its disputes, and the president of the Federal Council of Artisan Staff Associations admits that this amendment contains no new definition of the word “strike”. The Artisan Staff Association had the opportunity, before the 1963 Act was passed by this House, to meet the Minister, to put forward proposals, to suggest amendments, and as a matter of fact some of those amendments were accepted. What I cannot understand is this: Now that we are bringing about an amendment in this Bill to achieve the aims of the 1963 Act, now that we are creating machinery here to make it possible for the terms of that Act to be implemented efficiently in practice, we find that that same staff association comes along and says that they cannot support this amendment. To my mind that attitude is inconsistent. Here we have an Act which was passed in 1963, an Act which the United Party Opposition and the Artisan Staff Association wholeheartedly supported. They supported the principle that the staff of the Railways should not have the right to strike. We were all agreed on the Act, but it has since become clear that there are certain loopholes which in practice make it impossible to achieve the aims of the Act. This House now comes along with a measure to close those loopholes and to make it possible for the Act to be administered in practice, but we find that my hon. friends opposite and the Artisan Staff Association are opposed to it.

Sir, I just want to read out what Mr. Liebenberg said according to yesterday’s Cape Times—

The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) comes here and says precisely the same thing in the course of his speech. Sir, no member of the staff will be punished if he carries out his duties in the normal way. Nobody who carries out his duties in the normal way need have any fear that he will be punished under this Act. It is clearly provided for in sub-sec. (b) of this clause that there must be a deliberate departure from the normal working procedure; there must be joint, planned action, and then only such a member of the staff will be liable to punishment. Nobody who carries out his duties in the normal way can be punished under this Act. According to this statement made by Mr. Liebenberg steps may be taken against a member of the staff if he works according to the regulations, whereas he can also be punished if he does not work according to the regulations. I want to refer for a moment to the staff regulations. I want to refer to the Gazette Extraordinary of 15 June 1960 which deals with the duties of a servant. As far as the responsibility of the staff is concerned, it is stated here specifically (translated)—

That is what is expected of him in terms of the regulations; he must be obedient and he must not be negligent or indolent in the performance of his duties. Sir, I say that no servant of the Railways can carry out his duties according to the relevant regulation, which I have just quoted here, if he works according to the manual, because if he works according to the manual it means that he is deliberately disobeying the lawful authority. In the second place, if he works according to the manual it means that he is being deliberately indolent in the performance of his duties. Moreover, it means that he is being blatantly dishonest inasmuch as he is stealing the administration’s money and wasting its time, and if he works according to the manual it also means that he is making himself guilty of intolerable misconduct by defying the lawful authority. That is the spirit of this regulation which I quoted a moment ago. If a person works according to the manual, then in my opinion he is contravening the regulations. I want to emphasize once again that there are sufficient and satisfactory channels for the settlement of staff disputes. In the first place there is the method of negotiation with the authorities, negotiation with the management, and if members of the staff and trade unions cannot get satisfaction from the management, they can appeal to the Minister, and if they are not satisfied with the Minister’s decision they can appeal to an advisory council on which there are representatives of both the staff association and of the management. And if they cannot get satisfaction there, then the majority of the members of the staff association concerned can ask for the appointment of a commission by the State President. The commission’s finding is binding, and the position now, unlike the position in the past, is that the Minister has to implement the commission’s decision. I want to tell the hon. member for Umhlatuzana that experience has shown that this conciliation machinery is effective. He says that the opportunity which arose during the recess was a golden opportunity to test this machinery. There was such an opportunity and it proved that this new machinery was effective.

Mr. Speaker, shortly after this Airways technicians’ incident I happened to be in Johannesburg. I know many railwaymen there. Many of them have been transferred to Johannesburg from my constituency. Shortly after my arrival there I heard that there was a go-slow strike in the Braamfontein marshalling yards. It appeared that the train staff in the Braamfontein marshalling yards had put forward certain claims in connection with rest periods and matters of that kind, and there was very nearly a serious disruption of the service. What happened? Those people eventually went to the Advisory Council. They talked things over at a round-table conference and a satisfactory solution was arrived at. They acted in terms of the existing machinery and they found a satisfactory solution, which proves, to my mind, that the machinery is effective in those cases where it is resorted to.

Since the machinery is supposed to be so effective, may I ask the hon. member why the Airways servants were forced to resort to the steps which they did take?

That came out clearly in this debate—if the hon. member had only listened. Those people did not go through those channels; they did not avail themselves of the channels which were open to them; they did not ask for the appointment of a commission.

It was not necessary.

What does the hon. member know about this matter?

Reply to the question.

I replied to the question of the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) a moment ago. I say that in the case of the Airways technicians they did not make use of the existing machinery and that is why they failed in their efforts.

Deliberately?

I do not know why they did not do so. Perhaps the hon. member knows better than I do what was behind their attitude. I do not know why they did not do so. Mr. Speaker, it is clear to me that the existing machinery in the case which I mentioned a while ago, functioned effectively, and that is why I have confidence in that machinery.

In this statement made by Mr. Liebenberg to the Cape Times it is also stated—

What Mr. Liebenberg is saying here is that he accepts that the Railways must be regarded as an essential service and that in terms of the relevant industrial legislation members of the staff have no right to strike.

Sir, I want to know in what way a strike or a go-slow strike can have worse consequences than a work-to-the manual campaign. May I point out to you, Sir, the detrimental effects of the action taken by this group of Airways servants. In the first instance action of this kind gives rise to an immediate reaction from other groups. It sets them a bad example. There are always disgruntled groups of people in the Service. One finds that on a larger scale in a large service such as the Railways than in any other service. There are always groups of people who believe that they have a legitimate claim. I want to put this to hon. members on the other side: If such a group of servants take matters into their own hands and obtain concessions along these lines, do hon. members opposite think that the other groups will sit back and not follow their example? As a matter of fact, the Braamfontein incident was the outcome of the action taken by the Airways technicians. The drivers and firemen at Braamfontein followed their bad example and decided to put forward their own claims. Action of this kind always gives rise to a reaction; it sets a bad example.

In the second place, such action causes dislocation and harm out of all proportion to the claims of the people concerned. Mr. Speaker, just think of the case of the Airways technicians. Just think what their action cost the country and the public in terms of money, inconvenience and disruption and then aks yourself whether the harm, the disruption, caused to the country by the action of these people is not out of all proportion to their claims. I do not want to allege for a moment that these people had no case, but I say that there were channels open to them through which they could have achieved the same aim that they did achieve. South Africa cannot tolerate a situation where the interests of the country are made subservient to the interests of a small group of people. But, Sir, action of this kind has another detrimental effect. It affords the opportunity to a small group of hotheads amongst a certain group of workers to incite the workers, to ignore the trade union leaders, to harm the interests of the country, to take the law into their own hands and to run amok to their heart’s content. We cannot allow that and unless we bring about the amendment to the Act, then we must expect small groups of people to take similar action in the future. We cannot tolerate that. I want to refer again to the case in Braamfontein. I was informed that in the case of Braamfontein it was not the trade unions who followed that method to put forward their claims; the trade union leaders wanted to follow the usual procedure but there was a small group of hotheads who simply took things into their own hands. They shouted down the chairman of their trade union and simply ran amok. Sir, this Act places no obstacle in the way of trade unions and moderate trade union leaders; indeed this Act protects the trade unions and it protects trade union leaders from the actions of hotheads in their own ranks. And this is of the utmost importance because otherwise we would have chaos within a short space of time. Steps taken by a small group of hotheads only make the trade union leaders and the trade unions themselves unpopular; it brings the trade unions and their leaders into discredit with the public. As a result of their actions they often lose the sympathy that they would otherwise get from the public when they have a good case. Not only do they lose the sympathy of the public but they also lose the sympathy of their own people. There are large numbers of railway-men to-day who simply do not participate in and who are indifferent towards the activities of trade unions as the result of this very thing. They are sick and tired of that sort of conduct. They say it is infra dig for them to participate in such conduct. We are constantly trying to encourage these people to take part in the activities of trade unions, but if we make it possible for a small group of ringleaders to behave in this way, then we cannot expect decent people to associate themselves with their conduct.

I believe that every railway servant should have a lawful right to take his legitimate demands to the highest authority, but at the same time I believe that we have adequate conciliation machinery at the present time in the existing Act to meet the case of every individual and every artisan. Experience has shown that it can function effectively. We cannot tolerate strikes in any shape or form in the national transport system of this country. It is perfectly clear to me that the Opposition are simply grasping this opportunity to see whether in this case too, as in other debates that we have had recently, they cannot convince a small group of people that they (the Opposition) are their friends. But, Sir, our people outside are no longer so stupid. No, the United Party Opposition must be consistent. They voted with us for this Act. The trade unions approved of it; they were consulted and they agreed to it. As the Act reads to-day it is ineffective; we cannot achieve our aims. Unless it is amended it cannot be implemented in practice. We can only infer from the attitude of the Opposition that they do not want the 1963 Act to serve its purpose and that is why they are opposing this clause.

The hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé) concluded his speech on a rather angry note. I want to tell him immediately that as far as his attack upon the United Party in connection with this matter is concerned, it is very significant that the attitude of the United Party in regard to the 1963 Act is being completely wrongly interpreted in this House to-day. What did the United Party say in 1963? It was stated categorically that the United Party was opposed to the right to strike provided effective conciliation machinery was made available in its stead. The question now arises as to whether this incident, to which the hon. member for Parow and the hon. the Minister referred, does not perhaps demonstrate the ineffectiveness of that machinery. I think the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) put forward a very strong case to which I can come back later.

The hon. member for Parow referred to Mr. Liebenberg. In the same breath he told us that we were just being obstinate. But if there is anyone who ought to know the provisions of this Bill, it is Mr. Liebenberg. I am sure the hon. member will not dispute that. Does the hon. member want to tell me that Mr. Liebenberg was simply being willful, that he was simply trying to cause trouble when he said that he was also worried about the Bill? The hon. member will hardly say that because he knows that Mr. Liebenberg is a responsible person who knows this Bill, as well as the previous Acts, probably just as well as if not better than the hon. member himself. Since Mr. Liebenberg is as worried about things as we are, I do not think it behoves the hon. member to say that we are simply being obstinate in regard to this whole matter.

Mr. Speaker, let us look at the Bill as we have it before this House. The hon. the Minister explained the Bill to us, a Bill which in many respects does a great deal of good for the staff, even for the Bantu staff, a Bill which prohibits the entry of certain shipping to our harbours and which provides for better control of the distribution of liquor on railway premises. It was mentioned just in passing that the definition of “strike” was also being widened. The hon. the Minister also referred more or less in passing to the fact that this was linked up with the incident referred to previously. He told us no more than that. In 1963 we had a very long debate in regard to the question of strikes but the hon. the Minister told us nothing on that occasion. He did not tell us why the machinery had failed. The Press had a great deal to say about it, the public know about the whole incident and everyone was talking about it. I also happened to visit some airports during that period and everywhere I went I found that there was public sympathy for that specific group of people. But the hon. the Minister gave us no facts at all. The hon. the Minister told us that he had dealt with the matter in 1963 and that he was not going to do so again. When the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) put forward specific facts, the hon. the Minister told him that some of his facts were wrong. Then the shining light of Bloemfontein, the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) (Mr. van Rensburg) told us that the hon. the Minister had stated that it was only on 8 October of last year …

Tell us rather what you have to say; we have heard what they said; we want to hear what you have to say.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member wants to know what I have to say but my problem is that I do not know whether he realizes just how wrong hon. members on his side were. He ought to have corrected them. He sits there and listens to incorrect statements made by hon. members of the Government party and he does nothing about it.

The point that I want to make is this: The hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) actually attacked this side of the House because we considered it necessary to ask what the staff associations had to say about this matter. He said: “How dare the United Party ask such a question? You are a football in the hands of these people; you have no point of view of your own; you consult these people.” Do you know, Mr. Speaker, when this same matter was discussed in this House in 1963, the hon. the Minister’s trump card was the fact that the staff associations agreed with that legislation. I want to ask this question: Let us assume that they were not in agreement. Would the hon. the Minister nevertheless have come forward with this legislation against the wishes of those staff associations? The fact of the matter is that the hon. the member for Bloemfontein (East) has revealed no logic whatsoever in his arguments.

The question that worries me is this: The 1963 Act gave the railway workers machinery which both sides of the House regarded as being extremely efficient machinery. We told those people: “We are taking away your right to strike and in its stead we are giving you machinery which will ensure that your interests are fully protected.” Sir, there are one or two things which worry me. Did we have this incident in Johannesburg just because the staff were irresponsible; did we have it simply because the Management did not perhaps give them a hearing—in which case it was the fault of the Management—or did we perhaps have it because there was a weakness in the Act? I do not think we should close our eyes to the fact if it was due to a weakness in the Act. We promised these people a quid pro quo. If the trouble lies with the Act, apart from the question of strike action, then it is the duty of this House to rectify the position in the interests of the thousands of railway workers in South Africa. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana said that as the Act read at present, the majority of the members of a staff association—if I interpret its provisions correctly—have to express a particular wish before a petition can be submitted to the State President. Surely it is clear that a staff association may consist of more than one group; it may consist of five groups, five groups which fall under the umbrella of one staff association. There may be one group which has a real grievance but that group does not make up 50 per cent of the total membership and it may have no prospect of getting the support of the others. In that event those people will have no rights at all, this conciliation machinery will not cover their particular difficulty.

I want to put this question to the hon. the Minister: If we have a case then there can be no further argument. If we are correct in saying that here a group of people who, in spite of the fact that they were members of a staff association, simply found themselves in a position, as a result of circumstances, where this specific conciliation machinery could do nothing for them, then I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not our duty to rectify this matter. Do not let us simply deprive them of their weapon. Let us give them a quid pro quo; let us give them something in its place. We must also ensure that that specific group of a staff association receives the necessary protection if they have a sound case.

Why should that group not be able to convince their friends that they have a case?

The hon. member asks why this group of the association cannot convince the staff association as such that they have a grievance. They may possibly be able to do so, but let us assume that they cannot do so.

Then they do not have a good case.

The hon. member says that they do not have a good case then. Mr. Speaker, who is he to judge? Why do we not leave this right in the hands of the railway workers who over the years have proved to be one of the most responsible groups of people in our country? Does the hon. member for Parow now want to say to these people, “We will make it our business to find out whether you have a grievance or not?” Who is he to pass judgment? No, I should prefer to leave the matter to the railway workers themselves.

And if their own people do not support them?

I have nothing more to ask the hon. the Minister. But there is a second point I want to make. I want to make a further appeal to the hon. the Minister to give further consideration to Clause 12 of the Bill which deals with the prohibition placed on certain ships. To my mind the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn), who raised the matter originally, made out a very good case for a review of Clause 12 (b) (c). This deals with the case of a person who is or was a member of the crew of a ship and who has committed a crime. That ship can then be prohibited from entering the harbour. As I see the position there are a few alternatives. The man may perhaps have committed the crime in the past while the ship was within our territorial waters and because of that fact the ship then has to suffer. Such a person may perhaps commit a crime at some future date. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to reconsider the matter. I think a case has been made out for this position to be rectified.

I did not intend participating in this debate but it seems to me that hon. members opposite rather feel like talking, so one is simply obliged to reply. It seems to me that the United Party is raising a false alarm? But, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. the Minister had introduced this legislation just after the provincial election, the whole Opposition would have supported it unanimously. There would then have been no objection to this legislation.

The hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman) who has just sat down, said that it was possible for up to five groups to belong to one staff association. His difficulty is that when one of those groups has a grievance, it will not succeed in gaining the support of 50 per cent or half of the members of that staff association. Actually, the position is very simple indeed: If the particular group which has the grievance cannot succeed in obtaining the support of the majority of the members of its staff association, then I personally believe that it has no case. I am sure the hon. member for Maitland is not so stupid that he cannot appreciate that. If they have a case they ought to be able to succeed in obtaining the support not only of 50 per cent but of all the members of that staff association.

May I ask the hon. member a question? I just want to know whether the hon. member agrees that it is conceivable that there may be jealousy between groups belonging to the same staff association?

Yes, it is quite possible. After all, look at the jealousy there is in the United Party! Why then should that jealousy not exist within a staff association? I say again that if a group within a staff association has any sort of case at all the rest of the association ought to support it. In my opinion therefore that argument of the hon. member for Maitland falls away.

I want to come back now to the Airways technicians. That demand was made on 17 September. But on 13 August—about a month earlier—their secretary had discussions with the Administration and at that stage not one single word was mentioned about wage demands.

Why not?

That is precisely what I want to know. Why did they not make those wage demands at that stage? Now the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) actually has the effrontery to say that the hon. the Minister know about the grievances of these people months beforehand. Where does the hon. member get that from?

Those grievances had existed since May.

That hon. member may know more than the General Manager of Railways or even the hon. the Minister does. The hon. the Minister stated emphatically that those people did not approach him with their grievances. He said this last year at the time of the strike and I think he will say it again. Only the hon. member himself will know where he got the information that these people made demands for increased wages over a period of months. I cannot imagine what the source is of all the nonsense that he talks here.

Mr. Speaker, trade unions are a good thing; workers’organizations are necessary. But just as an employer is required to treat his employee in a sensible way, so the employee is also required to act sensibly by making use of his trade unions. As has been correctly said here by the hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé), the staff of the Airways is placed in a very bad light by irresponsible actions. The way to negotiation is open to those people at all times; these are the channels through which they can approach the hon. the Minister and the Administration. It will be in the interests of all trade unions to make use of the channels which have been set up and which will be set up by this amending Bill in order to ensure in the future that they do not bring down upon themselves the displeasure of the public. I believe that this legislation will successfully ensure that the necessary services in our country, such as our Airways and our Railways, services which we cannot afford to allow to stand idle for a single moment are kept running smoothly. I believe that we will then be doing the public a service and that we will also be doing a service to the staff associations. We trust that as a result of this legislation the staff associations will act in such a way that they will be able to render a service to the public of South Africa while at the same time compelling the respect and admiration of the public.

The view expressed by the last few speakers, namely that the opposition to certain clauses of this Bill, more particularly to the clause we have just discussed, is due to the impending Provincial election must, of course, immediately be discarded. I do not think those hon. members have in any way tackled the arguments advanced from this side of the House. This side of the House approves of most of the clauses of this Bill. They are necessary clauses and they will bring certain improvements about. Certain clauses have also been put into the Bill because certain circumstances have arisen which have made it necessary, in the interests of the country, to have the power to take this type of action. But we are completely puzzled by Clause 57 which seeks to invest the Minister with powers which go very much further than one would have expected. The whole question of the dispute that arose is not only a question of following Press statements but it became a very acute and important problem in our air services. So much so that many of the letters that has passed between the Department and the organization came to light and indicated that there was considerable dissatisfaction; that there was a dispute. It took a long time before this matter eventually was dealt with. I think it should have been dealt with immediately. The artisans resorted to what the Minister calls a “go-slow” attitude, or “working according to the manual” which the Department felt was contrary to the spirit of the 1963 amendment to the Act and which has now been incorporated as part of the conditions which can be fitted into the definition of the word “strike”. But it goes very far indeed, because what it virtually does is to stultify completely any grievances on the part of this particular group of employees, to such an extent, Sir, that they can virtually be left at the mercy of the Administration, which, I think, generally is a very bad situation to arise in an important service of this nature. But the point I would like to make is that I looked through the General Manager’s Report for the previous year and I think that there is some important defect in the whole set-up and that is the question of public relations, not between the Administration and the public only, but between the Administration and the employees. Surely this situation could have been avoided had there been sound public relations, or some public relations department that could immediately have tackled this problem and avoided what actually took place. For some years now I have suggested to the hon. Minister that in my view the Air Administration should fall within the confines of the general Railway Administration. The railway service is a service which has a considerably larger number of employees than the air service and I think follows an entirely different pattern.

Now if one were to have dealt with the air services as a separate organization entirely within the Department of Transport, conditions such as this would never have arisen. They would have had an association entirely of their own, they would not have fallen under an association which encompasses a very much larger number of persons whose interests are entirely different. So this situation could well have been avoided and the machinery provided in 1963 could well have been used, because they certainly would then have had the support of their association in this matter being referred, as provided, to the State President for the appointment of some commission. I do not think there is any doubt about it that this particular dispute when it arose should have been dealt with immediately. What is taking place now is that in order to avoid such a situation, this far-reaching legislation is being sought and powers are being sought by the Minister. How is one to define what is described here in 1bis (b), the new provision which is added to Section 28bis of the Act? How is one to define a situation in air services which can from time to time, under differing circumstances, be suddenly faced with an emergency where services have to be maintained on time, where conditions arise when people have to work right through the night, to work beyond normal hours, where you require a tremendous amount of devotion by the staff in order to maintain this very important service? How are you going to define what is “normal work” and what is “a normal tempo” and how is one going to say that because a certain particular tempo has been established, the reduction of that tempo means that there is a concerted action which can be interpreted as a strike? My fear is that those who have spoken on the Government side do not entirely appreciate what air services really mean. The hon. Minister does know, because he has shown a considerable interest in this type of work, but he has said over the years that he was satisfied that it was not necessary to separate this service from the Railways, that it was running satisfactorily and at a profit. I maintain, however, that it is not satisfactory. This situation has arisen purely because Airways form part of the Railway Administration instead of being divorced from the general Railway Administration. I believe that then all this would not have been necessary, because such a situation would not have developed. There is this enormous difference between the Airways and workshops of the Railways. Tempo and working to the manual in the air services has become one of the important features. Another factor that has to be taken into account is a very important and vital one, and that is that the manual is one of the important aspects of maintenance of aircraft and services to aircraft. It is modified from time to time, it depends a great deal on the manufacturer’s advice which is being sent to the various owners who use a particular type of aircraft. There are times when you have a complete air fleet grounded in order to bring about a modification to certain parts of a particular aircraft, because as a result of research weaknesses have been discovered. There is continual research and very often an entirely different tempo is brought about. People work under most difficult circumstances in order to ensure that modifications are brought about as soon as possible. So the whole aspect of air services in my view differs completely from the aspect of railway services to which we have been accustomed over very many years in this country. You have two entirely different types of service, and I cannot see why the hon. Minister has resisted this separation of the two types of services. If you look at other countries, you find that other countries also have national air services. These national air services have no affinity at all to the railway services of those countries. There is a country like Australia which, to-day, has three services, two of which are in private hands and one of which is in the hands of the State, but they are run as air service organizations and are not allied to another form of transport which, in my view, has no affinity at all—the problems are entirely different. One cannot be surprised that staff associations, the major number of whose members are quite apart from the air services, will not appreciate the attitude adopted by those who are engaged in this highly technical department of airways. Even pilots and other air-crew fall into an entirely different category. For instance they have to undergo examinations every six months in order to ensure their fitness. We are dealing with this very thing in the Bill before us where we are extending the age of retirement to 55, and in the accompanying memorandum we are told, correctly, that there is no danger because these men are subject to very severe medical examinations every six months. It is a service which in my view differs completely from the Railway service. We would like to know from the hon. Minister why it is necessary to adopt such a stringent method when we should have dealt with this matter knowing the importance of avoiding any slowing up of services because of the exact timetables that have to be complied with. I believe, Sir, that there should be no penalization of the staff of an organization by such severe methods as are being used here, simply because the Minister feels that that is the best way to deal with it in order to maintain proper schedules. I believe that the matter could have been dealt with immediately, and it is not so much a question of Press statements—I am referring to an interjection of the hon. Minister when the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) was speaking of “does he believe all that the Press says?” This thing became a matter of moment, particularly in Johannesburg where our important international port of entry exists, and it became a matter of moment because it lasted for some time and it was a matter that affected a considerable number of the travelling public. Therefore I believe that that matter should have received entirely different attention than what it received in this instance. It was not an ordinary railway dispute where the majority of the workers do work entirely under their own trade unions.

It is not surprising therefore that we are obliged to take the attitude that we have and to oppose this clause. We believe that it is not in the interests of proper mediation or conciliation that in order to avoid situations like this stringent legislation of this type should be passed. I would like the hon. Minister in answer to me to say why there is no public relations department existing in the organization which could have avoided this receiving the light of day that it did, and secondly, whether the time has not arrived with this enormous expansion in our air traffic, both external and internal, where we are stretching out to various countries in the world, at a pace which has been considerably accelerated in the last few years, to divide once and for all the administration of these two sections of transport and to enable the air people to establish trade unions of their own, dealing with their own people, and dealing with the facets of their own type of work?

I first want to reply to a few questions put to me by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn). He asked why pensioners could not also enjoy the opportunity to contribute to the new fund, as is now provided for in the Bill. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) also raised this matter. The reply is that since 1925 options have been granted to the staff from time to time to contribute to the new fund in regard to previous service, which was temporary service, or in the case of members of the old pension fund. Options were granted from time to time, but on no occasion was it also made applicable to pensioners. Therefore were it to be done now it would be a totally new principle that was being introduced, and in any case this kind of benefit is never made retrospective so as to cover pensioners. In 1951 when the Widows’ Pension Fund was established it was not made applicable either to those who had already retired on pension. Moreover, there are also practical difficulties. If this were to be done, it would entail going through some 24,000 files of pensioners in order to determine whether they had service in regard to which they could make repayments, and that would be an almost impossible task, one which would take a long time to accomplish. The third reason is that it will not be to the benefit of all pensioners, particularly not those who already receive a temporary allowance. If the pension is increased, the temporary allowance is reduced. Therefore it will not benefit the greater majority. Here the choice is now being given, and of course every member of the pension fund will first have to decide whether it will be to his advantage to make these repayments under the present circumstances.

Then the hon. member for Yeoville asked what really happened in regard to my decision to withdraw these provisions in regard to the higher retiring age of the air crew. Originally the Pilots’ Association agreed to it. In fact, they requested it and therefore I decided to include this provision in the Bill to provide for a higher retiring age. After the Bill was introduced, the Pilots’ Association met the General Manager and said that they had now held a referendum among their members and found that the majority of the members of their association were against raising the retiring age. They asked me rather to withdraw it and to reconsider it later, and I agreed to that.

In regard to the liquor provisions, the hon. member said that he was concerned about the fact that these catering services would now be handed over to the public, but that no real provision was being made for the staff. I did not understand what he meant by that.

We notice that the Minister is struggling.

No, the hon. member is so obscure. One does not always know what he means, because one day he says one thing and the next day he says something different.

The hon. member also referred to Clause 12 and asked that where there was sickness on board a ship, or a fire or something of that nature on ships which are then prohibited from entering the ports, an exception should be made. Most certainly. In regard to this matter I want to state very clearly that this is merely a permissive provision. In other words, it is a provision which gives the Government the power to take certain action if circumstances justify it. It must be clearly understood that this is merely a permissive provision. I also want to state very clearly that the Government is not in favour of boycotts. Hon. members will know that the Government as such has never yet decided on an anti-boycott in regard to any country which boycotts us, because we are convinced that boycotts have little or no value. In spite of all the so-called boycotts applied against South Africa, our trade is expanding daily and our exports are increasing. It is therefore of no value and the Government does not believe in it. But I think that any self-respecting country should have these powers so that it can take action if circumstances justify it.

We agree with that.

I merely mention it because certain hon. members voiced doubts in this regard. But the hon. member for Yeoville quite correctly asked whether 4bis (c) does not go too far where it also provides that if a member of the crew commits an offence, the ship can be prohibited from entering a harbour, and he asked whether this power was really necessary. I just want to give the House two possible examples. Supposing a ship smuggles weapons into the country, and they send a boat manned by a few crew members and loaded with weapons and they are caught by the police. The ship sails away, but the police have ascertained what ship it was. Those members of the crew who were in the boat would of course appear in court and be punished, but under those circumstances it would only be fair and just not to allow that ship to enter our harbours in future. It may also happen that the captain of a ship illegally takes diamonds from the sea in water in which there are diamonds. If any suspicion exists that this has been happening, such a ship may be prohibited from entering a harbour, or if the captain is convicted by a court such a ship may also be prohibited from entering a harbour. Those are possible examples. I do not say that it will happen, but that is the reason why it was considered, after careful consultation with the various Departments, that the Government should also be given these powers, in case something of this nature happens. There may perhaps be other cases also.

The hon. member spoke about Clauses 75 and 76, which provide that the cost of flicker-lights at railway crossings may now be defrayed from the Elimination of Level Crossings Fund. I have inserted this provision at the insistence of the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Higgerty). He raised the matter last year, and I considered that he had made a good suggestion, because it will take many years before all the dangerous crossings have been eliminated, and I think it is advisable to take some precautionary measures in the meantime. That is the feeling of the House as a whole. But now the hon. member has asked whether I can give the assurance that as the result of this there will be no delay in the elimination of crossings. I can give him that assurance. That programme will be proceeded with, viz. the elimination of crossings by means of the building of bridges or subways and the relaying of roads and railway lines. That will be continued, but this will just be an interim protective measure until such time as these crossings can be eliminated.

I now come to Clause 57. I just want to say that Mr. Liebenberg’s name has repeatedly been mentioned in this debate with reference to an interview he gave to a newspaper. Mr. Liebenberg is the president of the Artisans’ Staff Association and he is also the chairman of the Federal Consultative Council of Railways Staff Associations. I want to say immediately that I hold Mr. Liebenberg in particularly high regard. I regard him as one of the most efficient trade union leaders in South Africa, a very efficient and a very responsible man. I am, however, convinced that in regard to this matter, Mr. Liebenberg was under a misapprehension.

In so far as the Opposition is concerned, Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to have to say that I have seldom listened to so much nonsense as that to which we were subjected in regard to this particular clause, I was surprised that even attorneys on the opposite side did not even take the trouble to study the matter, attorneys like the hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller). The hon. member for Yeoville of course set the tone in his opening speech, Now I say in all seriousness that the hon. member for Yeoville is a capable man and he has a good intellect, but the unfortunate thing is that he does not make a proper study of his cases and then he thinks he can get away with it because of his eloquence. Just look at the silly allegations the hon. member made, and also certain other hon. members opposite, in regard to this particular clause. Our employees are now to be punished if they work according to regulations laid down by the Administration! The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) says:“—What is this clause worth? Can the Minister take 600 men to court?” and that after having supported this particular strike provision the year before last. Surely the position would have been the same in terms of that section without this provision! And that after he supported the Industrial Conciliation Act, Section 46, which has had precisely the same provision for the past 40 years! Then the hon. member makes such a foolish allegation!

. The hon. member for Karoo (Mr. Eden), who supported the 1963 Act, now comes along with totally new principles, and he is a member of the United Party. He now says: “Is it wrong of any employer to prohibit his workers to withhold their labour?” Have you ever heard such nonsense? That is now the United Party, which boasts of the fact that the Industrial Conciliation Act is their baby and that they passed that legislation, but that Industrial Conciliation Act has contained this prohibition of strikes by employees in essential services for 40 years already. The same United Party which in 1963 supported the principle of a prohibition of strikes by railwaymen now comes along and says through the mouth of the hon. member: “It is wrong for any employer to prohibit his workers to withhold their labour.” Does the hon. member for Yeoville agree with that? It is his fellow party member who says this. Just see how quiet hon. members opposite are now! They do not want to say yes, nor will they say no. There is one thing from which the Opposition suffers tremendously, and that is a lack of moral courage. They are afraid to repudiate, but they are just as afraid to agree with the hon. member. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana, from whom I expected more, now says: “Criminal sanctions can now be applied to staff if they work to the manual.” He also says: “Unfair weapon to be used against staff when the conciliation machinery is defective.” That is the sort of nonsense we got. If only hon. members had studied this provision, and if they had read it together with Section 7 of Act 7 of 1963, they would not have come to light with such nonsense. This means nothing more or less than this: That action can only be taken against a group of the staff when there is joint action with the object of enforcing demands. Not a single member of the Opposition even know this or took the trouble to go into it properly. Only when it is done with the object of enforcing demands … Has the hon. member never read Section 7?

Yes.

If that is so, then surely the hon. member has misled the House by his allegations. Hon. members have intimated here that if any staff group now works according to the manual or according to the regulations they can immediately be prosecuted. I call as witnesses everybody who has listened to the speeches of hon. members. Not a single one of them ever mentioned that only when it is done with the object of forcing the Administration to accede to their demands are they acting illegally—just like the provisions in regard to strikes in Section 7. Not a single one of them said so. Now what happens to their allegations?

For what other reasons can they do so?

Just let the give the hon. member an example. If, e.g., two, three or four members of the trained staff who for a long time have worked long hours without demanding, their full period of rest should decide, not in order to enforce their demands but simply because they just cannot carry on any longer, not to work such long hours and to demand a rest, then that is not an offence. I can mention numerous such examples. But as I say, that is the sort of stupidity we heard here.

The hon. member for Yeoville spoke about “scabs”. Sir, that is quite out of context in so far as this clause is concerned. When an illegal act is committed—because if this provision is passed by Parliament it will be illegal for the ordinary procedure to be deviated from with the object of enforcing demands. But now the hon. member says that in terms of this provision we expect certain members of the staff to be disloyal to their fellow workers. But those are not “scabs”. If one is not prepared to commit an illegal act, one is not a “scab”. But if it is a legal strike and one is disloyal to one’s fellow workers participating in the strike and one goes to work, the definition of “scab” applies. If the hon. member had just investigated the matter a little more, he would have known that.

Now I come to the aviation technicians, and here certain accusations were also made. I tried to stop the hon. member for Yeoville while he was still speaking. I really did not want them to put their feet too far into their mouths but, Sir, they already have both feet in their mouths as far as this matter is concerned. Accusations were made that there was an unsympathetic attitude on the part of the Administration. Representations are supposed to be made in May and the reply of the Management is supposed to come in September only. It was alleged that there was a refusal of these representations which amounted to a slight. All this was said by the hon. member for Yeoville. He of course followed the example of his leader who made those same foolish allegations in Port Elizabeth on 11 October. There again he saw an opportunity to make a little political capital, and without having any grounds, without having any information, he proceeded to make this sort of allegation. Let me first teach the hon. member and other hon. members on the other side a lesson in connection with the procedure which is followed with reference to this conciliation machinery which the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) says is so ineffective. I do not know whether hon. members know that there is a difference between the Administration and the Management and whether they know who and what constitutes the Administration of the Railways. Let me read it out to them so that they can remember it in the future. I quote from the Railways and Harbours Act—

In other words, the Administration is the Minister, acting on the advice of his board. The Management consists of the General Manager of Railways and his officials. As far as the submission of representations is concerned, let me first tell the House what the practice is. The practice is that the railway staff associations address their representations to the Management. If the Management is not prepared to agree to the representations, then they have the right to address their representations to the Minister, that is to say, the Administration, and my decision is final. The practice has always been that if they are not satisfied with the decision of the Management, they make their representations to the Minister, the Administration, and the decision of the Minister is final. It is only when the Minister, the Administration, has come to a decision that the conciliation machinery for which provision is made in the Act comes into operation. As far as the conciliation machinery is concerned, the Act provides—

Note well, not the Management, but the Administration—

then this machinery comes into operation. The representations are submitted to the Administration. If there is a dispute, it can be reported to the State President and then a commission of inquiry is appointed, and one of the members of the commission is nominated by the staff. I only deal with the staff associations—and that is all the conciliation machinery provides for—and not with groups of the staff. This is being done at the insistence of the staff associations who insist that there should be no provision for negotiations with any group of the staff, but only with the staff associations. The staff associations hold very strong views in this regard, because if the Minister or the General Manager has to negotiate with groups of the staff, or if this machinery is to be put into operation as a result of representations made by a group of the staff and not by their association, then it will completely undermine the authority of the staff association because it means that if any group of its members is dissatisfied with the decision of its executive committee, that group can make separate representations. I am surprised to find that the hon. member for Umhlatuzana does not know that.

I do know it.

Oh, now he knows it. But he says that this machinery is not working because I did not negotiate with a group of the staff.

But the Management did negotiate.

Wait, I am still coming to that. I still want to show where hon. members opposite are entirely wrong and what incorrect allegations they made in connection with this matter. But first of all I just wanted to teach them a lesson and tell them what the procedure was so that they would know in the future. As I say, I deal only with the staff associations as such. The Airways technicians are members of Sal-staff. Hon. members opposite say, “Yes, but their interests are entirely different from those of the other members of Salstaff.” That, however, is the position in all the staff associations, except in groups C and D and B, the footplate staff, the train staff and the artisans. Salstaff represents a large group of the staff. It represents different groups; it also represents the marine personnel, for example. Is there any connection between the marine staff and a clerk sitting in an office? Salstaff represents the foremen in the workshops who are salaried employees. It represents a variety of interests, but that makes no difference. Group E represents an even greater variety of different interests. These airways technicians do have their own association, a trade union, but it is not recognized; it is only recognized as part of Salstaff. That is the position.

Now we come to the allegations which have been made here. The first is in connection with the five months. It is alleged that they submitted their representations in May already and that the Management’s reply only came in September. I want to give the House the facts. Salstaff, the staff association which represents them, addressed a letter dated 17 August to the Management, in which reference is made for the first time to the wage demands of this group of the staff. No representations have previously been addressed either to the Management or to me by this staff group in connection with wage demands. They had had discussions with the Management previously in connection with ordinary working conditions and the matter was ironed out, but the first wage demands made by them’here I have a copy of the letter’were made on 17 August. Where does the hon. member, as well as his Leader, get hold of this story that they made representations as far back as May? Sir, I hope he will reply. I do not expect that he will, but I hope he will. The first representations received from Salstaff were contained in the letter dated 17 August. The Management acknowledged receipt on 18 September. On 6 October the Management again wrote a letter to Salstaff. It must be remembered that the Management deals with the staff association, not with the group, but with its recognized staff association. On 6 October the Management wrote a letter to Salstaff. It has been alleged here that it was a terribly insulting letter. The hon. member talks about the rejection of representations and he says it was insulting. Where does he get hold of that story? Sir, the hon. member has such a fertile imagination that one does not know where he gets all these things. It seems to me that he just sucked them out of his thumb. The representations were not turned down on 6 October. Here I have the letter which was written to them and which was read out to the meeting. [Interjections.] This letter asks for further information. I just want to explain that before rationalization took place two years ago there were something like 335 different wage groups. With the rationalization of wages, the number was reduced to 79. Various grades were placed within one particular wage group. To a large extent this was based on job evaluation. The value of a particular job was determined as far as possible, so as to place it within a particular group, and all this was done in consultation with the staff. When representations are made, therefore, in connection with employees in one particular group, they are asked whether they can prove that they carry more responsibility, or that their work has increased more than that of other workers in the same wage group. That is the question which is usually asked, and those questions were put to them by the Management. Here, for example, the Management wrote—

The Management then goes on to ask—

These are the questions which are asked. These people base their demands for higher wages on the fact that their work is of a more responsible nature, etc., they are then asked why they feel that their work is of a more responsible nature than that of other workers. [Interjections.] Yes, further comparisons were also made. For example, they were asked—

The hon. member may inspect this letter if he wishes to do so.

I am surprised.

Yes, but everything surprises the hon. member; I am only surprised sometimes at his ignorance. This letter was handed over to them on 6 October. The same evening they held a meeting and decided to embark on a go-slow strike. It must be remembered that they made their representations through their association and nobody had as yet turned down their representations. They had not even asked to see me. that is to say, the Administration, so that I could accede to or turn down their request or put the conciliation machinery into operation. Even before the Management had rejected their representations, they decided on the evening of 6 September, without having been prepared first to reply to the questions put to them in this letter, that they would immediately embark on a go-slow strike by working according to the manual. Sir, these are the facts, and that is why I expressed my displeasure in that connection. I know absolutely nothing about the wage demand except what I had read in the Press because the demand does not reach me until such time as the representations are forwarded to me. The Management often deals with wage demands submitted by groups of the staff through their associations. I received no representations. Nobody approached me; that is the procedure that is followed by everybody. What is worst of all is the fact that it was not their staff association, namely Salstaff, of which they are members, which called out this go-slow strike. This staff group got out of hand and embarked on a go-slow strike without the approval of its staff association and yet hon. members over there seek to defend their action. That is what happened. They decided to work according to the manual and the result was that there was a serious disruption of services. They did not even give me the opportunity to use the conciliation machinery because they never made representations to the Administration. Even before their representations had been turned down by the Management they got out of hand and embarked on a go-slow strike. I say that such a thing should not be allowed to happen and will not happen again. That is why this amendment to the Act is being proposed here. If hon. members opposite agree with this action then they are repudiating their own past; they are repudiating everything that they said last year and they are repudiating the fact that for 40 years they supported the Industrial Conciliation Act and that they boasted that they were the father of that Act.

I come now to a few other matters raised here by hon. members.

The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) and Karoo (Mr. Eden) wanted to know whether it was not advisable to establish a pension fund for Coloured servants, instead of this savings fund for which provision is now made. I do not know whether hon. members are aware that Coloured servants having five to 15 years’ service receive a gratuity, and that all those servants with more han 15 years’ service receive an annuity. In other words, at present they receive a pension which is paid by the Administration and for which they make no contribution.

But it is very small.

No, it is not so small. It all depends on the wages they earned and the length of their service. Nor are the wages very small. It depends on what job they are doing. The reason why a pension fund is not being established is that if a pension fund is introduced for Coloured servants it will have to be introduced for all non-White servants. It will have to be done for the Bantu as well as for the Coloureds, and the cost to the administration in regard to Bantu servants alone, the contribution that the Administration will have to make, will be about R800,000 a year. On account of that cost it was decided not to introduce a pension fund. They receive the gratuities and after a certain length of service they receive an annuity, and in addition they will now have the savings fund which will be in the form of a cash amount they receive when they go on pension.

When you talk about the cost for all non-White employees, does that include those temporarily employed, as well as those permanently employed?

The non-Whites are all temporarily employed. There is no provision in the Act to make the non-Whites permanent employees. Actually it is permanent employment, but it is called temporary employment. [Interjection.] I have just given the reason why a pension fund cannot be established at this stage. I do not say it will never be done.

Will the hon. the Minister explain what is the difference between the annuity and the pension?

An annuity is paid out of Railway and Harbour funds. A pension fund is a contributory scheme to which the servant contributes as well as the Administration.

In regard to the flag of convenience, that has already been taken into consideration. This is merely an enabling provision and obviously the Government will not act in such a way as to damage our own interests by prohibiting a ship carrying a flag of convenience from a particular country from using our ports. We do not intend embarking upon antiboycotts. It all depends on the circumstances at a particular time before any action will be taken against a particular ship. We have had Russian ships fishing in our waters within the 12-mile limit. You cannot have continual patrols by warships and aircraft, but at least, if they continue to contravene our laws, you can prohibit them from entering Walvis Bay to obtain stores and water.

Mr. Speaker, I think I have now replied to all the points which have been raised. If there are any other points on which hon. members want clarification, they can raise them in the Committee Stage.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move, as an unopposed motion:

1. (1) That the following members constitute the Committee of the House of Assembly, viz. the Minister of Transport, Messrs. Gay, Sauer, Dr. J. H. Steyn and Mr. Waterson; and
2. (2) that two members of each House form a quorum of the Joint Sessional Committee.
3. Agreed to.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr. Speaker, the object of this Bill is to strengthen generally the provisions of the Insurance Act of 1943.

It cannot be denied that we have had during the past couple of years some extremely unhappy experiences in the failure of several insurance companies. While we will unfortunately never be able to guarantee that such failures will not occur for the reason that the management of companies must remain in the hands of private individuals for whose integrity and ability we can never assume responsibility, it stands to reason that we must, in the light of our experience, improve from time to time the standards embodied in our legislation. In that way we hope to attain the position where we will have made it as difficult as possible and, if possible, impossible for those who are not inclined to abide by the accepted rules to operate.

If I may enlarge somewhat on the general position concerning financial institutions, I should like to point out that in our endeavours to improve the standards of supervision and the requirements to be observed by financial institutions we have, firstly, strengthened the various Acts applicable to the main categories of financial institutions. In this connection I may mention the amendment of the Banking and Building Societies Acts which took place last year after extensive inquiry into the position of banks and building societies. Now we come to amendment of the Insurance Act. I may mention in passing that owing to the very technical nature of these Acts the preparation of amending legislation is of necessity a very time-consuming task since extensive consultations with financial institutions and with technical advisers are unavoidable in the preparation of legislation of this kind.

I wish to point out, in the second place, that we have not confined ourselves to strengthening of the main Acts, but have also introduced two measures which are of general application to financial institutions, namely the Inspection of Financial Institutions Act, 1962 and the Financial Institutions (Investment of Funds) Act, 1964. Provided the additional staff of the right quality can be obtained, these two Acts should be of great help in future in improving our standard of supervision and the general standards with which all financial institutions must comply.

I come now to the main provisions of the Bill before the House.

Clause 2 inserts a new section 3ter in the Act which provides that any registered insurer who conducts guarantee business and compulsory third party insurance business, as now defined in this Bill, shall apply for registration under the Act in respect of such business. These are two new classes of insurance business which are now being introduced.

As regards guarantee business, I may explain that insurers have in the past issued many guarantees, which are indispensable in the country’s financial and business life, in the form of insurance policies. This practice was recently declared invalid by the Supreme Court which found that there was at Common Law a difference between suretyship and an insurance contract and that for that reason a guarantee could not be issued in the form of a policy. The Bill now proposes to rectify the position with retroactive effect as from the commencement of the principal Act. Since guarantees represent in present-day circumstances such an important component of the short-term business of an insurer the separate class of guarantee business is now introduced in addition to the existing five classes of short-term business, namely fire, marine, motor, personal accident and miscellaneous business. The meaning of this is that an insurer will, as for the other classes of short term business, have to show his trading results in respect of guarantee business separately, in order that the Registrar may see whether premiums for this type of business are adequate with a view to the solvency of the insurer.

As regards compulsory third-party insurance business, a separate class for this type of business is also proposed in order that the trading results may be available separately. The reason is likewise better control of premiums with a view to the solvency of an insurer. Up to now compulsory third-party insurance business has been conducted as part of motor business which includes comprehensive insurance of motor vehicles. It is further provided in the Bill that separate assets shall be maintained by an insurer to cover his liabilities in respect of compulsory third-party insurance business, in the same way that he now has to maintain separate assets for all short term business on the one hand and all long-term business on the other hand. This means that an insurer will in future have to maintain separate assets in respect of (1) compulsory third-party insurance business, (2) all other short-term business and (3) all long-term business. In this way much better supervision of the financial position of an insurer will be possible. This approach in regard to compulsory third-party insurance business is moreover in line with the new requirements of the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act, 1942 which is administered by the Department of Transport.

The Bill introduces changes in regard to the making of deposits with the Treasury by insurers. These changes are contained in Clauses 3 and 6 of the Bill. The new provisions abolish the making of deposits by short-term insurers altogether. With their position I shall deal presently. In respect of long-term business, deposits with the Treasury are increased. The Act provides at present that in respect of each class of long-term business, i.e. life, funeral, industrial and sinking fund business, a deposit of R20,000 shall be made with a maximum of R50,000 for all classes. It is now proposed that there will only be one deposit in respect of one or all classes of long-term business and that it be increased to R100,000. Funeral business is, however, treated specially in that it is proposed that where this class of business alone is conducted the deposit will be increased from R10,000 to R20,000. At present the deposit serves together with the other assets of an insurer as security for the interests of policy-holders. We now propose that these increased deposits will be held by an insurer in addition to sufficient assets to cover his insurance liabilities. This represents a strengthening of the position. We moreover impose stricter tests for the repayment of deposits to insurers and also take the new power to require an insurer who no longer has a deposit with the Treasury to make a deposit again if his financial position should become unsatisfactory.

I remarked a while ago that we now propose to abolish deposits with the Treasury in respect of short-term insurance business. We propose to provide for a strengthening of the position of an insurer in respect of short-term business and compulsory third-party insurance business in an entirely different manner. The new basis is contained in Clauses 12 and 13 of the Bill. It boils down to this that in respect of these categories of business an insurer must in addition to sufficient assets to cover his liabilities maintain assets to the extent of R100,000 or one-tenth of his premium income in the previous financial year, whichever is the greater. In this way we introduce a self-adjusting solvency margin in respect of short-term insurance business. We propose that these additional assets will be held in the form of gilt-edged securities. In the light of all the surrounding circumstances we consider this the most effective method of affording greater security for the interests of policyholders in respect of these categories of business. This is a method, moreover, which has already been put to the test in the United Kingdom where it was introduced by the new Insurance Act of 1958.

We reckon also with the position of insurers who may not be able to comply immediately with the stricter requirements. It is only fair to give such insurers a reasonable time within which to comply. We therefore propose in Clause 14 that the Registrar will have power to grant an extension of time not exceeding five years for compliance with the stricter requirements and that with the consent of the Minister a further extension not exceeding ten years in all may be granted.

Clause 15 of the Bill substitutes an amended Section 19 in the Act. The amendments to this section provide for a more satisfactory separation of assets between the various categories of business to which I have already referred and which is absolutely essential for the proper conduct of insurance business. The existing provision requires an allocation of assets from time to time and it has been found in practice that this does not ensure the strict separation which is necessary. The necessity for this separation stems in the first place from the basic difference between long-term and short-term insurance business, the former requiring actuarial calculation of liabilities in respect of which assets have to be accumulated over a lengthy period of time. We propose also in the suggested amendments to Section 19 that an insurer will be free to deal as he deems fit with the assets which are surplus to the required amount to be maintained in respect of a particular category of business. This provision is essential and will enable an insurer, inter alia, to cover losses on a particular category of insurance business from surplus funds in another category which may be more profitable.

The Act as it now stands contains no provision to ensure that premiums collected by agents and brokers will be transmitted to the insurers concerned within a reasonable period of time. This has proved to be a very serious shortcoming in the Act which we now propose to remedy in Clause 17 which substitutes a new Section 20bis in the Act. The new section proposes—

1. (1) that all the premiums due to insurers shall be paid over to them within six days of receipt thereof; or
2. (2) that premiums received shall be deposited forthwith in a separate trust banking account and that such part thereof as is due to insurers shall be transmitted to them within 45 days from the end of the month in which the premiums are received; or
3. (3) that an agent or broker may furnish a satisfactory banker’s guarantee that he will meet his liabilities and In that event all premiums due to insurers shall be paid over within a period of 90 days from the end of the month in which the premiums are received.

This proposed provision now lays down strict standards to ensure that all premiums collected on behalf of insurers in respect of short term and compulsory third party insurance business are accounted for properly. Our experience has shown that in the past premiums collected on behalf of insurers were often dealt with irregularly and in many instances never reach the coffers of insurers. The problem does not exist in respect of long term premiums where, on account of the different nature of the business, there must be continuing controls. The provision is a very necessary improvement of the Act and we hope that it will put an effective stop to the undesirable practices of the past.

Clause 34 of the Bill contains certain proposed amendments to the Second Schedule to the Act. This schedule lays down the minimum basis on which liabilities, both long term and short term, must be calculated. It is of the essence of insurance that liabilities are estimated all the time and this fact explains why it is necessary that we must to the best of our ability provide a minimum basis for the calculation of liabilities. The proposed amendments to the Second Schedule will tighten-up this minimum basis.

In regard to the valuation of long-term liabilities, outstanding premiums may at present be taken into account and, if so, will have the effect of increasing the actuarial liability. The amount of the outstanding premiums in that event also represents an asset of the insurer but it has been found in practice that such asset is worthless if the insurer should land in difficulties. We accordingly now propose that in respect of long-term business outstanding premiums will not be taken into account in the calculation of liabilities nor will they be reflected as an asset. This means the application of a stricter standard to both sides of an insurer’s balance sheet.

One of the main items of short-term liabilities, namely unmatured risks, is calculated in terms of a specific formula from the amount of premiums received. The formula assumes that risks are spread evenly over a period of time as well as among the various classes of short-term business. In practice it often happens that the even spread of risks does not exist, for instance in the case of an insurer who carries on only one class of short-term business or where premiums are mainly paid at a particular time of the year as is the case with compulsory third party insurance business. In view of this position it is now proposed that the Registrar will have the power to require in those cases where it may be necessary that a stricter basis than the minimum basis be adopted for the calculation of short-term and compulsory third party liabilities.

Clause 35 of the Bill substitutes an amended Schedule for the Third Schedule to the Act. This Schedule enumerates the asset items in which an insurer may hold his investments and is at present divided into three parts, namely—

Our economy as well as our insurance industry has outgrown the stage where we need provide in our legislation for investments outside our own country. We accordingly now delete Part III which step is moreover in line with our constitutional change. Apart from this change, Part I of the Schedule is cleared of items which are not in the nature of cash, deposits or gilt-edged securities. This has, inter alia, the effect that the investment of longterm insurers in especially gilt-edged securities will have to be increased since the Act now prescribes a minimum investment of 30 per cent in Part I assets. It appears that long term insurers now hold approximately 22 per cent of their combined total assets in the form of cash, deposits and gilt-edged investments, i.e. the items which will comprise the new Part I. This means that without some concession insurers will have to make up a considerable leeway before they reach the 30 per cent. This will cause hardship in many cases. It is accordingly proposed that the prescribed percentage to be Held in Part I assets be reduced in the case of long-term insurers, who are alone concerned in these circumstances, from 30 per cent to 25 per cent. Although the percentage is reduced it means, in effect, as I have explained, that there will be an appreciable increase in the general holding of gilt-edged investments.

At this stage I should like to go back to Clause 22 of the Bill. All the provisions that I have explained thus far introduce stricter standards. But all this is to no avail unless we have power to act in cases where it may be necessary. Clause 22 now inserts a new Section 29bis in the Act which contains the power to prohibit an insurer from issuing new policies if that insurer does not comply with certain important provisions of the Act, of which I want to mention those requiring an insurer to submit to the Registrar periodical returns and to maintain sufficient assets to cover his liabilities. This power can only be exercised by the Registrar with the consent of the Minister. An insurer who has been prohibited from issuing new policies will have 60 days within which to rectify the default and his failure to do so within that period will be sufficient ground for the Registrar to apply to court for judicial management or liquidation. In view of the difficulties which were experienced in the past this additional power is considered very important. It should have a salutary effect.

Mr. Speaker, I have now dealt with the main provisions of this Bill. I have to inform the House at this stage that I shall have to move a few minor amendments to the Bill at the Committee Stage. Two of these amendments are necessary to reconcile certain of the provisions of this Bill with the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act, 1942, while a couple of other small amendments are necessary in order to apply more effectively the principle already contained in Section 27 of the principal Act, namely to guard against the undesirable control of insurance companies. These amendments contain nothing contentious and are not opposed by either the long-term or the short-term insurers with whom we have consulted on these specific points. I have furnished the amendments in advance to the other side of the House and they will appear on the Order Paper before the Committee Stage.

In commending the Bill to the consideration of the House I am pleased to say that this is entirely an agreed measure as far as the insurance industry is concerned. Just as was the case last year with the Banking Act and the Building Societies Act we have over a long period consulted all the interests in respect of whom we are legislating here. With the preparation of this proposed legislation very full consultations took place with both the long-term and the short-term insurers, and also with the Institute of Funeral Insurers, the Public Accountants“ and Auditors” Board and the Incorporated Insurance Brokers Association. All these interests are in agreement with the proposals contained in this Bill. I need hardly say that it goes to the credit of our insurance industry that a stringent measure of this kind can be introduced with their co-operation and support. I trust that in presenting this Bill I will also have the support of members of both sides of the House.

I move—

That the debate be now adjourned.

Agreed to.