Mr. Speaker, during the debate on Friday I disregarded a ruling given by you, and I should like to offer my apologies to you and to the House. I realize that you have an exceedingly difficult task to perform and that it is the duty of hon. members to assist you, and I should like to assure you of my full co-operation in the future. From that it follows as a matter of course that I withdraw the words which I used in reference to the hon. member for Brakpan and that I offer him my apologies as well.

Mr. Speaker, I should also like to ask your leave to withdraw the words which I addressed to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout on Friday afternoon, namely that he prays that this country of ours should come to a fall, and also to offer my apologies to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout.

One salient feature of this debate has been the large number of new members who took part in it. I think there were more than 30 of them. I think I may safely say that on the whole a very high standard was maintained in the maiden speeches made by the hon. members. Their speeches were full of promise and I wish to express the hope that the promise shown in their maiden speeches will be fulfilled in the course of their political careers in this House.

To come to the debate itself, I have, like the Preacher, sought out all things in order to see whether I could come to any conclusion. I do not want to say that I have come to the same conclusion as the Preacher did. but the first conclusion which I reached was that hon. members of the Opposition do not know precisely what they want; that they do not know precisely what they are doing. The hon. member for Constantia began by attacking this Budget as being an inflationary one. There are arguments which he could have advanced but did not advance. There is certainly one point on which both of us will agree, and that is that this Budget would be inflationary if the taxation proposals were taken out; then it would definitely be inflationary, and if, according to the hon. member for Constantia, it is inflationary with those taxation proposals, then a fortiori it is inflationary without the taxation proposals. But then the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition came along and attacked the taxation proposals. If I understood them correctly, they wanted those proposals to be taken out of the Budget.

You either did not listen or did not understand.

Is the hon. member then in favour of the taxation proposals?

Do not try to be funny.

They spoke of the terrible burden that was being imposed on the people and I inferred from that that they were opposed to the taxation proposals, but if they are not opposed to them, I am very glad to hear that. However, they are not prepared to give me that assurance, and therefore I have to stick to my inference, and if that inference is correct, then it is perfectly clear that hon. members of the Opposition are pleading for a definitely inflationary Budget; they want to make this Budget an inflationary one, and not only are they not co-operating with the Government, who wants to try to check inflation, but by attacking the Budget and by endeavouring to make this Budget an inflationary one, they are now taking up a position against the Government and against the combating of inflation; they are now the inflationists; they are pleading for it. If they had been sufficient in number, they would have forced the Government to introduce an inflationary Budget. Mr. Speaker, if I have to judge by the discussion we have had in the last few days, then it was definitely the aim of the Opposition to make this Budget a weaker one, to deprive the Budget of all the power it has to combat inflation. That was their declared aim; that was the purport of their speeches. Sir, you may well ask: Why this farce? Why should one member say that the Budget is an inflationary one, only for another to come along and to try to make it more inflationary? Why such a farce? It is simply the old trouble of the United Party which is manifesting itself again, the old temptation which it can never resist and the old malady which has brought it to the position in which it finds itself to-day. In this Budget, a Budget which is essential for South Africa and the economy of South Africa, it saw an opportunity of gaining a few miserable votes by inciting people against the Government on the grounds of the taxation proposals, and that has landed it in this ridiculous position that it is in actual fact advocating an inflationary Budget. The inconvenience that will be caused by the Budget—we admit that—the Opposition has tried to blow up as much as possible, while trying to keep quiet about and to conceal the real benefit which the middle and the lower income groups will derive from having a stable rand. It has only concentrated on the one aspect, namely the temporary inconvenience. Mr. Speaker, I ask in all humility: Is it fair to the thousands of loyal United Party members that their leaders in this Parliament should ruin the image of the United Party to the extent to which they have done so here? Is it fair to the economy of South Africa that an Opposition, which should give its support to the Government in a matter of this nature, has now ranged itself on the side of the inflationary forces? Is that fair to the economy of the country?

But the Government is the inflationary force.

Is it fair to those people, who will in fact be affected the most if these measures are not taken? Is the Opposition being fair to those people? Mr. Speaker, they are the people who said that there would be higher prices and demands for higher wages, That is the very procedure that will follow, not in a few cases, but in a considerable number of cases; that is the vicious circle that we are in fact combating in this Budget, and where we are trying to adopt the right attitude, that is the very thing that is now being opposed by the Opposition.

Hon. members of the Opposition sometimes use rather peculiar arguments. They quote from all possible sources without always knowing precisely what the quotations mean. I just want to give you a few examples of that, Sir. The first is provided by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. In an earlier debate he read out a quotation from what Mr. Kitshoff, Chairman of the Board of Trade and Industries, had allegedly said, and this is what he said according to Hansard, in quotation marks: “Complaining that the Minister” (i.e. this Minister) “failed to warn the private sector at the outset that funds built up after Sharpeville were abnormal and should not be spent extravagantly.” He attributed those words to Mr. Kitshoff. At that time, shortly after Sharpeville, Mr. Kitshoff was an official of mine, and I thought it strange that an official of mine should not have warned me, and I took the trouble of having inquiries made from him as to whether he had used these words and in what connection. He replied as follows (translation)—

I take it that it was probably someone else that was quoted by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

When am I supposed to have said that?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that Mr. Kitshoff said that on 17th May, 1965.

When did I quote him?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition quoted him in the debate on the censure motion.

Not in my last speech.

In the same speech the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to the incompetence of this Government …

That has already been proved.

… and he cited that as proof and now it appears to be false proof. I do not know whether the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask anything more in that regard. I want to give him the benefit of the doubt as much as possible and to say that it was probably someone else whom he quoted, but then I want to say that he must really be careful with his quotations. Mr. Speaker, but that is not all. In that same speech he said that the authorities had used only two weapons, namely “moral persuasion and control of imports”; those were the only ones. I almost want to say that any schoolboy—certainly any schoolboy who takes an intelligent interest in politics—knows that in the course of the past three years this Government has made use of many methods besides moral persuasion and a little import restriction. He will know that the method which has now been employed, namely, increasing the bank rate, has now been used for the fourth time: it has been used on three previous occasions; he will know, as far as the increase in the rate of interest on Government stocks is concerned, that this is not the first time that rates of interest have been increased; it has already been done before. He will know that the Government has previously made use of the provision in the Act that it can compel the banks to hold additional reserves up to the full 10 per cent. He will know that the Government said at an early stage already that advances made by the banks to their clients were to be reduced and that as at 31st March, 1966. the figure in respect of such advances should in any case not be higher than the figure for the previous year. These are general measures we have taken, but apparently they have slipped the memory of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He says that the only weapons we have are import control and moral persuasion. Then the hon. member for Pinetown came along and also revealed his ignorance by saying that we could have taken less drastic measures last year. I tried to pin him down. I asked him a friendly question: Do you think these measures are not drastic enough, and do you think we should have taken these measures a year ago? Then he said no, he thought I should listen to what he was saying; and then he said that it would not have been necessary to take these measures a year ago; if we had acted a year ago, these drastic measures would not have been necessary. But that is exactly what we did. A year ago we acted with less drastic measures, and if it had not been for circumstances which nobody could predict, the inflow of capital to this country on a large scale, those measures would probably have been adequate. I do not even want to speak of the hon. member for Yeoville. He said that the public sector was not doing its duty: it had borrowed R243,000,000 from the banks, but the private sector’s advances from the banks were R140,000,000 less to-day than last year. His argument was that the private sector had spent less, whereas the Government had spent more. Of course, those are not the facts at all. His explanation is quite wrong, and I shall tell him just now what the true explanation is.

But before continuing to deal with these matters, I think there are a few minor matters I have to dispose of first. Firstly, I want to apologize to the hon. member for Kensington for having credited him with poetic talent. It was not he who was guilty, but a party colleague of his; it was Mr. Ross, the previous member for Benoni, who became so lyrical and who said that we would never get any capital again. I think the hon. member himself is innocent of the charge of being poetic.

He is merely dramatic.

He must forgive me if I have credited him with undeserved greatness. [Interjection.] Yes, as the hon. member rightly says, I have twice made the mistake of over-estimating him.

I do not intend dealing to-day with the taxes and the few words said about them, because we are coming to the Ways and Means Committee, and we shall then have full opportunity of dealing with them in full detail.

Then there are a few questions which have been put to me, and to which I want to reply by way of courtesy if time will allow me. The hon. member for Constantia asked whether permission had been granted for the importation of considerable amount of capital on a short-term basis, and what undertakings had been given that the capital might be withdrawn. No undertakings were given, except, of course, in the case of Government loans. In certain cases, such as in the case of trade credits, repatriation will always be allowed under normal circumstances, but no special undertakings were given. He also made the point that a 10 per cent duty was now being imposed on imported articles, and that that meant that the prices of local articles would also rise by 10 per cent. In my Budget speech I made it clear that the Department of Commerce and Industries would watch the position, also in respect of locally manufactured goods in competition with imported goods. The present anti-inflationary policy is in fact aimed at making it more difficult to increase prices without sound reasons. We shall see to that.

The hon. member for Pinetown asked why no new steps had been taken to absorb the superfluous liquidity by means of long-term loans. The answer is that attempts were in fact made. Compared with previous years, we obtained a much larger amount in that way. But most of the available funds were of such a nature that they would not have been invested in long-term loans in any event. He also asked whether the freezing of rates of interest on deposits was not the cause of the Government’s difficulties. The answer is no. The control over rates of interest on deposits was intended purely to curb excessive competition among financial institutions, and the interest rate on mortgage loans was kept at a reasonable level for 16 months. If we had lifted this restriction at an earlier stage, the various building societies would have increased their rates of interest a year ago. And that is exactly what the hon. members are pleading for. Apparently I should have allowed the rates of interest of the building societies to increase to 8½ per cent a year ago. I tell you, Sir, the Opposition does not really know what it wants. The hon. member also asked me why the Minister was surprised at the capital inflow; it was obvious that overseas firms would send money to their subsidiaries if they could not obtain adequate local credit. My reply to that is: Why did they not do that in the previous six years? Then there was an outflow of capital. I am quite prepared to accept that a portion of the capital that entered came from certain of the parent companies to their subsidiaries, but I maintain that that was at the most a drop in the bucket. The hon. member cannot tell me that all of this inflow of R270,000,000 in one year was sent by parent companies. It includes money that entered for fixed investments in South Africa, and it includes amounts that entered to increase the portfolio investments of various overseas concerns, and it includes short-term money that came here because the local terms were more attractive than those elsewhere. But it is wrong to say that everything should be attributed to this, and that I should have foreseen it. Why did it not happen in the previous year and for the six preceding years? Does the hon. member want to tell me that in all those years the parent companies never sent any money to their subsidiaries in South Africa?

The hon. member for Parktown asked whether the Board of Trade and Industries had been consulted about the increased customs duties. The answer is yes, but I may also tell him that the Board had certain misgivings about some of the increases, but not enough to lodge any serious objections. I do not simply want to tell the hon. member yes, we have already consulted them; I shall tell him the whole truth, because we have nothing to hide. He also asked me whether the Government was considering a unitary budget for the future. Well, a unitary budget has certain advantages, for purposes of economic analysis and to set out the economic influence of the Budget. For example, Sir, you will notice that in the White Paper, in the middle, it is shown at a glance what has been allocated for any functional expenditure incurred. It is set out there, and it would not be possible to do that if one had a dual budget, unless we made such a plan. But the existing dual budget also has its advantages. Although I personally think that the day will come when we will have a unitary budget in this country, I do not think we have achieved sufficient economic development to have such a position. All we can do is what we have done this year, to have a certain degree of elasticity and to transfer certain items from revenue. There has to be elasticity.

The hon. member for Kensington also asked what dividends we had received from the large public corporations. He also expressed the opinion or asked whether the time had not come to allow private undertakings to participate in the I.D.C., Iscor, etc. We get R3,700,000 a year from Iscor, and we got R85,000 from Fishcor. The I.D.C. has not declared a dividend yet, because it is its policy to plough profits back into further industrial development. That is also one of the replies to the second part of his question. If shares in the I.D.C. or Iscor were sold to private undertakings, the private shareholders would not be satisfied, as I know them, with the price and dividend policy of these corporations, because the policy of these corporations are directed by national interests rather than private interests. But the I.D.C. has already found a way to afford the private investor a share by floating its investment company, Industrial Selections. In that way the general public has the right to share to some extent in what the I.D.C. is doing, and mostly only in its paying business.

Is that one of the new trusts?

It is not a new one. It has been on the market for quite some time.

The hon. member for Sunnyside asked me a few questions. The first was whether we would not extend the definition in the Banking Act in order to bring in certain institutions which do not fall under the Banking Act at present. It has already been made fairly wide, and it is difficult to extend it further. There may be certain institutions which are not caught in this net. but it is impossible to protect the foolish investor against his folly at all times. The hon. member also referred to the commission of 1 per cent for agents who canvass for deposits, and asked that it should be taken away. This is an undesirable phenomenon, but it is difficult to interfere with it, and it is hoped that competition will eventually cause it to disappear, but as a Government we cannot really interfere with it. He also asked whether we should not give attention to the Usury Act, because so many people circumvent the Act. I want to give him the assurance that the Department is investigating the whole matter. We hope to be able to bring up measures shortly.

I now come to what should really have been the attacks on the Budget, from a purely theoretical point of view. Some member or other did in fact say that we should increase production and productivity, that it was the best counter to inflation. That is quite true, but that is a long-term policy. Where we are now dealing with a short-term matter, you cannot expect us to use this long-term policy as our only means. But that does not mean that this Government is not carrying out that long-term policy. I shall point out three respects in which we are already doing that. The first is by means of immigration. The economic development programme said that in order to guarantee an average growth rate of 5.4 per cent, we should bring in at least 20,000 immigrants a year. In the first year of the programme, in 1964, we brought in 32,773. In 1965 it was 29,113, and for the first six months of this year we have brought in more than 17,000, according to provisional figures. That is many more than the requirements set by the economic programme, and, of course, it costs money. The direct cost involved in this immigration is approximately R6,000,000 a year, but you will appreciate that there are many other expenses, for example, on housing. That is one reason why housing has shown such a tremendous rise in recent times. There is a way of improving productivity. We have made more and more facilities available for technical training. That will not yield its fruits now or in 12 months’ time, but we have started that, and if you look at the White Paper, and at the tables in the middle, you will see that in 1966-7 the current expenditure in respect of this technical training, in general and for all races, amounted to R80,000,000, whereas the capital expenditure amounted to R12,000,000. There are further transfer payments of approximately another R8,000,000 to autonomous Central Government bodies. Therefore almost R100,000,000 is being provided in this Budget for training. But we have taken a third measure to bring about greater productivity. We have allowed increased exports of capital equipment. That is in fact one of the things that landed us in difficulties as regards the balance of payments a year or so ago. That capital machinery, etc., which we imported is gradually going into production now. Not only will it increase production, but I think it will also cause a increase in productivity per worker, as a result of the introduction of more modem capital equipment. Here I just want to give an interesting figure in respect of productivity. It is not scientific, and it is subject to certain assumptions, but the volume index of factory production in the past year has increased by 7½ per cent, which is a remarkable achievement. By volume we have produced 7½ per cent more, but the employment index for the manufacturing industry has increased by only 2.7 per cent.

You will therefore see that with 2.7 per cent more labourers, we have produced 7.5 per cent more goods. These are only three things, but I think they are sufficient to refute the impression the Opposition has tried to create that we were doing nothing to provide for the future as regards productivity.

I now come to a second charge levelled against this Budget, namely that it is supposed to be a rich man’s budget. I do not know on what grounds hon. members base this charge, because I have said time and again that this Budget, in so far as it is an attempt to check inflation, is more to the advantage of the less privileged than to that of the more privileged class. The immediate burden that this Budget carries with it is being imposed on everybody. If you look, you will see that this burden has in fact been distributed very evenly. In other words, it is not a matter of one being preferred to the detriment of the other. It was in fact with this object that we spread the burden as widely as possible. At the same time we said that we would try to lighten the burden placed upon the poor man, as much as possible. Permit me to mention a few figures in this regard. Two-thirds of the taxpayers of the Republic—and these two-thirds are for the most part among the less-privileged taxpayers—are paying no loan levy this year. The other third, however, must pay that levy. Of those two-thirds of the taxpayers who now have to contribute towards the normal tax as a result of the fact that the 5 per cent rebate has been abolished, the person who will have to pay the largest extra amount will pay even less than 50 cents a month. That is in respect of the 5 per cent general tax. That is, therefore, what it amounts to, i.e. less than 50 cents per month. Now it may be said that the poor man will be affected by the increased price of petrol, but if we assume that a man used 30 gallons previously, he need in future only use 29 gallons, i.e., only one gallon less, in order to keep his expenditure on this item constant. As regards cigarettes, something which, besides, is, of course, unhealthy, a person who smoked 20 a day previously, only needs to smoke 18 in future in order to keep his expenditure on cigarettes constant. As regards drinks, too, the extra duty will not make any significant difference. It is important to remember that the prices of basic food products are being protected. In terms of this the price of maize, milk, butter, bread and cheese cannot be increased for a considerable period. The contribution made by this Budget in that respect is R15.100,000 than last year. That is what is being contributed, and it is almost more than can be collected from the poor man. We have also heard that house rents have been frozen, and that the conditions on which Government houses are made available have been eased, and that has been done with the very object of assisting the poor man. Then there is also provision for old-age pensions. On the Vote Social Welfare and Pensions there is R12,800,000 more in this Budget than in last year’s. In addition there is assistance to farmers. Here I am not thinking only of loans, but also of subsidies. The subsidy on fodder, for example, amounts to R3,000,000 this year, while the subsidy on the transport of stock and of fodder amounts to R540,000. The subsidy on the loss on the purchase of maize-stalks and the hiring of grazing is R195,000, and subsidy on interest amounts to R75,000. There are some other subsidies too, of course. These subsidies are over and above the loans that have been granted to the farming community.

I therefore think that it is somewhat farfetched to suggest that this is a rich man’s Budget. But now it is interesting to note that the United Party maintains that, while we are asking the people to save more, the people will not be able to save after all because prices are rising continually. According to the United Party there is apparently nobody who can save. But now I should like to refer hon. members to page 11 of the White Paper issued in connection with the Budget. There it will be seen that there has been an increase of approximately R600,000,000 in the total personal income, i.e. after deduction of direct taxes. Last year the personal available income therefore increased by almost R600,000,000. Private expenditure on consumer goods, on the other hand, increased by almost R400,000,000. The saving is the difference between these two amounts. In actual fact, personal saving was just over R200,000,000 more than that of the previous year. Last year we had to report that personal savings had decreased in comparison with the preceding year. This year, however, personal savings showed an increase of R200,000,000. This is therefore the proof that there is in fact money to save. There is money, but the problem is that there are so many inviting things that attract this money. And yet this great progress was brought about in only one year. I think that is a wonderful achievement.

I now come to the aspect of the Budget that was very popular with the Opposition, namely that Government expenditure is the great culprit when we have to account for the present inflationary conditions. They think that the Government is in actual fact the culprit. But what hon. members apparently do not know is that when public expenditure is mentioned in the various documents, it does not signify only Government expenditure, but also includes expenditure by provincial administrations, by local authorities and by public corporations. I have called for a small calculation of the expenditure on the part of the authorities for the year 1965-6. It was found that the State as such was responsible for only 44.7 per cent of the capital expenditure on the part of the authorities. The Central Government is therefore responsible for only 44.7 per cent of this expenditure. I called for a further calculation, and found that the total public capital expenditure for the year 1965-6 amounted to R885,000,000. Of this amount, 72.3 per cent, or R620,000,000, represented expenditure on infra-structure services.

The infra-structure concept has been used very generally in this debate, and has perhaps been interpreted rather too widely. By infrastructure I understand basic services without which there can be no economic growth. These services include transport, electricity, water, telecommunications, housing for immigrants, etc. These are all basic services, and a government is required to provide these services.

It is therefore mostly expenditure incurred at the instance of the private sector. They ask for it in their own interests, because they want the Government to provide these basic services so that they may make larger profits. To what specific expenditure is the Opposition objecting? There is the expenditure on education, on defence, and on all the other services I have already mentioned. To which are they opposed? So far I have heard of only two. One of these is sport. The hon. member for Constantia nearly had a fit because we have a small amount in these Estimates for sport. The expenditure in that regard will amount to only R150,000. But, Sir, do you know how many young people there are to-day, people who will shortly be entitled to vote, who welcome this expenditure? There are 700,000 of them. They welcome this appropriation.

How have they managed without a Minister until now?

I say that these 700,000 young people welcome it. The United Party, however, is opposed to it. The second item of expenditure to which they say they are opposed is in respect of border area development. They say this development should take place at the industrial centres. But have they considered what it would cost to provide accommodation at these industrial complexes to the Bantu who will be drawn into those industries? Have they considered what an increase in transport costs it would entail if those people had to be transported over longer distances? Seen from a purely economic viewpoint, it may therefore be said that border area development represents a saving.

Let us now see how the private sector compares with the public sector, even in its wider sense. The fact is that in the past year everybody put more money into circulation. As regards the private sector, it amounted to an additional R390,000,000 for investments and consumption. I am not speaking of percentages now. I want to see what the effect is on inflation.

As regards the investment and current expenditure of the Government, it amounted to an aggregate of R276,000,000, in other words, the public sector, even in its wider sense, put a smaller additional amount into circulation than the private sector did. In actual fact the position is that everybody is guilty. I am therefore not saying that the private sector is more guilty than the public sector. The fact of the matter is that everybody spent too much. Jointly they spent too much on capital and consumer goods. Then there were not enough savings to finance this heavy expenditure. Of necessity somebody had to use bank credit until the level of total expenditure could be reduced again. That “somebody” was, for understandable reasons, the Government. I have studied the amount of money that was borrowed on long-term last year. R92,000,000 was borrowed by corporations and municipalities jointly, whereas the Government borrowed R54,000,000. The Government could easily have told the large municipalities and corporations to stand back so that the Government could get more of that money.

If we had done that, it would not have been necessary for us to go and get R243,000,000 in bank credit. That would have been of no avail, however, because if the Government had not done that one of the other concerns would have had to go and get it. You see, Mr. Speaker, the Opposition is suffering under a total misconception. They think the Government is the only concern that has increased its expenditure. The real position is that the Government, public corporations, the larger municipalities and the provincial administrations spent only an additional amount of R276,000,000, compared with R390,000,000 by the private sector.

I now come to the fourth point of criticism levelled by the Opposition against the Budget. It is very closely bound up with what I have just said. As though they had suddenly made a new discovery, hon. members quoted here that in the year 1965-6 the Government had borrowed R243,000,000 from the banking sector. They quoted from various documents.

From your own speech.

Exactly. It stands in my speech. I gave the reason for that. It was mentioned in the Budget speech and it is not something we are trying to hide. Another thing we did not try to hide is that it is an inflationary way of spending. We did not try to hide that either, but the entire sense and purpose of this Budget is to prevent that thing from happening again. That is something which hon. members have apparently not grasped yet. On the one hand there is an aspect to which they refuse to give attention, while on the other hand there is an aspect which apparently they do not understand. An aspect to which they do not want to give attention is the reason why the Government has made use of inflationary financing. The Government was obliged to provide certain basic services. I challenged them to say what they found fault with. In most cases these services are basic services which are necessary to the development of the private sector. We have to find the money for that. We could do so by telling the other concerns, which together with the Government represent the authority, that they should stand back and that the Government wanted to be first in using this capital market money. But we did not do that. We have already seen that they got almost twice as much of the available funds on long term as we got. But that is what the hon. members refuse to take into account. They simply say: “You have done that,” and they do not ask themselves why that was done. The second thing they are probably completely incapable of grasping is that this Budget is in fact intended to prevent inflationary financing of expenditure from recurring; to finance it by non-inflationary means as far as possible, i.e. by actual saving, by taxation and by long-term loans from the public, and therefore you see in this Budget the positive efforts we are making to bring about even greater savings on the part of the public and to collect additional taxes. If we achieve our object and obtain the necessary amounts in this way, then I maintain that this Budget is not inflationary. We had a great leeway to make up; we had to start with a deficit of R36,000,000 on the Loan Account. In that respect too there is an answer the hon. the Leader of the Opposition simply refuses to see.

Then I come to the last point. They said we should have shown more foresight. They asked whether we could not have foreseen that there would be inflation. I have already pointed out that hon. members have worked on completely erroneous premises. They quoted from documents written in June. Now, I shall also quote from the same documents. We started on 8th July; we took action on that date. I shall now call three witnesses—two of them are witnesses hon. members of the Opposition also called—to prove that no sensible man, after the change in the middle of last year, when all the indicators began to drop and when it seemed as though we had achieved victory over inflation, could have realized what would happen, and nobody could have realized it at that stage, because the available statistics were not the latest. The first I want to mention is the Reserve Bank. The Reserve Bank was also quoted by hon. members on the opposite side. But I want to ask them to go and look at the quarterly publication of the Reserve Bank which appeared in March. 1966, and to see whether it urged the Government in any way to take further measures: whether there was any indication that the Government was beginning to lose the battle. There is nothing of the kind. On the contrary, in March the Reserve Bank still made out a case that the time for relaxing the existing measures had not yet come. I quote what it said (translation)—

That is what the Reserve Bank said in March this year, and what did it do then? The only step it took was to extend the restriction on bank credit for a further six months. Then I want to call another witness whom the Opposition did not call, the Economic Advisory Council. In November, 1965, and before that in August, the Economic Advisory Council held a meeting. In August some of them said that the means were not adequate and others said that they were in fact adequate. There was some difference of opinion, but in November they were unanimous when they saw that, according to the figures, there had been a change in the pace since the beginning of the third quarter; when they had those figures at their disposal, all of them were satisfied and they asked for no further measures. And that same Economic Advisory Council reviewed the position in February this year and found once again that the existing measures were effective. There you already have two bodies which stated very explicitly as late as February that there was no reason for new measures. But now come to the third witness, and that is the Bureau for Economic Research at Stellenbosch. As is customary, they published a booklet in November 1965 on “Prospects for 1966,” and in that they made no mention of the position being dangerous, and of the Government having to take action. On the contrary, towards the end of May, the beginning of June, they published “A Reappraisal for 1966,” and do you know why they had to make that “reappraisal”? In his preface. Professor Schumann says—

Now, in June, they came along and said that certain things had happened since November of which they had not been aware because the statistical information was not up to date. They went further and said that three things had changed the position: the first was the continuation of the drought: the second was the fact that “imports dropped more sharply during the last quarter of 1965 than was foreseen, and the third factor is the capital inflow which proved to be much greater than had been anticipated and which is apparently continuing.” It is the third reason in particular which was emphasized and which nobody could foresee, except the United Party—after it had already happened. Then they continue—

i.e. in November—

They did in fact inquire into that, but they said that it was not necessary. Then, in June, 1966, they came to the conclusion “that existing measures are inadequate and that further action is required.” That was the first word that came from them. This booklet was published at the end of May and was available at the beginning of June, but to-day the Opposition says that we should have foreseen these things! I want to take the matter a little further. The Bureau also published an “Opinion Survey Report” for the third quarter of 1966 on the 29th of July. In that they stated that they had made a survey of the prospects for the third quarter and that it might now appear that they had been too optimistic. They said—

It was not actually there yet, but it was coming—

Can it be put more clearly? You see, the means employed to stop inflation are, as everybody knows, fairly well known, but the main factor is timing; the question is when one should apply those means and to what extent, because no Government wants to act so drastically that it brings the entire economy to a standstill. On the other hand, it wants to act drastically enough to squash the evil of inflation. That was only the beginning of a new inflation; the matter was not yet very serious at all. and we introduced stronger measures immediately which in our view would be adequate unless further factors cropped up. But if we had applied these means a year ago and there had not been that capital inflow of R270,000,000, what would South Africa’s position have been to-day? If we had applied those strict measures at that time and had said that we hoped there would be a capital inflow, we would have been in trouble to-day and then the United Party would have had a great deal to say. That same Bureau went even further and endorsed the timeousness of official policy measures to smother unsound expansion which could lead to renewed pressure on the current account of the balance of payments. I cannot over-emphasize the influence of that R270,000,000 which entered the country over a period of 12 months. R202,000,000 of that was private capital, and R68,000,000 was Government loans and bank capital; it was considerably more than anybody could have anticipated, because the capital inflow in the previous 12 months had been only R36,000,000 and from 1959 to 1963 there had been an average annual outflow of R88,000,000 a year. Hon. members may appreciate what a tremendous effect this sudden swing had. The official monetary policy was in fact aimed at decreasing the ratio of between money and quasi money to the gross national product, which was too high, but just as the policy was beginning to become effective, capital flowed into the country and neutralized the desirable effects of the policy to some extent. It was not this Government that was tardy in taking action; it acted at the first possible opportunity and did its duty.

Mr. Speaker, I have served my meal to the hon. House. It is a meal which has not satisfied everybody’s tastes, as I in fact predicted at the outset, but it is interesting to see whose taste it did not satisfy.

Whose taste did it satisfy.

Of course it did not satisfy the taste of those who did not grasp the object of the Budget, and of course it did not satisfy the taste of those who had political motives; in particular it did not satisfy the taste of the United Party. It reminded me very much of the story of the well-known expert French chef who was asked to prepare a meal for a large number of visitors. He put his best foot forward and prepared a wonderful meal, but the visitors had come from a very primitive country. They turned up their noses at all the delicacies he served to them. With Gallic resignation the French chef merely shrugged his shoulders and said: “Well, this is the second time in history this has happened, but the last time it was pearls and not food.” I just want to say that this Budget was not meant to be popular. If it had been meant to be popular, the Government would have done South Africa an injustice. This Budget was meant to be good and it is good. Even if we lose some popularity, this Government is prepared to bear that. Any Government which is worth its salt will do what is good for the country, regardless of whether or not it makes it popular. Those who know the economy will appreciate that it is a good Budget, and it will be held to the credit of this Government, not only here in South Africa but also abroad, that, when it was essential to take stricter measures, it did not hesitate for one moment to do so. It is the task of everybody, including the Opposition, to co-operate in combating this common enemy, and if they want to refuse to cooperate, that is their concern. If they want to go still further and even hamper the Government when it is trying to do what is right, then it is also their concern, but I assure them that the people will deal with them. The people will realize that they are the ones who do not want to do what is proper and good for the country, that they are the people who rather want to do something that may possibly earn them a few votes, and to them I say in the words of the poet: “The man who refuses to co-operate is the man who murders his people.”

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the motion,

Upon which the House divided:

Tellers: B. S. van der Merwe and B. J. van der Walt.

Question affirmed and the amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

House in Committee of Supply.

Revenue Votes Nos. 1 to 4 put and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, before the House adjourned on Friday, I pointed out to the hon. member for Green Point that if he proposes that the tariffs between light and heavy vehicles should fall away, he has no idea of what third party insurance is about. Then I pointed out to him that if he were knocked down and killed by a Volkswagen he would not have died a luxurious death, and if he were knocked down and killed by a Cadillac he would still not have died a beggarly death. I should have liked to say something to the hon. member for Yeoville, but since he is not present I shall proceed with the speech I should like to make. The hon. member for Durban (North) insinuated here that this is a United Party Act and he insinuated further that with this Act this Government was not doing its best for the public. I think it will be a good thing for me to outline the background of this Act briefly so that we may see in what light it should be considered. On the 13th February, 1939, the then Minister of Finance introduced this Bill in the House of Assembly. On the 2nd March, 1939, the Bill was referred to a Select Committee. The Bill as amended by the Select Committee, was introduced in this House of Assembly during that same year, but since it was very late in the session, it stood over and it was dropped. In 1942 the present Act, the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act, No. 29 of 1942, was piloted through Parliament by the then Minister of Finance after a long discussion. Eventually it was decided—and that was only in 1946—that this Act would come into operation as from the 1st May, 1946. The position is therefore that the present Opposition did not have the courage of their convictions to bring the Bill, which was passed by Parliament in 1942, into operation before 1946. That proves to us that they had no certainty in their minds. They did not even care much about what was happening on the roads of South Africa. Nor did they have much certainty in their own minds that it was a good Act. Initially the Minister of Finance accepted responsibility for this Act. The Department of Transport which was established in 1943, subsequently—in November, 1944—started to administer the Act. Since 1946 several amendments have been effected to this Act. That was done after a considerable number of inquiries had been instituted and commissions had been appointed to go into the matter. In that manner we had, inter alia, in 1954 an inquiry under the chairmanship of Mr. Clive Corder. In 1960 we had another commission, that of Mr. D. H. C. du Plessis—the former general manager of the South African Railways. He brought out the famous Du Plessis Commission Report. In addition, there was a departmental commission of the Departments of Finance and Transport which paid a visit to New Zealand to investigate matters there. This House of Assembly appointed two Select Committees to inquire into the Bill. Subsequently to that we also had the Marais Commission. This commission actually had two legs and one of these consisted of referring virtually everything to experts for further inquiry. That was not of much value to us, but I do not want to go into that now. After the Parity debacle the hon. the Minister of Transport deemed it fit to establish the consortium. We then found that the United Party, through the mouth of the hon. member for Yeoville, made a tremendous attack on the hon. the Minister and this Government since they had supposedly set about the matter in an undemocratic manner and established a so-called monopoly by allowing these companies to form a consortium. At the time the hon. member for Yeoville accused the hon. the Minister that this consortium would not work at all, that the public would suffer, and that members of the public would also not be able to have all their cars insured. We should like to know from the hon. member for Yeoville what has happened to the accusations he made at the beginning of this year. I think that he owes the hon. the Minister of Transport an apology for all those accusations he made. Mr. Speaker, I shall not go into the matter of these various companies and so forth any further. The hon. member also made a tremendous accusation in regard to the 11 companies which were admitted. He said that no further company would be admitted. Shortly afterwards the hon. the Minister admitted another five. Those 16 companies have managed the administration of third party insurance in a proper and thorough manner. I think that if third party insurance has ever been on a sound basis, it is now. I think this House should congratulate the hon. the Minister on having placed third party insurance on such a sound basis. Mr. Speaker, what has this Government done? Let us be critical to-day. What has this Government done?

Order! The hon. member must not hold such a general discussion. The House is discussing an amending Bill now.

I shall now deal specifically with this clause. In regard to this consortium the Minister has explained to us that 75 per cent of the premiums goes to the consortium, and it is estimated that it will be adequate to meet all claims. The Department of Transport established a special section equipped with a staff of 25 which deals with this motor vehicle section. In that section there are no fewer than seven officials who occupy themselves exclusively with the handling of claims. The Department of Transport is also on the direction of the M.V.I.A. so that there may also be full co-operation and supervision in that field. Apart from the officials whose special duty it is to supervise the handling of claims, the Department of Transport has at its disposal an inspectorate consisting of 49 persons who are supervising the conduct of the agents daily to see to it that discs are properly controlled and that all the money which is collected is paid over to the companies in question every week. With this consortium of 16 companies, as it is at present, there are 13,000 agents.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the provisions of the Bill.

All these things I have mentioned, are being done to help to carry this Act into effect and to see to it that claims are handed in quickly, and that everything is brought to the notice of the Department within the shortest possible time. For that reason this period of notification of 14 days, which is being determined now, is ideal. I do not want to go into the matter any further, since there are many other matters we can raise, but we believe that the Bill is sound and I want to thank the Minister once more for this provision.

The hon. member for Sunnyside referred to the fact that the Government of the party on this side passed an Act in 1942 but did not implement it until 1946. I think it is hardly necessary for me to remind the hon. member that from 1942 to 1946 we were engaged in something very important elsewhere. This Bill affects a greater proportion of the population than is generally realized. Hon. members will reflect on the fact that 10 to 12 of the hon. members sitting in this House are likely to be involved in an accident within the next 12 months, and may have some dealings with this particular Bill, because according to statistics 10 to 12 people out of every 100 are involved in an accident every year. So the provisions of this Bill are vital to all of us.

The provisions of Clause 2, regarding the reporting of an accident to an insurance company have, I believe, been improved by the amendment now proposed, but the difficulty still remains that the large concerns which employ many drivers are in the hands of those drivers in so far as the reporting of accidents is concerned. It does happen that where a firm employs a couple of hundred drivers, the latter do not always necessarily report an accident, or when they do they do not report the severity of the accident or that people have been injured. This clause is of vital concern to the employers of those drivers. Should they fail to report an accident, as the hon. member for Durban (North) has pointed out, before the days of the consortium it was unlikely that the insurance company would exercise the right of recourse against them. But now that does not apply, because very often the insurance company concerned in the consortium is not the insurance company which holds the balance of the insurance of that particular concern. Therefore they would generally press their right of recourse severely. It is these firms who are feeling the difficulty at this stage. Many of them have resorted to effecting contingency insurance elsewhere. This particular clause is of vital concern to these people and one wonders how one can improve this clause. The suggestion has been made by insurance people in the past that one way to improve the clause would perhaps be to put the onus of reporting an accident not on the driver and the owner, but on the driver of that vehicle only, whether he is the owner or not. This would mean that the larger companies who employ many drivers are not placed in a difficulty when the accident is not reported.

The other point is the increasing number of non-White drivers on our roads. These drivers do not know the Act. They do not report accidents and insurance companies in the past have long given up the idea of pressing for recovery against these people under a right of recourse, because these drivers are not worth anything at all. So while I believe this clause has been improved, there is still room for improvement and I would ask the Deputy Minister to give it further consideration.

With the forming of the consortium agents blossomed out all over South Africa. There were many cases where fish and chip shops and barber shops suddenly became agents of the consortium. This meant that these people were inexperienced in insurance and they were unable to advise people what the procedure should be in the event of an accident. Yet the strange thing is that insurance companies who are not members of the consortium were not allowed to act as agents. What I would like to suggest to the Deputy Minister is that the agents who act for the consortium should be experienced people.

Order! The hon. member is going too far now.

This is in relation to the reporting of accidents under this clause, and the point I want to make is that the agents concerned are inexperienced and therefore people cannot report accidents to them. What I am pointing out to the Minister is that this particular clause is ineffective unless the people handling the insurance are in fact experienced in the handling of claims. What happened in the past is that people who obtained tokens and declarations from inexperienced agents, if they had a claim, could be jeopardized under this clause, because when they returned to report the claim to the agent they found that he was no longer there or did not know the provisions of the Act. I think that is where this becomes important.

The other difficulty is that these inexperienced agents do not fill in the necessary tokens correctly. This alone may hit back at the driver concerned in the event of an accident and he can be jeopardized under this clause. These are the points I wish to make. I believe that they have the support of motor insurance companies in South Africa, and I think this is the only way in which we can tighten up the very difficult position of the reporting of accidents within a stated time.

Up to this stage the attitude adopted by hon. members on the opposite side has apparently been threefold. Firstly, it referred to the right of recourse and, secondly, to whether an amendment of this Section 22 is really necessary, and the argument was advanced that the courts should actually decide on that, to judge whether or not the period was reasonable; and, thirdly, the hon. member for Durban (North) asked what the penal provision would be if this section came into operation. I should like to make a few remarks as regards these three aspects.

Firstly, as regards the right of recourse, the position in Section 22 is quite clear. Read with Section 14, it is that in terms of Section 22 a person must furnish certain particulars and information to the insurance company involved, within a certain period. If he fails to do so, the insurance company may, in terms of Section 14. recover from that person the compensation it has been compelled to pay. That is quite clear. That is not amended in any way. The hon. member for Durban (North) devoted the major part of his speech to the argument that the entire recourse position is now being Upset by the amendment before the House. The other aspect of the question of recourse is that the proviso to Section 22 (3) meets this concern on the part of the hon. member. It provides that if an owner is unable to comply with this requirement, and his inability is not due to his own action or default, such a company cannot claim from him. But the important point as regards the amendment of Section 22, is that time is wasted in reporting accidents. It has already been mentioned that that delay is of importance as regards the company, because certain information is not furnished to the company and also because evidence becomes vague, but it is also of importance as regards the third party himself, because in terms of Section 22 (2) he is entitled to demand information from the insured person. He, in turn, needs this information to formulate any claim he wishes to lodge. If an insured person fails to give that information to the insurance company within a certain period laid down by Section 22 (1), the third party is also unable to obtain the information he needs, and that causes unnecessary delay in the proceedings which may later follow upon the lodging of his claim.

It has also been asked whether this amendment is really necessary, and whether it cannot be left to the discretion of the courts. But in that very case to which the hon. member for Durban (North) referred, Union Guarantee and Insurance Company Ltd. v. Potgieter, which is reported in the third volume of the S.A. Law Reports of 1959, on page 882, Judge President De Villiers said the following—

That same court confirms the principles which the Minister is now asking this House to confirm once again. But the hon. member also asked what penal provision will be laid down in Section-22 or in Section 14 if this proposed amendment is accepted. It is a great pity that the hon. member asked this question, because it exposes a great deal of ignorance as far as this legislation is concerned, and I say that with all due respect to him. In Section 22 (3) the penal provision is set out very clearly, and I should like to leave it to the Minister to consider whether this penal provision in Section 22 (3) should not be increased considerably, so that it could be impressed upon the public also how serious this type of legislation is, and in what a serious light third party claims and their handling should be regarded by all parties concerned in it. In that penal provision it is stated very clearly that if a person fails to comply with the provisions of Section 22 (1) he shall be liable upon conviction to a fine not exceeding R50 or to a corresponding period of imprisonment as an alternative. It is very clear that it should be read with Section 14, and if it is read thus, there can surely be no doubt about the penal provision which applies in that respect. But I have received the impression, probably quite correctly, that it does not become a new member in this House to adopt an aggressive attitude towards the opposite side too soon. I do not want to do so, but I want to refer to what the hon. members said, amongst other things, with regard to the Minister in respect of this amendment of Section 22—

I should just like to tell the other side of the House that this “pretty big blue” was not made by the Minister, but in fact by those hon. members who have not read through the Act and who have not read through the previous Acts, and then take up the time of the House with this type of argument.

There is another aspect of Section 22 which I want to ask the Minister to consider, and that is that Section 22 (3), which should be read with Section 22 (1), still mentions a reasonable time and not a specific period, and the principle in Section 22 (1), which is the same as that in Section 22 (3), should then be amended accordingly, also to 14 days. But Section 22 in the Act before the House should also be read with the provisions of Section 11, because Section 22, as the amendment reads at present, is also aimed at saving time and costs so that the Act may be put into operation in the shortest possible time for the settlement of claims. The principle of this legislation has been made very clear in this House on previous occasions. It is that the legislation was introduced to afford unfortunate people who are involved in accidents and who are entitled to claim compensation, the opportunity of being compensated. On one occasion it was defined as such by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agricultural and Water Affairs, in Col. 6357 of Hansard of 20th May, 1964—

That, read with the object contained in this, to ensure that accidents are reported and to ensure that companies receive the information and to ensure that the third party can obtain that information, is also the object of the Act with Section 11, namely that the two things should be taken together. In 1964 the principle of Section 11 was put very clearly in this House. I do not want to repeat that, but it amounts to the same, that people who are entitled to claims, should be enabled to have them settled as soon as possible and at the lowest possible costs. You will remember, Sir, that Section 11 relates to the way in which claims are to be lodged, and the period within which that shall be done.

I want to conclude my argument with the suggestion that when the Minister replies to this debate, he should also appeal to all parties concerned in the handling of claims in terms of these two sections of the Act to do their best not to aim at money in the first place, but primarily at the greatest possible objectivity in settling such claims, so that it may be done with the least possible waste of time and costs. Before I sit down. I also want to ask that this House, as far as this legislation is concerned, will endeavour at all times to impress upon the public how serious it is, because I am of the opinion that the seriousness of this Act is not fully appreciated by the public.

Mr. Speaker, I would have been prepared to say no more about the little omission in this Bill which necessitated a very late amendment being moved when we first discussed the matter the other day. But I am afraid that the hon. member for Potchefstroom compels me to come back to it. The hon. member for Durban (North) did refer to this as a “blue”, but he was clearly referring to the fact that at the last moment it was necessary to introduce this amendment. He was obviously indicating that there appeared to have been an oversight in regard to the effect the amendment to Section 22 of the Act would have upon the right of recourse. I do not think that anybody could seriously argue about that. Therefore, as far as this alleged error by the hon. member for Durban (North) is concerned, I believe it does not exist.

The hon. member for Potchefstroom said something else which I did not quite understand. He said that the hon. member for Durban (North) said “die kwessie van verhaal word omvergewerp”. By this I take it that the hon. member for Potchefstroom maintains that the hon. member for Durban (North) says that the whole question of the right of recourse is either “omvergewerp”, that is to say discarded, or turned upside down. It certainly is quite clearly affected quite considerably by this amendment as originally introduced. The hon. the Deputy Minister’s amendment indicates that he appreciates too that it has an appreciable effect on the right of recourse.

Before I take Clause 2 and the amendment to it any further, I should like to touch on one or two slightly more general matters. In the first place, this Bill flows out of the new basis of compulsory third-party insurance. We accept that these changes are inevitable in view of the new set-up. We are moving away from the emergency basis of 1966 to a new permanent basis of arriving at the insurers and the terms of insurance. You will remember, Sir, that in 1965, following the Parity trouble, the hon. the Minister chose 11 companies to be his insurers. This was considered to be such a singular choice that it was featured on the covers of financial magazines as “Ben’s eleven”. They were a very good looking lot of people!

They are doing a very good job of work.

Perhaps, since that time the hon. the Minister has remembered that rugby is our national game, because he has since expanded the team to 15 with one reserve.

On which clause is the hon. member speaking?

Mr. Speaker, I am very soon going to deal with the clauses themselves. I am now dealing with the fact that we have in fact changed the basis upon which the insurance has been done through the years and we are getting on to a more permanent basis as far as the actual provisions of this Bill are concerned. I only want to pose the further question whether perhaps there is some game with an even larger number of players in it, which may indeed make it possible for other equally handsome people to be admitted into these teams.

There may be injuries.

There have been expansions and maybe they will take place again, with advantage to everybody. I will in fact touch on one aspect when I close, which I think has a certain bearing upon the limited nature of those who may insure.

Mr. Speaker, the one clause that has given us considerable trouble. And I think from the amendment introduced by the hon. the Deputy Minister, he concedes that we were right to have been concerned about it. This clause is, of course, Clause 2. I think it is very important if this is soon going to become law that the members of the public should realize that a new and much more severe provision in regard to notice is being incorporated in the law. As the hon. member for Port Natal mentioned, the figures show that one motorcar driver in ten has an accident every year, which means that approximately 17 of us in this House, by the law of averages, will have an accident of this kind in the course of this year. I wonder very much whether all of us are in the way of attending so rapidly to our affairs that we shall in fact give the notice within 14 days.

Mr. Speaker, as I have said, this clause is something to which the attention of the public needs to be directed at the earliest moment. It does two things. Firstly it affects the criminal side and the criminal liability of the motorist, and secondly the civil side. As far as the criminal side is concerned, it definitely makes it more likely that owners and drivers could be charged with a crime of failing to report their accidents to the third-party insurance company—i.e. accidents which resulted in injury or death. This is quite clearly done by the amendment to Section 22. Previously the wording was “as soon as may be”. Now it is, as amended, “if reasonably possible, within 14 days”.

But I think the change on the civil side is infinitely greater. It increases the likelihood that the owner will be sued for the recovery of damages paid by the insurance company. This is no small matter because this, of course, is the trouble with which the Act was originally introduced to deal, namely to remove the burden from the owner or driver, who was perhaps a man of straw, and transfer it to the insurance companies. This will greatly increase the possibility that an owner may be sued for the recovery of the damages because of the failure on his part to inform the insurer within the prescribed time, which is very much shortened. It means that he loses the protection he is given by the Act. I think it is significant that this effect upon the owner’s position was perhaps overlooked when this Bill was presented. My submission is that in fact this latest amendment improves the position in so far as civil liability of the owner is concerned very little indeed. I am speaking, of course, of the right of recourse. The onus is placed on the owner to prove that he could not reasonably have informed the insurance company within 14 days. He has to prove that he could not have informed the insurance company. One appreciates that there will be some compensating benefits to set against this increased liability in so far as the owner is concerned in the way of recourse. But let us rather examine the reason for this amendment. The hon. member for Potchefstroom has dealt with this too. I take it that it would be to ensure that there is notice as early as possible so that the circumstances of the matter can be investigated. It may be necessary to find witnesses and so forth. The first thing that comes to mind on this point is that there is already a duty imposed upon drivers to report accidents. They must report accidents on pain of being subject to a criminal sanction. The result of their report is that the Police go to the scene. One is familiar with the fact that they always take the names and addresses of all people concerned, the registration numbers of the cars, the names of any witnesses, make a note of marks on the road and the names of passengers and their addresses, and of those who are killed or injured, including, of course, the place and time of the accident. This question is not as vital therefore as some may think. Clearly, as I have indicated there is already a means by which these matters are brought to the attention of the Police. To that extent the evidence is, therefore, preserved. It is precisely the preserving of this evidence and finding who the witnesses are which constitute the main argument for shortening the period in which the owner must report the accident.

I should like to point out that we on this side of the House have already made various suggestions in regard to the alleviation of the position of the motorist. I should like to mention another, which I think is well worth considering. The whole idea is, of course, the preservation of evidence, etc. I suggest that if the motorist can show that no prejudice was caused as a result of any delay, this ought to remove any penalty that there is upon his position. In other words, if the owner who otherwise might have been liable under the right of recourse can show that there is in fact no prejudice to the insurance company, he ought then surely not to suffer because of a slightly late notification. I can tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that his own Department already operates under a provision of that kind. If he considers the position of the S.A.R. & H., he will find that in all cases of failure to lodge claims timeously, the court, on special application, and if satisfied firstly in regard to the reason for such failure, or secondly, if satisfied that the Administration is in no way prejudiced by reason of failure to lodge the claim within the period, the disadvantage of the owner is removed. In other words, solely on the ground that no prejudice arises from the late notification, that factor alone removes the disadvantage of the owner. I suggest that the hon. the Minister can well consider accepting an amendment along the lines which, as I have said, governs the position in regard to all claims against the Railways. This is not only an approach which is being made in regard to Railway matters. It is an approach which is also adopted in regard to municipalities. They also have a short period within which notice must be given of a certain cause of action. There too you find that if no prejudice has resulted, the person who failed to give the timeous notice is free from any disadvantage. I suggest that that is a fair way to treat the motorist. As it stands, this is a very severe clause as regards the motorist, particularly as regards the owner who might otherwise have been liable under the Act. Here I should like to tie this matter to some extent with the new regime. It seems very much as though you are getting a reduction in the benefits enjoyed hitherto by the insured person and that this may perhaps be to the benefit of the fund as a whole. Hitherto, where you had completely free competition in regard to insurance matters, the motorist had this greater protection which is now being denied him. This is a matter which I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will continually bear in mind. This new provision, which I do not doubt was suggested by the insurance companies and which will mean that they will be able to recover moneys that they hitherto could not recover, definitely operates against the motorist himself. It may perhaps save the fund, but I think the Deputy Minister will have to be extremely careful to keep an even balance between the motorist and the interests of his fund, between the motorist and his desire to be able to say that the premiums have not gone up as much as they otherwise might have. If the benefits are going to be reduced of course premiums must go down. I think that this is a matter which the hon. the Deputy Minister should keep very clearly in front of him.

’Mr. G. F. MALAN: Mr. Speaker, this amendment of the Act is welcomed on all sides because it simplifies matters. Apart from the clarification and simplification which it offers, it also provides greater security to the public. It is, after all, very important that in the case of such a State controlled scheme the public should feel assured that everything is in order with that scheme. This arrangement has already resulted in many savings. We can see that reserves are already being built up. I have a suggestion that I want the hon. the Minister to consider. Perhaps he may accept an amendment at a later stage, or perhaps now. The 5 per cent commission which is paid to agents is a considerable amount. Can we not possibly save that if the issuing of insurance policies is coupled with the issuing of motor vehicle licences?

Order! The hon. member is going beyond the scope of this measure.

Then I shall leave the matter there. All the same, the thought which I have expressed here may perhaps be considered by the Minister at a later stage.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill emanates from the agreement entered into by the State President and 16 insurance companies. There are preliminary indications that the agreement has been a great success, and that third-party insurance has now been placed on a sounder basis. Legislation to facilitate the implementation of the agreement is therefore welcomed. With that object the words “as soon as may be” in Clause 2 are substituted by “within 14 days”. That is very clearly an improvement. The reasons for that are that the interpretation of the Courts as to what constitutes a “reasonable period” may differ very widely. Delay in the original notice of an accident to the company concerned, leads eventually to delay in settlement and consequently in determining correctly what the net position of the fund is from time to time. This amendment, that notice shall be given within 14 days, contains no hazard to the driver or owner, because it is very clear that Section 22 <3) affords the necessary exemption to persons who cannot reasonably give notice within 14 days.

The hon. member for Potchefstroom has quite rightly pointed out that Section 22 (3) should also be amended. There the words “reasonable time” are used, and there is no definitive time clause. I want to suggest that Section 22 (3) should not only contain a definitive time clause, but that a distinction should also be drawn between the period stipulated in respect of the driver of a vehicle and the period stipulated in respect of an owner who was not the driver. In my opinion it goes without saying that a driver who was personally involved in an accident can give notice of an accident sooner, or can be expected to give notice sooner, than an owner who first has to obtain that information from a driver.

Mr. Speaker, the first indications are that the position of the new insurance fund is basically sound. Against the background of those indications. I want to appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister to delete sub-section (1) (b) (in) of Section 11. The effect of this deletion will be that third-party insurance will be extended on a limited scale to the field of comprehensive insurance. It will mean that passengers in a motorcar who are transported free of charge and are not relatives or employees of the owner or driver, will also be covered in terms of the third-party insurance of the vehicle concerned. My information is that under comprehensive insurance this type of claim at present covers only a small percentage of the claims in terms of comprehensive insurance. I therefore feel at liberty to ask that this type of cover should also be included under third-party insurance. It will afford greater safety and cover to our motorists without their having to incur the extra expense of comprehensive insurance.

I want to associate myself with one of the members of the Opposition who drew attention to the large number of obscure agencies that have arisen since the agreement came into operation. I do not want to elaborate on that. I just want to say that the criterion should be the ready accessibility of insurance. But then agencies should not be decentralized to such an extent that losses and exorbitant administration costs push up the eventual costs for the insurance fund too high.

Order! I think the hon. member must leave the matter at that.

Sir, I want to conclude by appealing to the Minister to amend the regulations, in terms of the powers he has under Section 32 of the principal Act, to the effect of having the tokens on tractors and trailers changed to aluminium tokens.

Mr. Speaker, I expected more gratitude from the Opposition. They had an opportunity here of showing their gratitude, especially if we think of everything that has been done in the past number of years in the field of third-party insurance. I want to say that the interests of the public, the interests of the man in the street and the interests of the motor vehicle owner have been promoted in this field as never before. In the first place a basis was provided which will not allow of an unsound situation such as the Parity incident ever repeating itself.

In the second place, where there were chaos and confusion and uncertainty in connection with the renewal of third-party insurance last year, everything went smoothly and calmly this year. Third-party insurance was freely available. In the third place protection was granted to the interests of motor vehicle owners to such an extent that since last year they have already saved themselves R8,000,000 which they would have had to pay if the hon. the Minister had not refused a 20 per cent increase in premiums. In this way the interests of the public, of the man in the street, and of the motor vehicle owner are being protected and promoted to their best advantage. I do not believe that there is anybody who can point an accusing finger to the hon. the Minister of Transport to-day by saying that he has neglected the interests of the public in this respect. On the contrary, there is abundant evidence that he has displayed every desire to protect the interests of the public, and to serve those interests in the best way possible.

In the same spirit we are now introducing this amending measure so as to streamline the position, eliminate any short-comings and to continue developing it to the greatest degree of effectiveness. And what do we hear from the Opposition, Sir? We do not hear a single word of acknowledgement or of appreciation for what we have already done in this respect. Instead of that we hear all sort of objections. I must say that we did not hear them to-day. I want to be fair to speakers opposite but we did hear objections on Friday. They raised objections that we were doing an injustice to the public and to motor vehicle owners by passing this amending legislation, that we were neglecting the public’s interests and were placing the public at the mercy of an unscrupulous consortium of insurance companies.

Mr. Speaker, on what has the Opposition based all their objections and all the prejudices which they tried to create in order to place this Amendment Bill under a suspicious light? They have done so because the words “if reasonably possible within two weeks” are substituted for the words “as soon as may be”. One may virtually echo the words of Ripley: “Believe it or not.” After everything which has been done, this is the main objection of the Opposition.

Let me explain in brief what the position is in connection with the amendment to Section 22 where the words “within 14 days” are substituted for the words “as soon as may be”. Section 22 (1) of the present Act provides that the driver or the owner of a motor vehicle which is involved in an accident which causes injury to or the death of persons, other than the driver, shall “as soon as may be” after the occurrence inform the registered company of the occurrence and shall furnish all information in connection therewith. The amendment contained in the clause seeks to effect the change that the driver or owner of a motor vehicle which is involved in an accident which causes any injury or death has to inform the registered insurance company of the occurrence and has to furnish all information “if reasonably possible within 14 days”. In terms of the present provision a final decision has to be obtained from the court in order to prove negligence in acting “as soon as may be”. The hon. member for Durban (North) mentioned a case where the court found that although a person had been in hospital, he should have given notice of the accident. Because he did not do so, the right of recourse under Section 14 was invoked against him.

Now the “14 day” provision is inserted in order to make it clear that notice must be given within that period, and that will eliminate the possibility of various interpretations. But, Sir, is it not in the interest of the public that they should know exactly where they stand in this matter? Whereas previously, as in the case mentioned by the hon. member for Durban (North), they were under the impression that they had been acting within the limits of the provision, that was not in fact so and the public was subject to the right of recourse without there having been any negligence on their part. That happened because an incorrect interpretation was given to Section 22 (1). The case mentioned by the hon. member for Durban (North), namely the case of an insurance company v. Potgieter, really proves nothing else but the necessity for amending this section.

Mr. Speaker, a great deal has been said in connection with the right of recourse. This afternoon the hon. member for Pinelands also spoke about it. The right of recourse is a statutory provision which has always been in the Act. In any case, the “fourteen day” provision has not been inserted to facilitate the right of recourse. Its very purpose is to clarify the position for the public in order that they will not be subjected to the right of recourse as a result of an incorrect interpretation of Section 22 (1). I will concede that there are circumstances which may prevent a person from reporting an accident within two weeks. The person who was involved in the accident may be confined to bed for weeks after the accident and may not be able to do anything. I will readily concede that such circumstances may arise. However, wide provision has been made for such cases. For those persons who cannot comply with this particular provision on account of circumstances beyond their control, there are, inter alia, protection from criminal prosecution. In the proviso to Section 22 (3) it is provided “unless he is unable to comply with such requirement and his inability is not due to his own action or default”.

The hon. member for Durban (North) said that he could not see how the Act could be amended without any reference to Section 14 of the Act. The hon. member was obviously not listening to me when I introduced the Bill the other day. The same applies to the hon. member for Port Natal. On that occasion I said very specifically that this amendment would have the effect that the right of recourse provided for in Section 14 would not automatically follow on any default to comply with the provisions of Section 22 (1). In other words, this amendment to section 14 enables the owner to furnish proof that he was unable to comply with the provisions of section 22 (1). If he succeeds in doing so, the right of recourse will not be invoked against him. With this I think I have removed any doubt which may have existed in this connection. All misgivings hon. members opposite had in this connection were without substance. As a matter of fact, the reason for the Opposition adopting a tamer attitude to-day may be attributed on the one hand to the fact that they did not understand me properly the other day and on the other hand to the amendment of which I have given notice.

The hon. member for Parow asked for a no-claim bonus for persons who had an accident-free record. I want to tell him that the question of no-claim bonuses is a matter which is already being investigated. However, it is a very difficult matter which requires a great deal of investigation and it will only be possible to take a decision in this connection when we have all the necessary statistics at our disposal. The hon. member for Green Point wanted to know what the penalties would be under Section 22 if an accident was not reported. The position is that the penalties remain unchanged. In other words a person will still be able to prove that he has given notice of an accident within a reasonable period after learning of it. The other penalty is of course the application of the right of recourse under Section 14. The hon. member for Port Natal experienced difficulty with large companies owning many vehicles and consequently employing many drivers. He was concerned that some of these drivers might not give notice of an accident. But this aspect is covered in the amendment of which I have given notice. I hope that will satisfy the hon. member. As regards his misgivings in connection with agents, I have to tell him that that is a matter between the company and its agents. In any event, claims are paid by the Fund and do not concern agents at all.

The hon. member for Kroonstad raised certain matters. However, he will understand that I had to rise to speak immediately after him and that I therefore have not had the time to go into some of the points raised by him. He also has a problem with agents. I want to tell him that every agent selling insurance and collecting premiums is obliged to enter into a standard agency agreement with the company. In addition re-insurance has been taken out in respect of agents not paying over premiums. The hon. member for Potchefstroom asked whether the fine in terms of Section 22 (3) could not be increased. In this connection I may just say that if it becomes evident in future that the persons concerned fail to comply with this Act, consideration may be given to his request. For the present, however, one may leave the matter there. The hon. member also asked me to make an appeal to companies to ensure that claims were settled and paid out as expeditiously as possible. Companies have already given us the assurance that they are doing everything in their power to settle claims as expeditiously as possible. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that the division compulsory motor vehicle insurance will be instructed to ensure that companies are acting in the interests of the Motor Vehicle Insurance Fund and do not display unnecessary slackness when it comes to dealing with claims. The hon. member for Pinelands also asked that this amendment i.e., that in connection with the 14 days provision, should be brought to the attention of the public as pertinently as possible. I want to give him the assurance that that will be given the necessary publicity.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The provisions of this Bill are very limited in scope. They affect only a few aspects of the capital structure of the Industrial Development Corporation. As hon. members know it is provided in Act No. 22 of 1940 that the capital of the I.D.C. shall be £5,000,000, consisting of five million £1 shares. With the decimalization of our monetary system the £1 shares automatically became R2 shares. Now we find ourselves in this situation that the capital of the I.D.C. is R10,000,000, consisting of five million shares. That caused administrative difficulties and that is why the I.D.C. has asked that we should provide, through legislation, that each R2 share be subdivided into two R1 shares. In other words the capital is being increased from five million R2 shares to ten million R1 shares. All that this Bill makes provision for is that the I.D.C. will no longer work with R2 shares, but with R1 shares. The other provision of this Bill provides for new share certificates to be issued, in keeping with this amendment.

This is a formal amendment to the Act as a result of a change in the form of our currency and, that being the case, we from this side of the House will support the Second Reading of this Bill.

I should like to ask the Minister whether it is not so that there is only one shareholder and that it will accordingly not be necessary to issue new scrip?

That is so.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

During the past general election of members of the House of Assembly, members of the Legislative Assembly of South West Africa and provincial by-elections, the special voting system and other provisions introduced by the Electoral Laws Amendment Act, 1965, were thoroughly tested in actual practice.

All electoral officers and returning officers were subsequently requested to furnish their views on the system and to indicate in which respects improvements could be effected. The various views and recommendations are still being studied. I want to avail myself of this opportunity to request all political parties to submit their views and recommendations to my Department for consideration and study.

When all comments and recommendations have been studied I intend, if amendments to the electoral laws are deemed necessary, to present a draft amendment and consolidation bill to this House and to move that the bill be referred to a select committee before second reading.

This Bill merely contains amendments which are aimed—

1. (a) chiefly, at introducing the special voting system into the election of members of the House of Assembly and provincial councillors by certain non-Whites in the Cape and into the elections of the Coloured Persons Representative Council so that such voters may not be placed in any worse position than the White voters; and
2. (b) while the electoral laws are now being amended, at extending certain powers of presiding officers in order to enable them to render more assistance to voters under certain circumstances in casting postal votes and special votes.

The provisions which are aimed at making the special voting system applicable also to the election of the four members of the House of Assembly who are to represent certain non-Whites in the House of Assembly and of the two provincial councillors who are to represent them in the Cape Provincial Council, are contained in Clause 5 and differ only in one important respect from the existing special voting system, namely by providing in sub-clause (5) that the presiding officers for votes of special voters are obliged to be on duty only between 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. during the special vote period at the offices of the returning officers only and not at the offices of all electoral officers and magistrates throughout the Republic as well.

Apart from the fact that the election will only be held in the Cape, there are numerous magisterial districts where their services will not be required at all.

Whereas they are not obliged to remain on duty outside their normal hours of duty, they are not prevented from doing so and they will receive over-time payment for all periods during which they actually were so on duty. This aspect of the matter will be arranged by the returning officers according to the requirements in each area.

In Clause 6 amendments to Section 9 of the Coloured Persons Representative Council Act are proposed which have the same purport as the provisions contained in Clause 5 to which I have just referred.

I now come to those provisions which will be applicable to all electoral laws and which are aimed at removing certain snags which were revealed during the recent elections.

In terms of the present provisions of Section 42Az‘.v (1) of the Electoral Consolidation Act, as shown in Clause 1 of the Bill, a presiding officer for absent votes appointed by a returning officer is authorized only to deal with postal votes for that election for which he has been appointed.

This means that if a presiding officer has been appointed—

1. (a) for the election of members of the House of Assembly he may not deal with postal votes for the election of provincial councillors or members of the Legislative Assembly of South West Africa which may be held on the same day;
2. (b) for the election of provincial councillors he may not deal with postal votes in respect of such elections in other provinces, because a returning officer for elections is merely a returning officer for the type of election for which he has been appointed returning officer by proclamation, and various proclamations are promulgated for various elections.

During the recent election when the election of members of the Legislative Assembly of South West Africa was held on the same day as the general election, this state of affairs caused the activities of presiding officers appointed on the recommendation of candidates and parties to be restricted only to the election for which they had been appointed.

Although there are presiding officers who may deal with postal votes in respect of any election by virtue of their positions, i.e. senators, members of the House of Assembly, provincial councillors, members of the Legislative Assembly, electoral officers, justices of the peace, magistrates, Bantu affairs commissioners, postmasters, station masters, certain members of the Police Force and of the Railways and Harbours Police Force, the voters nevertheless felt a need for presiding officers appointed at the request of the candidates and parties to be able to deal freely with postal votes, as is the position in the case of other presiding officers.

Although Section liter (3) provides, as shown in Clause 2, that no application to vote as a special voter shall be issued or delivered to or by a presiding officer for votes of special voters prior to the 21st day before polling day, and only relates to a completed application and not to blank application forms, it is proposed that the provision be amended to remove any possible doubt which may exist in regard to the right to distribute blank application forms amongst voters prior to the 21st day before polling day.

The period between the 21st day prior to polling day up to the 2nd day prior to polling day is the period in which absent voters may bring out their vote on a ballot-paper and they require the forms beforehand in order to enable them to obtain in good time all required information which they do not have at their disposal.

In terms of the provisions of Section 71nov (1), as shown in Clause 3, a presiding officer for votes of special voters may visit any special voter who, in his opinion, is unable to attend before such presiding officer, during the special vote period if he receives a written request in which the voter furnishes his identity number and other particulars.

During the past general election the requirements of a written application restricted presiding officers in that they were unable to accommodate deserving cases without having received a written application.

Consequently it is suggested that this requirement be waived as it remains in the discretion of the officer whether or not to comply with such a request, even though it has not been made in writing, and such officer may refuse to comply with such request if in his opinion the applicant has made an unreasonable request.

In addition to this it is also proposed in Clause 3. i.e. in the new paragraph 71nov (1) (b), as shown in the Bill, that a presiding officer may at any time during the special vote period visit any place in order to enable any special voter to vote at such place, provided prior notice has been given by him to the political parties or candidates of the place, date and time so as to enable them to exercise their watch-dog function.

This power is deemed necessary in order to accommodate large concentrations of voters, for instance in army camps and in constituencies, particularly in cities, where the office of the returning officer is not within easy reach of voters as a result of transport and parking problems.

In terms of the present provisions of Section 71dec a presiding officer for votes of special voters has to send a letter of confirmation as well as a telegram to the returning officer concerned containing details of every special voter who has voted, and he has to do so during the entire special vote period.

It has become evident in actual practice that the telegram, or a letter personally delivered, in respect of only those special voters who voted during the last five days, would be sufficient notification to enable returning officers to keep the voters’ rolls up to date for polling day.

This amendment will lighten the abnormal pressure on the post office during elections to a considerable extent.

I want to express the wish that the proposals contained in this Bill will meet with general approval and at the same time I accept that my Department, as in the past, will receive the co-operation of all political parties in respect of views and comments. In that way the further improvement of our electoral laws will be effected. I move.

Mr. Speaker, because of our experiences in the last election, we do not think this measure goes as far as we would like it to go. Nevertheless, Sir, we have accepted the fact that this Bill is designed especially to deal with the coming election for Coloured representatives in this House. You will notice that this Bill in fact amends three Acts, and I think it would perhaps be as wise to deal with them in the order in which this Bill seeks to amend them. We on this side of the House have no objection to this Bill, although we should like to comment on one or two aspects. Clauses 1, 2 and 3 all amend the Electoral Consolidation Act. It is indeed pleasing to hear from the hon. the Minister that he in fact intends to consolidate all these electoral measures, and that he is going to seek the opinions of all those people, of all parties, who are interested in the matter. I think it will be a very good thing, Sir, because as you know the system used at the last election was quite strange to many people. It was new in many respects. Special voting was introduced, amongst other things. I think that most of us, having had experience of the new measure, can now make suggestions to the hon. the Minister with a view to improving our voting system, making it fairer in its application, and making it more expeditious in its working.

Now, Sir, Clause 2 of this Bill states that no application for postal votes shall be signed prior to 21 days before polling. We think this is a very good provision indeed. It limits the use of this particular type of vote to a specific period of 21 days. In the past we have seen certain abuses taking place when these votes have been collected, and I do not think our voting procedure in this regard has been a good one. As no principle is involved here in this Bill, I should like to deal with each particular aspect. Clause 1 of the Bill enables unopposed candidates to appoint their 12 presiding officers for special voters. They can operate either in that constituency or in other constituencies. We have no objection to this provision. On the contrary, Sir, we believe that in the long run it will turn out to be a good thing. I must remind you, Sir, that this measure will perhaps have its first try-out in connection with the election for Coloured representatives in this House which will be held later this year.

Clause 3 provides facilities for special voters who are unable to attend before a presiding officer. This allows a presiding officer to attend on that person so that he can record his special vote. This too, we think is an improvement. He can do that at any time. The second section of the clause allows the presiding officer to make appointments and visit certain places at certain times, after having notified all the parties concerned in the election, whether they be political parties or individual candidates. I think this fact that the presiding officer can in fact become mobile and can attend to people in groups in special districts, is a very good addition, especially in relation to Coloured elections, because Coloured people lack the means of transport which we have, and it is difficult for them in many cases to travel any distance at all to exercise their votes. Now that the presiding officer can in fact go to them, and deal with them in groups, we believe that this will facilitate things and help these people to record their votes. We have no objection at all to doing away with the necessity for telegraphic voting up to the seventh day before election day, and we think that the system of notification by a letter, personally delivered, is quite a good one.

The next section deals with the Separate Representation of Voters’ Act and it merely applies the whole of the system of postal votes to the Coloured election. The second part of this clause provides for the Coloured Representatives in this House, something we do not have, and that is the guarantee of a five-year term of office. They are the only group of representatives, I should imagine, who in fact have a guaranteed period of five years in Parliament and we are not against it. We believe that this provision is quite a good one. We therefore support this guaranteed period of five years.

The other portion dealing with polling stations, by regulation, is a fair one, because we believe that the hon. the Minister under this section can provide polling stations where they are most needed. We also like the reduction of the distance for absent or postal voters from ten to five miles. In the case of the Coloured voters, this will be a great help to them. They will now not have to travel distances greater than five miles to record their vote. The previous provision that the presiding officer for absent votes can in fact go to certain areas, might in fact mean that these people will not have to travel any distance at all and we sincerely hope that this is the way in which the hon. the Minister intends to apply it. I am not so happy, Sir, about the last portion, sub-clause (5). This is the sub-clause which says that only the returning officer shall be available for special votes until 9 p.m., in other words, for the longer hours. It has struck me that in the Coloured elections especially, for which the Act is intended, the constituencies are very big indeed and the doubt arises in my mind whether one returning officer (because there is only one returning officer for each constituency) can in fact cope with the situation which will be created here, especially in the case of Coloured people who have to work. The question arises whether they can in fact go many many miles to record their vote between, say, 5 p.m. when they stop work and 9 p.m. when the returning officer goes off duty. I believe that the hon. the Minister should make some provision for magistrates’ offices and offices of that kind in certain districts to be open at certain times, not necessarily every day, from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. They do not necessarily have to be open every day but I think provision should be made for them to be open during extra hours on certain days so that people in out-tying districts can take advantage of that to record their vote. I think this would perhaps also lead to a bigger poll which would be a good thing.

Clause 6 amends the postal voting system for the Coloured Representative Council and has nothing to do with parliamentary elections and it also reduces the qualifying distance from ten miles to five miles. We have no objection whatsoever to that. The last part of this clause applies once more to hours of attendance of returning officers only. Sir, having dealt with those particular points and the opening remarks of the hon. the Minister I want to say that we accept this Bill. We hope it will not be long before the Minister in fact gets on with the job of a reconsolidation of this consolidated Act so that when the elections come in roughly four years’ time we will in fact be ready and will not have to deal with legislation controlling those elections at the last minute.

It seems to me as though the House is now dealing with the Committee Stage as well, and as though the second reading and the Committee Stage are being taken simultaneously. I should like hon. members to confine themselves to the principles of the Bill and not to take the Committee Stage now.

Mr. Speaker, I should very much like to abide by your ruling. I think I speak on behalf of the Minister and the entire House if I say in lighter vein that we are quite prepared to deal with the second reading and the Committee Stage simultaneously! I am very glad to hear from the hon. member for Umlazi, who spoke on behalf of the Opposition, that they accept the Bill. I think all of us found during the past election that the amendments we had introduced in the electoral laws last year were great improvements, although we have certain reservations. Here I want to express my appreciation towards the hon. the Minister for having called for comment by everybody who had been involved in the election, whether presiding officers or returning officers or political parties. I want to express the hope that the necessary recommendations will in fact be made for the good, so that our electoral laws, which the Parliament of South Africa and the voters of South Africa and the representatives here hold dear, may be cast in the best possible mould. The Parliament of South Africa is indisputably a democratic institution in the full sense of the word, by virtue of the fact that the Parliament of South Africa has been elected by the voters of the country, and we should like to—we do that in every amendment of the electoral laws—introduce amendments which will enable every voter in South Africa to record his vote. One of the things envisaged by this Bill is to make it easier, to make it more possible, or to give the opportunity to every registered voter to record his vote at an election. It is my conviction and I foresee that in future we shall make much more use of the special vote, which was something new in the past election; we then used it for the first time. It was our experience that it functioned well in many respects although that was actually an experiment. I am convinced that we can elaborate on that pattern to give South Africa a sound voting system, and I am glad that this Bill is also seeking to establish a voting system which places the emphasis on the special vote, and which introduces an easier and better method of affording every voter the opportunity of recording his vote. The electoral laws are not there to place restrictions on the voter’s opportunity of recording his vote. The provisions of every amendment to an electoral law are aimed at making it possible and easier for a voter to record his vote. I think this Bill is a great improvement, and we welcome it, also for the fact that it emphasizes the special vote and gives more people an opportunity of recording their vote. If I understood the hon. member for Umlazi correctly—I never know who the member for Umlazi is, because I have read other reports in the papers …

Order!

I come back to the Bill immediately. If I understood the hon. member for Umlazi correctly, his only objection was apparently the restriction with regard to the period for which polling stations may be kept open …

No, the offices.

Let me then rather put it this way: He referred to the presiding officer who may record special votes for absent voters. In his introductory speech the hon. the Minister said very clearly that it rests with the returning officer of the constituency concerned to decide how long the polling stations shall be kept open. We cannot provide in the Act that all the offices or polling stations where voters may record their special votes, shall remain open from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. It may happen that in an entire magisterial district there are only two of three voters who want to record a special vote, or there may not be one, and then that office would nevertheless have to remain open until 9 p.m. I trust the hon. member will appreciate that, and that, he will agree to our satisfying ourselves with the provision that the returning officer shall use his discretion according to the needs of that constituency, to give presiding officers for absent voters an opportunity of recording special votes. I really welcome the suggestion by the hon. the Minister that more of these presiding officers for absent voters will be given an opportunity of being mobile and of going to record votes. The presiding officer will not necessarily have to bring the voter to the polling station. He will be able to go and record a special vote after having given the required notice to the other party as to where and when he will go and record that special vote. I think this is not an inappropriate occasion to extend our appreciation towards the magistrates of our country, who perform an almost superhuman task during elections. They have a shortage of staff; they do not employ additional personnel, and they perform their task most cordially and with the greatest friendliness. But I can assure hon. members that it is a tremendous task which is imposed on these magistrates’ offices. If we make the presiding officer for absent voters mobile to enable him to record a portion of the special votes, we shall also lighten the burden on the magistrates’ offices. We welcome that.

Mr. Speaker, a word of sincere gratitude and appreciation to the hon. the Minister for the announcement that it is hoped that we shall be able to consolidate the electoral laws before the next general election. I want to ask that as soon as the information which his Department has called for has been collected, it will be processed in order that we may have a White Paper or a memorandum on it, so that all parties will be able to study that system before the select committee is appointed. I want to give you an example which I take from this Bill which is now before the House. I refer to Clause 5 of the Bill. Clause 5 amends Section 20 of Act 46 of 1951 as amended by Section 3 of Act 30 of 1965, Section 1 of Act 2 of 1958, Section 59 of Act 72 of 1962, Section 28 of Act 49 of 1964 and Section 1 of Act 72 of 1965. Hon. members will appreciate that if another amendment were made to the electoral laws and to this section next year, a further string of amendments would be added to this. I therefore want to ask that we should as soon as possible, if possible, long before the next general election, receive that Bill and refer it to a select committee, so that such a select committee will not have to hurry with its work, but will have ample time to make the necessary amendments for the good of our electoral laws.

I welcome the stress the hon. member who spoke a moment ago laid upon the special voting system that is being amended here. I agree with him wholeheartedly that the more we can make use of this system the better it will be for the smooth conduct of elections. I also want to welcome heartily the announcement the hon. the Minister made in connection with the inquiry he had ordered. I can assure him that he will receive from this side of the House and from our party the necessary memoranda and recommendations as requested by him, because we are very anxious to make full use of the experience gained during the past elections and to benefit from the lessons learnt during the past election and the subsequent by-elections. It is perfectly clear that there are still flaws which none of us noticed when we dealt with these matters. I refer, for example, to the tug of war that takes place when parties receive applications for a postal vote. The application is addressed to the presiding officer of one particular party and then the other party comes along with another little form—the E.F. 35B—and demands that the vote be handed over to it. The other party, in turn, obtains another little form and eventually one gets the position that both parties are tugging at the poor voter and that the latter never knows where he stands. Fortunately we in the United Party have usually won, but we should nevertheless like to see this flaw eliminated. For that reason we shall submit our views to the Minister with pleasure, and I hope we shall be able to commence early next year with the inquiry he referred to. But there are certain points which arise from this Bill and which we have to discuss at this stage. In a number of cases it is a question of administration. Seeing that the special vote is now going to be used for the Coloured elections and seeing that the distances are very great, I feel that it is necessary for the Minister to issue instructions that all special votes be dispatched by express airmail. The Minister was not to blame—his hon. colleague was to blame—but the delay in the post, particularly where no air-mail facilities were available, and even where air-mail facilities were available but were not used, resulted in many votes being lost. I want to suggest that either an amendment be made in the Committee Stage or instructions be given to the Department that the express air-mail service be used, where available, in dealing with special votes during the Coloured elections, because those elections will take place before this matter can be fully investigated. I also notice that the amendment contained in Clause 2 applies to special votes only. I am referring to the provision that the voter may not sign his application until 21 days before the election. May I ask the hon. the Minister whether he intends making this applicable to both the ordinary postal vote and the special vote?

Not now.

The application for an ordinary postal vote may therefore still be signed at any time after nomination day, but this cannot be done in the case of a special vote.

Yes.

Why the difference?

[Inaudible.]

I do not agree with the hon. the Minister that it does not matter.

I do not say that it does not matter, but I should like to get full comment from all the interested parties first. I shall then make an amendment at the same time as I make the other amendments

I am sorry that we will not be able to have it for this election, because I believe many application forms have already been signed. I any case—and I blame the Minister’s party as much as I am blaming mine—both parties, which knew that by-elections would take place, made their people sign application forms.

Order! That is irrelevant.

There is a limit of 21 days prior to the election in which a voter may sign his application form. The amendment now is to delete the words “issued or delivered to” and to substitute the words “signed by an applicant”. That is before the 21st day prior to polling day. My point is that both parties adopted the practice I have referred to. When one knows that an election is going to take place one has one’s potential postal voters sign the forms well in advance, and in cases where a general election is to be followed by a by-election one will have the voters sign two forms, one for the general election and one for the provincial election that is to follow. I want to know from the Minister whether it is not necessary to consider whether this question should not be dealt with in this legislation as well.

As regards the question of hours referred to by the previous speakers, the hon. members for Wolmaransstad and Umlazi, we found that through negotiation between the parties and the returning officer or the magistrate it was possible to arrange reasonable hours which suited everybody. Even though the Act had not yet been amended it was often arranged through negotiation that a certain office would not be open during certain hours but that another one would remain open. In that way it was possible to make these arrangements. I agree that the matter should be left to the officials, but I feel that it will only be effective if it is done in consultation with the political parties; in other words, that the returning officer should not decide about it alone, but that he will consult with the parties to determine what hours will suit the various parties.

Would he not do so normally?

Yes. but I feel it should be done after compulsory consultation, and that it should not be something he will be able to do at his own discretion without consultation. The consultation is important, and I hope the Minister, if he does not include this in the Act, will make it an instruction.

The other points I wanted to discuss were covered by the Minister’s announcement that he was going to take the entire Electoral Act into review. I think that occasion will be the best time to discuss those points.

Like the previous speaker, I have also been directly concerned with the arrangements and the finer details of elections, and I have consequently become more closely acquainted with the subtler meanings of certain sections of the Act. I welcome the fact that the Electoral Laws are being amended once again, because the object of Electoral Laws is in fact to facilitate the democratic process, namely to enable voters to record their votes. It is therefore of great importance that a distinction should be drawn between ordinary postal votes and special votes, and I welcome the fact that the returning officer himself will be able to visit voters, if necessitated by circumstances, who cannot cast their votes in any other way. I think it is essential to emphasize that it is the right of every voter to be able to record his vote, regardless of circumstances. If the circumstances are of such a nature that he cannot do so by ordinary postal vote, in other words, if the period allowed for ordinary postal votes has already expired and that person is perhaps in hospital, then it is desirable that the returning officer shall have the opportunity of visiting the voter in order that he may record his vote within the period laid down by the Act.

I am also glad that the Minister has announced that there will be an opportunity for further amendments to the Electoral Laws, for although the ordinary voter is perhaps not very intensely interested in the meaning of each specific section—he is only interested in the opportunity of making his cross—we have found that the election process depended to a large extent upon the interpretation attached to certain sections. Thus we found, particularly in an election which was very closely contested, that where it was possible that there would be only a small majority, the parties scrutinized the meaning of certain sections with a magnifying glass, and that there was a hunt for loopholes by means of which one further vote could be recorded, or in terms of which the opponents could perhaps be prevented from recording a vote. After such an election the parties that handled it can often agree to having those loopholes stopped. I am glad that there are certain amendments in this amending Bill on which the two parties can agree. [Interjections.] I think it is important that after the election all of us can still appreciate that the democratic process is the right of all parties and all voters in the country. It is for that reason that I support this amendment.

I must congratulate the hon. member for Umhlatuzana on his maiden speech and apologize for my interjection. The hon. member spoke so fluently and ably that it was hard for me to remember that he was making his maiden speech.

I have no objections to this Bill at all. The three parties are in agreement on the principle in the Bill. Anything that can improve the system of voting and makes it easier for people to exercise their democratic rights is welcomed by me. I take some exception to the remark made by the hon. member for Wakkerstroom, who stated that the entire system of election for Parliament in South Africa is completely democratic because the majority of people in this country are excluded from exercising their democratic rights. But in so far as that system does extend to our parliamentary elections, I welcome any improvements in the voting system. I want to say one thing to the Minister about the new system we introduced before the recent election. I think there was an improvement as far as the postal votes are concerned, particularly the alterations in regard to special votes, but I think all of us found that there was an enormous amount of paper work involved with the special votes, and I think the task of the presiding officers for special voters was very difficult indeed. I see now that the Minister has reduced the period for notification of the special vote, and that is an improvement, but I wonder whether it is necessary at all. In many cases we found that the presiding officer for special votes was himself the returning officer, and interpreting the law in its narrowest form meant that despite this the returning officers, where they were themselves the presiding officers, had to send themselves telegrams lest the election be upset on some technicality. We found that that happened and that there was a lot of unnecessary paper work. I wonder whether the Minister, in conjunction with his officials, could not perhaps review this particular part of the system and introduce an amendment in the Committee Stage to prevent this. The sending of telegrams backwards and forwards is quite unnecessary.

I welcome the fact that there will be some restriction on the timing of application forms as far as the date is concerned. As the hon. member for Point has indicated, this has led to a lot of unnecessary bickering and unnecessary arguments. I see no reason why this should not be extended to the ordinary postal votes as well as the special votes. I also welcome the fact that the distance from the polling booth for special votes, particularly in the case of Coloured voters, has been reduced to five miles instead of the usual ten miles. For the rest, I welcome the Bill.

I think it is customary and no more than proper and courteous that a Minister, and particularly the Minister of the Interior, who introduces legislation that meets with so much approval, and to which the contributions are so constructive, should express his gratitude towards hon. members who have taken part in the debate, and particularly also towards the young member for Umhlatuzana. I have noted the proposals and suggestions that have been made, particularly by the hon. member for Point, and that are now also supported by the hon. member for Houghton, as regards the possibility to consider right away that period with regard to the application for postal votes. I shall give consideration to those suggestions, and see whether it is possible to incorporate them in order that the same provisions may apply to special votes as to the ordinary postal votes. I think in that respect they are on to something that will not only save time and energy in practice, but will also eliminate evils.

Bill read a Second Time.

The hon. the Minister has told us in his speech that in the large majority of the industrial councils provision has already been made for trade union members to arrange for their membership fees to be deducted from their wages, and that out of some 100 cases there are only nine where that is not being done at present. For that reason, where it is in the interests of the smooth functioning of our trade union system and the system of collective bargaining in which all of us believe, one can find no reason for this system of deductions not having to be made applicable to all employees. One cannot fight against that principle. We on this side are very strongly in favour of members of trade unions enjoying the privilege of having their membership fees deducted from their wages by their employers. But unfortunately, as is so often the case, this simple and sound principle which we should like to have supported is overshadowed in this Bill by so many additional but very important considerations that we as Opposition find it impossible to support this Bill. I should like to draw attention to a few of the matters which cause us anxiety and which make it impossible for us to support the Bill.

In the first place, in terms of Section 1 (a) (lA) (a) we find that the Minister wants to take powers which can almost make him a dictator over the fate of many trade unions in South Africa. If the Minister has regard to the manner in which a trade union is functioning, and if he has regard to any other circumstances which he may consider relevant, he may issue an order for compulsory deductions. In other words, the Minister has absolute, unlimited discretion and he is not responsible to anybody for any decisions he takes under this authorization. If he should be taken to court, the grounds on which his decision can be attacked are, as everybody knows, so limited that there is virtually no precedent in our legislation where such a case against a Minister can succeed; because one has to prove then that the Minister did not act in good faith or alternatively, that the Minister did not apply himself intelligently to the case submitted to him; and where one has to prove such subjective things, it is virtually impossible in practice to prove them in court. For that reason the Opposition feels that where the welfare of the trade unions is concerned, it cannot be agreeable to granting to the Minister these powers in this form.

The Bill also provides that the Minister may only exercise his powers where the majority of the possible members of a trade union in a particular undertaking, industry or trade or occupation are members of the trade union concerned. Normally he cannot do that unless the majority of the workers who can belong to a trade union, are members of the trade union. But he is not obliged to do so. Even though a trade union may have more than half of the possible members, it is still left to the Minister’s discretion whether or not he will do so, but not only that. He may, by refusing it in the case of a registered trade union which has the large majority of workers in a particular occupation or trade, simultaneously grant the right to a small trade union which by chance happens to have more than half of the possible members in a particular undertaking within that trade. It may happen that a trade union which has 10 per cent of the possible trade union members in a trade, may receive a concession from the Minister, but one which has 90 per cent cannot receive it simply because the small trade union has the majority of members in a specific undertaking, while the Minister is not well-disposed towards the bigger trade union.

Then we find a very interesting qualification of the Minister’s power in Clause 1 (a) (1A) (b). The proviso provides that, although the Minister may not normally grant this concession of compulsory stop-orders unless a trade union has the majority of the members in the particular undertaking, trade, etc., he may in fact do so where the application somes from either an all-White or an all-Coloured trade union, even though the trade union has a minority of members, even though the trade union does not even have 50 per cent of the members. This Bill which on the face of it is intended to facilitate the activities and the proper organization of trade unions, immediately brings our industrial relations into the ideological context of our political differences in South Africa. Where the principal Act already provides that no mixed trade unions will be registered in future, from which one concludes that it is the Government’s policy to discourage their existence, it now means that the Minister can make use of these otherwise desirable powers to prejudice a trade union to which both Whites and non-Whites—Natives excluded, of course—belong, to carry out the Government’s policy in an indirect way, by granting the Minister a discretion which can be used against the interests of the so-called mixed trade union and in favour of a struggling uni-racial trade union. That is extremely undesirable. At a later stage I shall have something to say about the principle of that, i.e. about the desirability of whether or not we should have mixed trade unions. To us on this side it is unacceptable that a Minister should be placed in a position where he may use his administrative powers, powers granted him in this Bill, to prejudice a particular trade union which he may perhaps not like, while he may favour another trade union which may perhaps be in good grace ministerially. We must realize that a trade union which enjoys the privilege of compulsory stop-orders, has a tremendous advantage, organizationally speaking, over those trade unions which do not enjoy that privilege. It facilitates the organization of those trade unions and assures them of their income; it will have the effect that cases where workers do not pay their contributions, will be restricted to a minimum. Such a trade union therefore has a tremendous advantage, an advantage the Minister is now able to grant a trade union, and that is not done on merit, but purely on ideological grounds. That is, in our opinion, extremely rash and undesirable.

We also find that the Minister will have the right to withdraw this concession at any time and without giving reasons. This right also gives the Minister the power to place an existing trade union in an impossible position, if he so wishes. Over the years a particular trade union may have built up a very strong administrative organization for the collection of membership fees. Suppose that this trade union will enjoy the privilege of compulsory stop-orders in the future. In the course of time the extensive organization previously built up by it for the purpose of collecting membership fees, will fall into decline and disappear altogether. Suppose further that on a certain day the Minister announces unexpectedly that he is withdrawing this concession of compulsory stop-orders from this particular trade union and that employers no longer have to deduct membership fees. Then the trade union will be faced with a state of affairs where his organization for the collection of membership fees which it built up previously, no longer exists. That will place that trade union in an embarrassing position in which no trade union should be placed. That creates the impression once again that if there are no ulterior motives—and I want to assume that there are no ulterior motives—this is a rash measure. A Select Committee did, of course, deliberate on this measure for days, but this measure which we are discussing at present differs in many respects from the Bill which was originally referred to the Select Committee.

Another matter which causes us concern is the right which is now being granted to the employers to retain 5 per cent of the membership fee to compensate themselves for their costs. I have inquired into the matter and found that in the large majority of cases where employers have already granted stop-order facilities to trade unions, the employers only retained 21 per cent of the membership fees collected for defraying their administrative costs. In many cases nothing is retained. The Minister makes provision for 5 per cent. Why this extra burden on the income of the trade unions? Why reduce their income now? I am sure that most trade unions cannot support this measure. Then there is still the definition of “membership fees”. According to the Principal Act deduction facilities created in terms of this Bill are confined to membership fees in the strictest sense of the word. That means that only that part of the membership fees which is used for the administrative objectives of a trade union, can be deducted in that manner. The hon. the Minister himself said that these facilities will not be applicable to other contributions in respect of benefit funds. From the evidence submitted to the Select Committee, I notice that it was mainly on these grounds that the Confederation of Labour originally supported this Bill. They pointed out that those benefit funds were intended for organizations all of which had been registered in terms of the Friendly Societies Act, and that they were very desirable and wholesome organizations. For that reason they asked that, in the interests of members of trade unions. stop-order facilities should also be granted in favour of these organizations. There may be dependants who rely on certain privileges when the breadwinner takes ill or when he dies or when, for some reason or other, he cannot continue working. They may find that when they need that money it is not accessible to them because for some reason or other, owing to negligence or lack of foresight, membership fees were not paid up. That is why I say that if the Minister wants to render a service to the workers and to the trade unions, he will not limit the definition of membership fees to this extent. It is very clear that the definition of membership fees in this measure limits membership fees to those fees which will have to strengthen a trade union where they frequently have to compete for the support of workers in a particular trade or in a particular field.

It seems as though ideological considerations played the most important part in the drafting of the Bill as it reads at present. In fact, it seems to us as though this Bill was drafted in order to enable the Minister to prejudice multi-racial trade unions at the expense of uni-racial trade unions. As matters stand in South Africa at present, very little political advantage is to be gained from expressing oneself strongly against the compulsory separation of trade unions, i.e. against separate trade unions for Whites and separate trade unions for non-Whites. Nevertheless and despite that we on this side of the House still feel that the Government is rendering a great disservice to industrial relations in South Africa by also enforcing its policy of separating races in the field of the organization of trade unions in general. Such separation will perhaps work well and its disadvantages will perhaps not be apparent as long as we are experiencing a period of prosperity in South Africa and as long as there is full employment. However. I predict that South Africa will still regret the day when opportunities of work are fewer than the number of workers as a result of which a tendency may develop among trade unions composed of other races to compete against one another for the existing opportunities of work, and when one trade union wants to make use of a lower standard of living to oust the other out of its work. In such circumstances a government will be obliged to interfere from the top, to undermine the principles of collective bargaining and to curb the right of trade unions to arrange their own affairs.

In what respect does the Government interfere with trade unions?

I am very sorry that the hon. member for Brakpan is not listening to what I have to say. However, one has to be very patient with the hon. member, and for that reason I shall repeat for his sake what I have said. I said that this system of separation will perhaps work well as long as there is prosperity and full employment in South Africa. I also said that we may regret the day when there will be more workers in our country than employment, for instance when a depression or an economic set-back may occur. Then the trade unions of the various races will start competing with one another with the purpose of ousting one another from their spheres of employment. In such circumstances the Government will be obliged to interfere with the normal processes of collective bargaining, to curb them and to control them from the top. That will mean the end of industrial democracy in South Africa, and that while all of us are at present very proud of the democracy which exists in this field.

I had the privilege to explain to certain trade union leaders in the U.S.A, this Industrial Conciliation Act which we are amending at present. After I had done that, these leaders told me that they wished and prayed that they could have had similar legislation in regard to trade unions in their respective states. They were deeply impressed by our legislation. The reason for their having been so deeply impressed, is that we have legislation here which dates back from the time of Gen. Smuts, from the year 1924, which gave self-respect to trade unions and created a status which made the process of collective bargaining a reality. Since 1924 this legislation has been improved in certain respects, but in some respects it has also been weakened. Ideological interference, of which there are also signs in this Bill, is endangering that fine principle, that social labour measure which in many respects is giving South Africa an advantage over the rest of the world.

In the interests of South Africa, in the interests of sound industrial relations and with the purpose of preventing that a time should come when one race will take action against another with all the conflict, bitterness and discord which may arise from mutual attempts to disparage one another and to deprive one another of privileges, we feel that we should express ourselves very explicitly in this regard, even though by doing so we may make ourselves unpopular for the time being.

In view of all these things, we on this side of the House can merely say with the strongest emphasis that we shall vote against this Bill, so that there may be no doubt as regards the view held by the official Opposition.

I appreciate the reasonable attitude of the hon. member for Yeoville. He said that this measure is an enabling one which empowers the hon. the Minister to give trade unions stop-order facilities and to remove them again whenever he deems it necessary. Now I want to make it very clear that in this measure employers will be afforded the opportunity of objecting when application is made to the hon. the Minister for stop-order facilities. It follows automatically therefore that these facilities are going to be granted to all trade unions. When the granting of such facilities to employees’ organizations is being considered, the employers have the right to object to that and to submit their reservations on the matter to the hon. the Minister. If this had been a compulsive measure then it would have meant that such facilities would have been granted automatically to all trade unions, irregardless of their actions.

The hon. member also raised objections to the fact that stop-order facilities will be limited to membership fees only. This whole matter was considered thoroughly. There are many other funds for which fees can be deducted, inter alia strike funds as well. We felt that we should limit these facilities to membership fees only because one might get disguised funds which trade unions could have deducted from their membership fees. Our hope, one which in my opinion will not be disappointed, is that when one grants stop-order facilities to trade unions, there ought to be no reason for the employer to object to deducting other contributions as well. In this connection I am thinking of contributions such as those to sick funds, for unemployment benefits, for death benefits, etc. In fact, it will have to be a very petty employer who does not deduct these kind of contributions when he has to deduct membership fees.

I said that I am glad of the reasonable attitude which the hon. member adopted here. I am particularly glad about an admission which he made in regard to our Industrial Conciliation Act. There were many objections when the Bill was before this House for the first time in 1956, and again in 1959 and in 1961 when amendments were made to it. Yet not one of those objections have come true in practice and the position is that we have today an Industrial Conciliation Act of which everybody may be justly proud. In fact, employers’ and employees’ organizations testified before the Select Committee to the efficiency of the legislation. But in order to have this legislation function efficiently, we must have well-organized employees’ organizations on the one hand and well-organized employers’ organizations on the other. These two parties must bargain with each other and ought to be able to take up strong positions on their separate points of view. What is also important is that they should also be representative of their particular industry. That is the essence of our system of self-government in our industrial life.

But now you want to encourage the splintering of trade unions.

That is a point to which I shall return later. I say that one must have well-organized trade unions on the one hand and well-organized employers’ organizations on the other if this machinery is to function efficiently.

I now want to mention the problems in regard to which evidence was given before the Select Committee, problems which it had tried to cope with in this Bill. In the first place evidence was given before the Select Committee that there were industries the workers of which were spread throughout the country. In fact, the work places of some workers changed so often that trade union offices could not keep contact with or keep abreast of the movements of their members. In this connection just think of the building industry. It is one of the industries which received specific mention before the Select Committee in this regard. We know that builders are busy on one building construction site the one day, and at another the next. They move about from one place to another. In many cases they live in the cities but work hundreds of miles outside the cities. In addition, many of them work long hours. That is why it is difficult for trade union officials to keep contact with them. In the case of the latest industrial agreement for the building industry, the Industrial Registrar, according to a letter which was submitted to the Select Committee, brought this problem to the attention of the relevant trade unions in question very clearly. On page 197 of the Report of the Select Committee for 1965 the following is quoted from the letter in question from the Industrial Registrar—

Another problem was that of discrimination. The hon. member for Yeoville now wants to imply that the hon. the Minister can apply discrimination as far as this Bill is concerned. One of the problems with which trade unions have to deal, is this very problem of discrimination. The information which is furnished on page 223 of the Report of the Select Committee indicates to what extent there is discrimination in the trade unions as far as this matter is concerned. Take the case of T.U.C. According to this information, it is information indicating the position in 1965, 44 of the trade unions affiliated to T.U.C. had already been granted stop-order facilities. At that stage there were only ten affiliated trade unions of Tucsa which did not have such facilities. When we come to the Confederation of Labour, we note that only ten of its affiliated trade unions had stop-order facilities at that time whereas 33 trade unions had not yet obtained those facilities. In the one case 80 per cent of the trade unions affiliated to Tucsa were already enjoying those facilities. In the other case only 30 per cent of the trade unions which were affiliated to the Confederation had the stop-order facilities. I think that that is clear proof of the discrimination which is taking place in our trade unions.

It probably depends on the representative nature of the trade union?

I shall come to the representative nature, Mr. Speaker. Now, Sir, another problem which representatives of trade unions brought up before the Committee, is the fact that there are employers who oppose the establishment and the expansion of trade unions. Of course we accept trade unions as an essential requirement for industrial bargaining. We want there to be a trade union on the one hand and an employer’s organization on the other in every industry. Yet evidence was given that certain employers were placing all kinds of obstacles in the way of organizers who were trying to organize trade unions in their industries. Some employers had imposed a ban on the collection of funds on their premises, even during lunch-hours and tea-breaks. That meant membership fees could only be collected outside the premises. I want to quote the example here, Mr. Speaker, of the motor assembly industry in Port Elizabeth. In that industry there are 9,000 employees who can be organized. But although the motor industry has been in existence since 1926 already, there is as yet no trade union which is acknowledged by the employers. There is one trade union which obtained registration, but to-day it is no longer representative and all kinds of difficulties are being placed in its path. That was another problem which was submitted to the Select Committee.

In the fourth place evidence was given before the Committee in regard to the fickleness of employers. There are for example certain employers who grant the stop-order facilities one moment and then, without any reason whatsoever, withdraw those facilities the next. The hon. member for Yeoville said that if the hon. the Minister were to grant these facilities, and after the trade union had dismantled its organization for the collection of its membership fees, the hon. the Minister were to withdraw them, it would lead to large-scale chaos for the trade union in question. But this sort of thing happens every day. One finds some employers who withdraw these facilities for mere capricious reasons.

Do you approve of that?

No, I do not approve of that. But it is a problem which we are trying to overcome, Mr. Speaker. I want to refer to certain evidence in regard to this problem which was given before the Select Committee by Mr. G. H. Beetge of the “Blanke Bouwerkersvakbond”. You will find it op page 198 of the Report of the Select Committee. I shall read it to you—

Surely he was not allowed to do that!

Those are the problems which we had to solve. I want to refer to a few other employers. In the building industry the Industrial Council resolved to deduct membership fees not only from the trade unions but from the employers’ organizations as well. I am referring in the first place to a circular dated the 26th January, 1966, which the Master Masons’ and Quarry Owners’ Association sent out. I quote—

On 11th March, 1966, the Master Builders’ and Allied Trade Association also sent out a circular in this regard, which reads as follows—

Here we have the resolution. I now want to indicate, Mr. Speaker, in what way discrimination takes place. I have here a letter from the “Blanke Bouwerkersvakbond” to which, with the secretary’s permission. I am now going to refer. The letter reads as follows (translation)—

One is therefore inclined to wonder, Mr. Speaker, how trade unions can rely upon the word of employers if they discriminate in this way.

Evidence was also given before the Select Committee in regard to the harm suffered by members when they fall behind with the payment of their membership fees. As I have already said, trade unions are to-day making provision for all kinds of benefits because they are now competing with one another to a greater extent. In this way we find provision for sick benefits, medical and accident benefits, death and burial benefits and even unemployment benefits, which are supplementary to the statutory benefits paid out in terms of the Act. I now want to indicate what proportions this harm to members can assume. Mr. T. P. Murray of the South African Boilermakers’ Society gave the following evidence before the Select Committee—

Mr. Murray went on to testify that his trade union already had stop-order facilities in respect of 50 per cent of its members. That meant that 5,000 of the 10,000 members were already in possession of stop-order facilities. Of the remaining 5,000 60 per cent were not in good financial standing. There were 60 per cent of the 5,000 which did not have them. That meant that 3,000 of the 5,000 who did not have stop-order facilities had to forfeit all those benefits. That comprises a tremendously large amount in regard to benefits which members and their dependants have had to forego. I want to refer to the evidence given by Mr. Griindling of the Mine Workers’ Union. He testified that the stop-order system came into effect in 1963 in the case of the Mine Workers’ Union. According to him the death benefits increased by 50 per cent during the two years after 1963, whereas the funeral benefits increased by as much as 80 per cent. That is a tremendous increase. It is an indication of the harm which is suffered by members if they are not accorded stop-order facilities.

What has that to do with funeral benefits?

The hon. member probably knows that if a member is not in good financial standing his dependants lose all these benefits when the breadwinner dies.

Evidence was also given in regard to the irregular use of membership fees. It was explained to us that large sums of money were sometimes found to be missing, and that that caused friction between the trade union and its members, without the trade union having been responsible. It sometimes caused friction between workers and other workers and at times it even caused friction between employer and employee. It has even happened that an employer had to be prosecuted because of the misuse of trade union subscriptions. It has also happened that employees have disappeared with the trade union subscriptions.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, I say that this legislation is important. In conclusion I want to return to the point which was made by the hon. member in regard to the concession which is contained in the proviso. At the instance of employer’s organizations we have accepted the principle in this measure that trade unions should be representative. That is to say that they should be at least 50 per cent representative of the possible members in the industry. This requirement is made applicable in respect of quite a number of matters in the Industrial Conciliation Act. We find for example that this requirement becomes involved when a trade union makes application for registration and there is already a registered trade union in that industry. We find that this requirement also applies in regard to the appointment of conciliation councils and the proclamation of Industrial Council Agreements, etc. It was then decided that since this principle plays such an important part in the Industrial Conciliation Act it should also be inserted in this Bill. But because there are trade unions, such as the example which I mentioned i.e. that even in the case of the Boilermakers’ Union where 50 per cent of the members were already enjoying these facilities, there were still 3,000 who did not have them, and as a result of the problem which the “Blanke Bouwerkersvakbond” raised before the Select Committee, it was decided to make a concession to the trade unions. This concession is that if they can prove that they are experiencing particular difficulties in collecting membership fees, they may approach the Minister for these stop-order facilities. The employers have no objection. It will result in those trade unions in respect of which the hon. the Minister has already expressed his concern being able to be strongly organized and to carry out their functions as trade unions. It is interesting to note that one of the mixed trade unions which is not representative either and which could not succeed in obtaining representative status, i.e. the National Union of Distributive Workers, has already decided that, in view of this legislation, they are going to separate into two trade unions. The reason for that is that they would like to make use of these facilities when this Bill becomes law. That is why I say that we want to accommodate these people who cannot acquire representative status. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that if we want to make our industrial reconciliation machinery function well, we must have well-organized trade unions on the one hand and well-organized employers’ organizations on the other. But we make no excuse for not wanting to make this concession to weak mixed trade unions in order to make them strong; we are granting it to the trade unions of one race only. That is the policy of the Government.

In conclusion I want to point out that most of the employees in the country have already obtained this facility. I mentioned the number of trade unions. Mr. Scheepers, the president of Tusca, admitted the Select Committee that if one considered the workers as a whole in South Africa, then most of them already had these facilities. That is why the Select Committee felt that it wanted to grant these facilities to trade unions. The trade unions which have the facilities to-day, already have them and there is no need to tamper with that position. Employers still have the opportunity of negotiating, as was done in the building industry. The employers in the building industry said: “The legislation is going to be introduced; let us grant these facilities to these people”. In other words, there is still an opportunity for voluntary negotiation to take place. It is only when a trade union approaches the Minister and says that their hands are being tied and that they need the facilities in order to achieve the representative status of 50 per cent, that the Minister can meet such a trade union. In the other cases the trade union must be representative before the facilities can be granted to it. We hope that this Bill is going to be of assistance to our trade unions and we hope that it will be a reply, not only to our critics in the country, but also outside this country. The hon. member for Yeoville said that we are now going to allow splintering and that this Bill is going to make the trade unions strong. The two statements simply cannot be reconciled. In other words, you cannot on the one hand say that you are going to strengthen the trade unions, and say on the other hand that you are going to splinter or destroy them. That is why we say that we hope that with this measure we are going to assist in the creation of sound trade unions. That is our reply to the world. That is proof that we in South Africa are in favour of a sound trade union system.

Firstly I want to pay a compliment to the hon. member for Pretoria West for the efficient and impartial manner in which he conducted the proceedings of the Select Committee of which I was a member.

This Bill, Sir, is an Industrial Conciliation Amendment Bill, and I think the word “Conciliation” is the important word in this Bill. We of the United Party have always said that when trade unions want to better themselves, when they want better facilities and better conditions for their workers, they can achieve them by way of negotiations. We on the Select Committee, believing in those sentiments and those principles moved an amendment which I would like to read to the House—

In other words, they have paid their dues—

The second part is very important—

We said that there shall be negotiations before the Minister steps in. Surely that is what we have always been striving for. I think the hon. member who has just sat down feels as we do that negotiations must first take place before the Minister steps in, otherwise how can you conciliate? It now becomes a dictatorial matter and the Minister can make the decisions without the trade unions having any say. They make application, but what they ask for may be contrary to the wishes of the employer. I

think it is only fair that before the Minister steps in there should be an opportunity for the employer and employee to get together and decide whether they cannot come to some arrangement without bringing in the law. That is the basic principle of the whole set-up as we see it. Sir, I cannot help feeling after listening to the hon. member and the Minister that there is an under current, a threat, of political interference in the trade union setup. I feel that the powers of the Minister are excessive. I want to go further than the hon. member for Yeoville and say that not only does the Minister take it upon himself to withdraw the facilities which he himself gives but he makes no provision in this Bill for an appeal by the employer or an appeal by an employee. What the Minister says goes. Bearing in mind the evidence given before the select committee I am sure that there is not a single trade union that will be satisfied with the present provisions of this Bill. How can they be satisfied if they know that they have no come-back on the Minister?

Sir, this question of stop-orders for the deduction of union dues is very important. According to the Bill as it stands now only union dues will be deducted. What happens to the rest of the moneys which are contributed by employees to the trade union for other facilities; how are they going to go about it? They will still have to have their collectors who will have to go to the various factories, to the shops, etc., to collect these moneys. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell me whether he is not in fact, by means of this stop-order facility, weakening the trade unions insofar as the collection of other moneys is concerned? When the worker knows that his union dues are being deducted by way of stop-order, I think he will have to be persuaded to pay the rest of his contributions to the union when the collector calls upon him, because I cannot visualize that the worker will send a cheque to the union every month in payment of his other contributions. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) had told us what great difficulties the unions had already in collecting subscription fees from their members. We heard evidence that it was almost impossible for collectors to go into some factories to collect workers’ subscriptions. The only way they could do it was by waiting outside the factories for the workers to come off duty. Does the Minister think that he is going to make it any easier for the unions by this method of allowing union dues only to be deducted by way of stop-order? I do not think so. I think he is going to weaken the whole union set-up as far as benefits to the members are concerned. I believe—and I cannot be persuaded otherwise—that the Minister will give preference to the White trade unions. I think that the trade unions which are mixed will have to break up into separate trade unions.

Not necessarily.

It is not necessary, of course, but they will have to do it otherwise they will not get the facility of the stop-order system. That is the point, and I think that is why the Minister has taken the right upon himself to order the deduction of union dues by stop-order, and if the employers do not do it, it can be an offence. What is going to happen if what I say is correct? Will the Minister give, say, the Coloured plasterers’ union the same facilities as he is giving to the White unions.

Of course. Why not?

That means then that there will be a great strengthening of their union. I want to go further than the hon. member for Yeoville and say that while we are enjoying good times, as we are doing at the moment, the less fortunate workers who we have been told over and over again, need less to live than White workers, will be in a position to bargain and to bargain successfully with their employers, and the only way then to save the White man from unemployment will be to introduce more legislation, and that is what the Minister will have to do in the future. He will have to introduce job reservation in occupations which at the moment are not subject to job reservation. I hope that both the White worker and the Coloured worker will be able to carry on as they are doing at the moment, but the strength of the union does not lie in help from the Minister; the strength of the union should lie in the ability of the members of the union to strengthen the union as far as possible, with as little interference from the top as possible and certainly with as little interference as possible from the Minister and with as little legislation as possible, because the trade unionists are responsible people especially in South Africa. We have been proud of our industrial legislation here and there has been quiet and peace in our land because we have left it to the worker and the employer to come to an agreement in all matters. I am afraid that this type of legislation is going to be so biased that it may lead to trouble. If negotiations fail after a fair trial I can understand the Minister being prepared to help a union which is badly in need of funds, a union which has a lot of members but which is unable to collect its dues, but the Minister is going to step in in some cases where his help is not needed. He is going to interfere in the mixed unions and I would like to hear from the Minister when he replies whether it is his intention to leave those unions alone; whether he is going to give these facilities to the mixed unions.

If they have a 50 per cent representation.

When the Minister talks about a 50 per cent representation, does he mean 50 per cent of each or 50 per cent of the total number.

Fifty per cent of the total. That is provided for in the Bill.

But it is in your discretion.

Will the Minister tell us whether he will give this facility if 50 per cent is the group which is non-White?

It is 50 per cent in the case of a mixed union.

Fifty per cent of the members?

Yes.

Irrespective of the colour?

Yes, in the case of mixed unions. In the case of separate unions it can be less, according to the Minister’s discretion.

Well, we will see how it works then. Perhaps the Minister will go into this a little more fully when he replies to the debate. Will he tell us what percentage will be required in a purely White union before they can get these facilities? Will he adhere to 50 per cent or would he be satisfied with less than 50 per cent? Will he make sure?

It will be dealt with in a responsible way.

We would like to know what is a responsible way. We would like to know whether ten out of 100 White people will have the right to go to the Minister and say they want this whole union to get the facilities; or will he say no, he wants them to build it up to 50 per cent?

It is not necessary to reduce it to absurdities. It will be dealt with reasonably.

I take it then that the Minister will give us the assurance that it is not his intention to break the mixed unions if they want to have deductions made, and that it is not his intention to give preference to Whites over non-Whites, but that they will all be treated on their merits and that there will be no favouritism and that he will see to it that everyone is satisfied. But what happens if a group of people is not satisfied? What recourse will they have if they are not satisfied with the Minister’s decision? Will they be able to go to court and say they are being unfairly treated and are being discriminated against? What happens if he gives the facility to a White union which later becomes a mixed union? Will he be prepared then to continue the facilities, or will he take them away? What does the Minister mean by saying it is within his discretion to withdraw the facilities once he has given them? It is because of these reasons that we think there is discrimination, and not only that, but that there is political influence, or that ideology is putting out its head again.

That is the same old story we heard in 1956.

But it is true. You are becoming harsher with your decisions. One of these days mixed unions will be allowed only by permit, and we will have another permit system. That is what is happening here, unnecessarily.

What about looking for even more bogies?

I am not looking for bogies. If a couple of people have to look for permits …

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

Let me say this, that stop-order facilities are welcomed by us. We would like to see all the unions have it, but what we do not like is the powers the Minister takes, because we do not think he will use them as they should be used. He will show favouritism and he will be biased. There is the possibility that he will take it away from some and give it to others. We feel that those unions who have already got the facilities should not be interfered with. If a Coloured union has them the Minister should not be allowed to withdraw those facilities.

That is not our intention.

Then why not put it in the Bill? This word “discretion” is a suspect word. I do not know how far the Minister will carry his discretion. In fact, one of the hon. members here has just reminded me …

Order! The hon. member should not allow himself to be misled.

But this one is good, Sir. He says this Minister is probably a good Minister, but he is afraid of what might come after him. I support the hon. member for Yeoville, and I will oppose the Bill.

I want to refer to a few points raised by the hon. member for Rosettenville. The hon. member said that we should leave the matter of the deduction of membership fees as something between the trade union and the employer in order that the necessary negotiations might take place between the two parties. But the hon. member for Pretoria (West) has already pointed out to what certain of these negotiations may lead and on what basis certain employers sometimes decide whether or not to grant this facility to a trade union. For this reason negotiations between a large number of employers and responsible trade unions have been of no avail to such trade unions, and I believe it is necessary to assist those trade unions by means of legislation. The hon. member also said he believed that not a single trade union would be satisfied with this legislation. But I think the hon. member is greatly mistaken because there are trade unions with large memberships which have asked for this legislation, as is evident from the evidence given before the Select Committee.

At one stage they all asked for it.

That is true, and then there is also the letter to which the hon. the Minister referred. It fits in somewhere in the middle, and obscures matters even more.

Then the point has also been raised that only membership fees should be deducted. We believe that it will not cause the employer a great deal of extra inconvenience to deduct something more than membership fees. There are also other trade union fees which he may deduct. What difference does it make if he merely enters a larger amount in his books and gives a cheque for a larger amount to the trade union? That is no extra work, but it will lead to sound relations between the trade union and the employer.

While he was fabricating certain fears, the hon. member specifically asked the Minister how the Act was going to be applied in this or that instance, and the Minister replied: “It will be dealt with responsibly.” That is what has always been done in the past in regard to this legislation. The hon. member for Yeoville said that that piece of legislation was placed on the Statute Book by General Smuts, that amendments were effected in 1924 and in subsequent years and that those amendments sometimes weakened this legislation. It is strange, however, that the hon. member did not refer to the 1956 amendments. The Minister said by way of interjection that the same stories which were being spread to-day were spread in 1956 and that since that time this legislation had been administered in a responsible manner. If the hon. member admits that he is proud of our industrial legislation and of the fact that we enjoy industrial peace, then the basis for that is this very piece of legislation which we amended in 1956 and the manner in which it had been administered by the Minister and his predecessors. Every time it was said: “We shall trust you as Minister, but what about your successor?” But every Minister of Labour under this Government has always applied this legislation sympathetically and in a manner which made for industrial peace. But when one analyses the hon. member's speech, one finds that most of it proves that he is in favour of mixed trade unions. He wondered what the Minister was going to do about a mixed trade union under such and such circumstances. The hon. members are apparently more concerned about mixed trade unions than they are about White trade unions which have asked for this facility, which want to maintain sound relations with their employers, and which want to render certain services to their members. But apparently hon. members opposite are not prepared to plead for such trade unions as well. They are afraid of discrimination, but at the same time they fail to see that employers discriminate against trade unions, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Pretoria (West). There are many instances where responsible trade unions requested that this facility should be extended to their members and where employers were not prepared to do so, and in instances where the facility had been granted, it was subsequently withdrawn. Here there was discrimination too. But the hon. member may rest assured that the present Minister of Labour, like his predecessor, will apply this Act sympathetically and that no witch-hunting is taking place in order to get at some particular person. I shall leave that there, but it may be necessary to refer to a few other matters which have come to our attention as a result of the evidence given before the Select Committee.

Many objections were raised against compulsory deductions. There were trade union organizations as well as employers’ organizations which did not particularly like this idea, and even if hon. members opposite should not agree with many of the things said on the Select Committee it is necessary to remove certain of these objections for the sake of those outside this House. For example, it was said that we should bear in mind that trade unions acted in the interests of their members as well as for their advantage even though their actions in this respect would allegedly bring them into conflict with the employer. They act independently, therefore, and without any instructions from the employer. However, if we should make this facility compulsory by means of legislation we would allegedly be involving the employer in the affairs of the trade union and such trade union would allegedly find it difficult in future to act independently and for the advantage of its members. But it is interesting to note that it is precisely a trade union of which approximately 76 per cent of the members enjoy the benefit of deductions and of which 40 per cent of the total number of members enjoy the benefit of compulsory deductions, which is opposed to this legislation. Would that trade union of which 40 per cent of the members enjoy this facility, want to suggest that it no longer acted independently, and that it was involving the employer in its affairs through enjoying such facility? If this trade union can no longer act independently it should tell its members: “You should rather resign: we can no longer act independently: go to a trade union which does not have this facility and which is still able to act independently.” But this trade union will not do so, because this is what its representative said in paragraph 402 of the evidence—

Therefore there are some trade unions which enjoy this facility, a large percentage of the members of which also enjoy it, and which jealously guard this facility and would not like to lose it.