I move—

Agreed to.

Bill read a First Time.

The South African Mutual Life Assurance Society (Private) Bill, which the hon. the Leader of the House has just introduced, seeks to consolidate the South African Mutual Life Assurance Society (Private) Act, 1915, and the amendments subsequently effected to that Act.

As the Bill purports to re-enact existing legislation without amending it, I have in terms of the discretion conferred on me by Standing Order No. 1 (Private Bills) decided that the Bill, while retaining the form of a private measure, may be proceeded with as a public Bill. Its remaining stages will be subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 72 (Public Business).

I move—

I wish to record my objection to the first reading of this Bill, practically the entire contents of which, I imagine, are in fact included in the ministerial motion to-day, and that is that it is a Bill to provide for the extension of the period of office of the sitting members of the House of Assembly elected in terms of the Separate Representation of Voters’ Act, 1951. In other words, the main object of this Bill is going to be to lengthen still further the term of office of the members representing the Coloured people in this House. Last year when an extension of time for their term of office was asked for I objected to it: at that stage we did not know for sure exactly why the hon. the Minister required this additional period of time. One had one’s suspicions and those suspicions, in the course of time, were more than justified. They were justified when we were presented with a Bill in this House this Session which obviously has been keeping the Minister and his Department very busy indeed during the preceding 12 months. Now we are being asked to extend further the life of the members representing the Coloured people in this House. I see no justification for this whatsoever. I objected then without knowing the reason as to why we were being asked to extend the term although I had my suspicions.

This time I do not need to rely on suspicions; I am dealing with a certainty here because we were informed the other day of the object of extending the term, and the object, of course, is to give the Government further time to work out a method whereby it can interfere in the normal elections which should have taken place, not this year but last year, for the election of representatives for the Coloured people of South Africa. Last year’s Bill or last year’s Act, as it subsequently became, the one which extended the term for a further year, cut off the Coloured people from the general political trends in South Africa in so far as their elections were to be divorced from the general election to elect the Government of this country. I took the strongest exception to that because I see no reason why the Coloured citizens of this country who have qualified to vote in terms of the Government’s own legislation, on a separate roll, should have been divorced from the normal stream of the political life of this country. I considered that a betrayal of promises made to the Coloured people in 1951 when the then Minister of the Interior, the present Minister of Finance, introduced the original Bill, which was subsequently ratified after many years of constitutional conflict in this country, and which took the Coloured people off the Common Roll. They were told that there would be no difference in the representation they would get in so far as the persons representing them in this House would be full members of this House and would be elected in terms of the normal electoral law.

Order! The hon. member is going too far.

Very well, Sir. That was the argument that was used last year when the Coloured representatives were given an additional year’s lease of life in this House. To-day the hon. the Minister has come to this House and has asked us to agree to a further year’s extension. Sir, the members representing the Coloured people in this House have been given a sort of seven years’ freehold on the seats that they hold in this House. I see no reason whatsoever why the Coloured people of South Africa should not enjoy the same privilege that the White people have and that is to change their representatives, if they so wish, after the normal five-year term has expired. In the case of White voters they have been given opportunities, of course, to change their representatives after periods of less than five years. In this case a period of five years plus an additional year has already passed and now we are being asked to agree to a further year’s extension. I see no reason whatsoever why the Coloured people should have to remain with the same representatives for a further year. If they wished their present representatives to come back to this House, they would elect them. If they were given a free choice between these members and other candidates, of course, there is no guarantee that this would happen. It is because the Government knows that this will not happen that it is introducing this measure to-day. I object to this motion, Sir.

I think it is necessary to place on record that we on this side of the House obviously will support this Bill because it is part of the agreement which our Leader entered into with the Prime Minister. We consider ourselves bound to do that in honour because it was a prerequisite for our decision to postpone another measure and to refer it to a Select Committee before the second reading to give us all time to reconsider it.

Motion put and agreed to. (Mrs. Suzman dissenting.)

Bill read a First Time.

I move—

The proposed amendments in the Bill embrace the following. In Clause 1 the values of the old coins, which could be made and issued under the repealed Coinage Act of 1922, and which may remain in circulation in terms of Section 16 of the 1964 Coinage Act, are expressed in rands and cents. As the existing subsection reads, the impression is created that our new coins have been derived from the old coins, and that the new coins simply exist side by side with the old ones. However, the Republic’s coinage units have been the rand and the cent for more than five years now. I have made repeated appeals that everybody should make use of our own new monetary units only. However, to our disappointment there are still people who continue to make use of the old £ s. d. system, particularly in advertisements for expensive goods. We appreciate the co-operation of those people who show their loyalty by making use of the Republic’s own monetary units. Therefore I want to plead very earnestly that every citizen of the country will make use of the rand-cent system from now on. Then we shall have no need to think of measures for making it compulsory.

The purpose of Clause 2 is to substitute the Schedule with a view to making certain amendments. In the first place the name “Krugerrand” is now substituted for the name “Trojan”. The new name of the coin is a proper noun and for that reason its spelling and pronunciation will be the same in both official languages. It is probably not necessary for me to give an explanation of this name, and I also believe that the new name will meet with general approval. This gold coin, which will still be an alloy, will contain one ounce of fine gold, and when it is designed this will be indicated on the coin. The amendments in respect of the weights of both the “Krugerrand” and the gold “five rand” are merely to make corrections, in view of the fact that previous calculations were not accurate.

Another important amendment in the Schedule is the removal of the 2½c coin (the “tickey”) from the coinage series. This decision of the Government has already been announced. From a survey made by the Coinage Advisory Board it appeared that the demand for and the use of this coin had decreased to such an extent that it was no longer justified to continue minting it. Although the coin will no longer be minted, it will remain legal tender, just as other coins of the old series. I move.

Mr. Speaker, we do not oppose this Bill, some of which is really administrative. At the same time it is a sad little Bill and its short title really ought to be the Death of the Tickey Bill, because it marks the end of what has been all my lifetime a part of the traditional way of life in South Africa. The hon. the Minister always intended that the “tickey” should disappear. Both he and his Department did their very best to stop it when the original Bill was introduced. It was only under great pressure from the Select Committee, and from members of both parties on that Select Committee, that he agreed to allow it to remain. Of course, immediately the Decimal Bill was put through, although the Post Office authorities told the Select Committee that they had no intention of increasing the charges in the telephone boxes, except in one or two areas, the moment the Bill went through the Post Office promptly throughout the country doubled their charges in the public telephone boxes right throughout the country, and the local authorities, not to be outdone, immediately proceeded to double all their charges for parking meters throughout the country. In other words, both of them took advantage of the opportunity to avoid perpetuating the 2½-cent coin, and the public have been paying ever since and will continue to pay. As a result, of course, coupled with the increased cost of living since, the “tickey” has in effect ceased to be of much practical value. Therefore, whilst it is with deep regret, one has to admit that there is not much need to continue to mint it. But I think in a minor way in which people have taken advantage of the decimal system has contributed to the increase in the cost of living.

The other thing dealt with in the Bill is the new gold coin which is to be called the “Krugerrand”. I am not enamoured of that name. I wonder whether the Minister can tell us whether it is intended to mint this coin or not, or is it simply going to remain a pious aspiration? It obviously cannot come into circulation because, containing one ounce Troy of gold, it will never have a fixed value in terms of the rand. Presumably it will be chiefly a prestige coin used by collectors all over the world and by people who want to hoard gold in different parts of the world, because it will be guaranteed to contain one ounce Troy of gold. That is why I am not sure whether this is the best name to give it, because in the circles which collect coins and which have been hoarding coins for many years the Kruger sovereign is world famous; it is a very well-known coin and a collector’s piece. I am wondering whether people in different parts of the world, who will undoubtedly in their thousands want to acquire coins of this kind, will not have great difficulty in differentiating between the well-known Kruger sovereign and the new Krugerrand. I have a feeling that one might be able to discover a more suitable name for this coin. However, the die has been cast and the Minister has made up his mind and all that remains to us is to bid a sad farewell to the “tickey” and to associate its demise with the name of the hon. the Minister of Finance.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I cannot share the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Constantia, who complained about the disappearance of the tickey. It has always been my personal belief that the tickey had to disappear, and you will probably permit me to be so immodest as to read what I said in this House in 1959, when I, as a young member, attended my second session here. It was on the occasion of the introduction of our decimal coinage system that I said the following (Hansard 1959, col. 8416)—

It is for that reason. Mr. Speaker, that I welcome this Bill, which gives expression to that desire I expressed here seven years ago. A 2½c piece simply does not fit into a decimal system. Now the hon. member for Constantia says that the disappearance of the tickey involuntarily contributes to a rise in the cost of living. I want to make it very, very clear here that one’s coins do not have anything to do with cost of living at all. The units in which coins are issued have no effect on the cost of living. So for instance, the price of a newspaper was a tickey seven years ago, and in spite of the fact that we have had the tickey all this time, the price of newspapers has increased to 4c since. Even though the tickey had not disappeared, the price of newspapers still increased to 4c. The cost of living has nothing to do with the units of a coinage system. The fact that we can take leave of the tickey today makes this a joyful day for me, since there is no room for fractions in a decimal coinage system. One only has to move the decimal point forward or back, and this had the effect that our entire arithmetic system in our schools is infinitely simplified. It has the effect that the time our children need to master arithmetic at school is reduced by as much as one year. That is why I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on cutting this Gordian knot and ridding us of fractions in our decimal coinage system once and for all. I support this Bill wholeheartedly.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate myself with the appeal the hon. the Minister has made to members in this House and to the country generally in asking them to quote South African prices in rands and cents and not in pounds, shillings and pence. I must remind the hon. the Minister, however, that it is sometimes necessary to quote in both. I refer especially to certain stores in coastal towns, Cape Town, Durban, Port Elizabeth. East London and so on, where foreigners arriving in this country are not familiar with our system of coinage. It is also necessary at airports. In European airports, in foreign airports in all parts of the world, one finds prices quoted usually in three currencies: they are quoted in Germany, for example, in the German currency, in British sterling and in American dollars. The hon. the Minister will have to bear that in mind. I would suggest that in this interim period we should be required to quote all prices in South African rands first, with any other currency in brackets after the South African currency. For example, if they quote the price of a car as £800, they could say R1,600 (£800), if they wish. I would suggest that for the interim period. But I support the hon. the Minister in his appeal. He is probably familiar with what happened in Australia. When they went over to decimal coinage, the Australian dollar was introduced at once for everybody throughout the country; there was no hesitation there.

Now in regard to these amendments to the first schedule of the Bill, we have to say a few kind words in regard to the passing of the tickey. It is rather like the story of “Who Killed Cock Robin?” We are sorry to see the tickey passing away, but it was inevitable. But I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister, and especially the chairman of the Select Committee on Coinage, on the manner in which that was handled. We advised at the time patience and forbearance and said that if we were prepared to wait, the public would be convinced that this was the right step. With the introduction of the cent and the 2-cent piece the public naturally made its own choice and selected the 2-cent piece rather than the 2½ cent, the tickey. I think that has been carried out remarkably well. However, we weep a tear at its passing.

As regards the proposal that we should have a Krugerrand, I should like to say that I do not think the name is well chosen.

What about a Moore rand?

I will give two reasons. The first reason is this, that we have a fine South African numismatic history where the name Kruger is associated with a very fine set of gold coins. As my hon. friend, the member for Constantia, has said, we have the Kruger-pond, the Kruger-halfpond, the single shaft and the double shaft. They are known throughout the world. We have those coins and naturally we are very proud of them. I think that if we introduce this coin in addition to the other rand coins that we have— we now have a silver rand as well, and a paper rand, and now we are introducing a new name, the Krugerrand—I think it will create confusion. I do not want this new gold coin to be associated with the series of the old Kruger coins known not only in South Africa but throughout the world.

The second reason I give is this: it is not a rand. To call it a Krugerrand is a misnomer. This coin is a 25 rand piece, and I think the hon. the Minister in choosing the name “Krugerrand” is giving it a name that is really misleading. It is a 25 rand gold piece that we shall produce—as the hon. the Minister has said, one troy ounce of gold. Therefore I think he should have second thoughts. It is not an occasion for an amendment. I have no very good name to suggest.

What is wrong with “a sovereign”?

It will not be a sovereign. It will be 12½ sovereigns, it will be a R25 piece. Therefore I think the name was not well chosen, and with the hon. member for Constantia I am not enamoured of the change. I think we should carry on with the name “Trojan” until we think of a better one. I am sure that one of these days one of the inspired members on the other side of the House will think of a better name.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to talk about the name for the Krugerrand. To me this name is at any rate much to be preferred to the name Trojan. As far as I can recall, the original reason for our deciding on the word Trojan at that time was the following: We thought that by minting this gold coin we would perhaps have a coin which would be sought after in the world, a coin people would buy to hoard, and we thought that it might ultimately help us to effect an increase in the world price of gold. That was one of the arguments. In that sense the thought was expressed that the gold coin might serve us as a Trojan horse which we could push in to take that fortress. I think the idea of giving this coin the name of “Trojan” or “Trojaan” originated there. It relates to the one ounce troy weight of gold, and originally it was actually named after a village in France which had that name. They started trading at that village, and that is where the name Troyes originated. It was not derived from the other word which we are now associating with the history of Greece. That is all I want to say to that, except that I think that the word Krugerrand is in any case much to be preferred to the word Trojan. As far as I am concerned, and I think as far as we are concerned, having a paper rand as well as a silver rand will in the course of time make no difference to us at all, because we do not call it a silver rand, but simply the rand. The other one is also just “a rand”. In the course of time the Kruger rand will be known as the coin which is made of one ounce of gold. I do think that Kruger is a very symbolic word for South Africa. It is associated with Johannesburg and the Rand where this precious metal is mined.

But the coin is not a rand.

The coin is not a rand, nor is its name a rand. Its name is a Krugerrand. It is one word, the Krugerrand. We shall know and the world will know that the Krugerrand is a coin which will not have a fixed price, since its price will vary as the price of gold does. But it will contain one ounce of gold. It will be known in the world as the Krugerrand. In any case, it is not a coin we can confuse, because it is not something we shall ever use in commerce. It is something few people will possess.

I just want to respond to what the hon. member for Constantia said here. I cannot allow what he said to pass like that. He referred to what we had done last year in the Select Committee on Coinage. What he said there is quite true. On both sides of the Select Committee there was a measure of sympathy in regard to the retention of the tickey. But there was also no sympathy with the tickey on both sides of the Committee But as far as I recall, we were in fact unanimous about one matter—and I am rising in order to correct it—and that was that we did not want a 2½c nickel piece in our coinage series. That we did not want. The hon. member for Constantia was just as opposed to that as I was. We were also unanimous about the fact that the tickey had to be given the opportunity of proving itself. When we submitted our report at the time, there were still 20,000.000 tickeys in the country. We decided that if it could be proved in ordinary commerce that the tickey was a coin the people of South Africa needed, we would eventually have minted a 2½c nickel piece which we would have formed a permanent part of our coinage system. The tickey has had its chances and it could not prove itself. But the hon. member for Constantia was wrong when he did not mention these facts. I just want to make it clear that not one of us was in favour of a 2½c nickel piece being minted, and that all of us were unanimous about the tickey having to prove itself.

In regard to the point mentioned by the hon. member for Constantia concerning the cost of living, I just want to mention these two matters.

Order! That is a side-issue. The hon. member need not reply to the hon. member for Constantia.

But the hon. member referred to what the Post Office said before us … I just want to say that the Post Office’s evidence before us was that whether or not we were going to retain the 2½c as a coin, they would in any case terminate the 2½c call-system in South Africa and introduce a 5c call-system. That was the evidence submitted to the Committee, and we knew that no matter what we did, a 5c call-system would be introduced in South Africa. The point is that the abolition of the tickey did not cause the cost of living to rise in that respect. I also want to point out that while we were deliberating we said that the ½c had to be retained so that when the townsman bought half a pound of butter or half a loaf of bread and he had to be given change to the amount of a half cent, it would be possible for the grocer to give him his change to the amount of a ½c.

For that reason I want to be outright in my rejection of any argument to the effect that the omission of this tickey from our coinage series will contribute to a rise in the cost of living.

Mr. Speaker, I find it quite interesting that the hon. member for Constantia had certain things to say about the tickey this afternoon. I remember very well that when the hon. the Minister announced for the first time that he wanted to abolish the tickey, I was the person who pleaded in favour of it. I do not think that there is another coin in South Africa which was more alive in the language of the people than was the case with the tickey. It was even used by the child when he bought his sweets, and as the hon. member for Namaqualand said here, it was the most pious little coin because it was regularly to be found in church.

Since we are taking leave of the tickey today, I want to ask the Minister whether he will not have a golden tickey minted this year to commemorate its disappearance. Since so much homage has been paid to the tickey, and since hon. members are so sympathetic towards this coin and the hon. member for Constantia is so sorry to see it disappearing, let us commemorate it by minting a golden tickey, and, to place it on record, even at this early stage I want to place an order for a few of them.

Mr. Speaker, I have just a few points I want to deal with briefly. Firstly, I agree with hon. members who have expressed regret at the fact that we shall no longer have the tickey. I do not think the tickey has been given a fair chance to compete with other coins. I think that very often when we badly needed tickeys to pay for ordinary small items, we have experienced difficulty in obtaining them. The tickey has really not been given the opportunity of competing fairly and freely with the other coins, and I think that we really ought to give the tickey another chance for a short while. [Interjections.] I did not hear what the hon. member said. To make it quite clear to him, I am talking now of what he calls “treps”.

I say that there are two things which are not given a fair chance in this country, namely the tickey and television.

Mr. Speaker, you will not allow me to elaborate on that. The second point is this, namely that I wonder whether the Minister will give us an indication as to how many of these Krugerrand pieces he intends to have minted. I know of course that it depends on possible changes in the price of gold, and so forth. The reason for my asking this is, as he knows, because of a matter I have raised with him before, namely that if too small a quantity of a certain coin is minted, it makes it possible for unscrupulous people to make tremendous profits out of these coins which they hoard and then sell.

The third point is the following. If I heard the hon. the Minister correctly, he said that the name of the coin was to be the Krugerrand. He said this would be the name in both languages. That is a matter about which I should have liked a little more information from the Minister, and the hon. member for Kensington would perhaps also have been interested in this. Now, Sir, a Krugerrand is a good Afrikaans-sounding name, although I am not sure of the correct pronunciation. Some of our Afrikaners pronounce the “g” as a consonant, and others as a semi-vowel. But as a word which has to be pronounced by English-speaking people and many other groups in the world, there are two sounds, namely a “u” sound as in the Afrikaans word “muur”—the Transvaal “muur”, not the Boland “muur”—and the “g”, which will give rise to a great deal of difficulty. These are two sounds which English-speaking people in particular cannot pronounce. The hon. the Minister said that this coin should also be known as the Krugerrand in English. It will most definitely cause those people who want to use this word a great deal of difficulty. Even greater difficulty arises when one has regard to the plural form of that word, because there are three or four different pronunciations. The hon. the Minister’s views on this matter will be appreciated. In this regard I do not think that he will find general agreement among philologists and other experts in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, in regard to the Krugerrand, the one-ounce fine-gold coin, hon. members have criticized that name, but none of them has suggested a better name. That has also been not only my difficulty but I discussed this matter with the Gold Producers’ Committee and they experienced the same trouble. Some years ago I asked for suggestions as to the name. A large number of names came in, but the name that got the majority—not the total majority but the most votes—was the name “Kruger”. But we felt that as this is one of the coins of our own currency it must be associated with the word “rand”. Trojan was an impersonal and unnational name, and could mean anything. We want this particular coin to be recognizable at sight and at the sound of its name as one of South Africa’s coins. That is why we made the condition that the word “rand” must indicate its relationship with our own currency. Then, because “Kruger” had the most votes, the name “Krugerrand” would satisfy the requirement of associating it with our own currency. We had great trouble in finding some other name. I suggested at one time that we call it the “Witwatersrand”, but because that is so long it was suggested that we just abbreviate it to “Witrand”. That seemed to be a very acceptable name until two objections were raised. The first was that in some ignorant countries this might be taken as another example of apartheid. But for me a more convincing reason for its rejection was the fact that I learned that there was an institute for feeble-minded and insane people called Witrand. I thought, if we want to start a coin of this nature and we want to kill it by naming it, that would probably be the name to select for that purpose. I can only say that I have taken every possible step to find the most appropriate name. Kruger is the man under whose presidency gold was discovered. As hon. members have mentioned, he is already associated with the Kruger pound. Therefore I thought it was very acceptable. “Rand” is the actual place where gold was first discovered and that is the connection here.

Now, hon. members have asked me what kind of a market do I anticipate for this coin. This is a matter which will be largely in the hands of the Gold Producers’ Committee themselves. They will naturally mint this at a small premium, which is to be understood. They have had a very big market and they have been assured that a very big market for this coin exists in Switzerland which is also a big market for our “two rand” coins, which, of course, are totally misnamed, just as this would be misnamed if it was called a R25 piece. It would be R25 only as long as the price of gold remains R25 per fine ounce. So we have left out the value; we have given it a name, and we have given it its weight, I think it will have a big market because I think most people would like to possess a chunk of this metal which has through the ages maintained its appeal to people who want to know that they are really possessing some wealth.

*The hon. member for Orange Grove asked about the pronunciation. I have in fact spoken to the Gold Producers’ Committee about the English pronunciation of the word “rand”. The hon. member for Kensington will probably be surprised to hear that they told me: “But, of course, we always speak of rand (as said in Afrikaans), and in the plural it is still rand.” When I asked: “And what do you call that club in Johannesburg?” their reply was: “Of course, the Rand (as said in Afrikaans) Club.” If we start here with a “Krugerrand”, the whole position will be ruined. That is why I just want to call it a “Krugerrand”; in Afrikaans we can follow either of the two commonly known pronunciations. That is what we say in any case. As the hon. member has rightly remarked, there are even Afrikaans-speaking people who pronounce the voiceless fricative “g” in “Kruger”. There are others who pronounce the word differently. That is not the question. It is a noun, it is written as one word in both English and Afrikaans, and the pronunciation should be the same as far as possible so that one may understand what it refers to.

Is the English plural also “rand”?

Yes, In any case, I do not think many people will be able to have more than one of them in their possession.

I shall now deal with the tickey. Hon. members did not ask me, but I am glad that they are taking my word for it that the Coinage Committee instituted a particularly intensive inquiry into the matter. It was found that the demand for the tickey was no longer such that it necessitated our increasing the supplies. Hon. members tried to point out the murderers. The hon. member for Kensington asked: “Who killed Cock Robin?” The hon. member for Constantia suggested that it was the telephone calls. I do not think that is the case, for if that is true, the newspapers are equally to blame. The price of newspapers went up before we introduced the 2c piece. We ran a competition, and I want to reject the idea that there was any unfairness in our telling the 2c piece that it bad to fight it out with the 21c niece. And this is the natural result of that “match”. As sportsmen we must accent that this is the end of the “match” and that the tickey has lost. For sentimental reasons one can feel very sorry about that. I myself am sorry that it should have lost. For scientific reasons and for the sake of convenience in general, I think that this has been the correct step to take subsequent to the introduction of the decimal coinage system. The hon. member for Sunnyside suggested that we should, as a parting gesture to the tickey, give it a “golden handshake”. This suggestion has been made to me before. One of the rarest coins is the Sonny Marks tickey. The thought has now been expressed that a golden tickey should be minted as a parting gesture. Such a coin will not be a part of our own coinage series. It is a matter on which the Gold Producers themselves will have to decide. Should they want to attach the murderer’s name to it, I may, according to the hon. member, also be taken into consideration. We cannot get away from the fact that this little phase of our history is a sealed book now.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The proposed amendments arise from the Report of the Select Committee on the Revision of the Rules, which was agreed to by the House of Assembly during the previous session on the recommendation of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders. The object of the Bill is merely to do away with a completely redundant procedure. When Ministers introduce Bills involving an appropriation of funds, the State President’s prior recommendation has to be obtained for that appropriation. The procedure has been that the Ministers-in-Council who wanted to obtain the appropriation advised the State President to recommend it. In practice the State President cannot really do anything but recommend it. The procedure is therefore actually quite unnecessary, and the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders accepted it as such. This provision will remain in force in respect of private members who propose any amendment or Bill in which an appropriation of money has to be made. I move.

We have no objection to this Bill. It follows on recommendations which we made and it really does away with an anachronism. The idea that a Minister has to go to the State President to get him to authorize expenditure which he himself proposes is quite out of date and we agree with what is proposed here.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In the Bill now before the House Parliamentary authorization is being requested for the application of a further sum of R15,000,000 for the service of the Republic for the financial year ending on the 31st day of March, 1967. Hon. members will recall that the Leader of the House stated on 31st August that the Appropriation Act had to be approved by both Houses of Parliament by 14th October in view of the fact that funds authorized for revenue services in the Part Appropriation Act were expected to be exhausted the week after that. However, drawings on revenue services did not quite reach the expected level and it is hoped that the R170,000,000 which was authorized in the Part Appropriation Act for revenue services will be sufficient to cover Government expenditure for a further week. The amounts authorized earlier this year in respect of loan services and the Bantu Education Account will, however, be sufficient to cover expenditure right up to November. Mr. Speaker, if the unavoidable adjournment of Parliament early in September had not taken place, the Appropriation Act would certainly have been passed in time by both Houses of Parliament and we would not have been faced with any problem. I trust that the business of this House will make such progress that it will be possible to promulgate the Appropriation Act in good time, but on the other hand it is my duty to ensure that authority exists for payments from the Treasury. The purpose of this Bill is merely to obtain approval for the application of a further R15,000,000 on revenue services. I should like to point out that this amount will only be applied to services which have already been approved by Parliament. Mr. Speaker, I move.

We appreciate that this Bill is a result of exceptional circumstances and is part of an agreement which has been come to between our whips, and we have no objection to it.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage.

Bill read a Third Time.

I move— That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

The main object of this Bill is, firstly, to require insurers to make a certain minimum investment in securities issued by the Government of the Republic and, secondly, to introduce a new basis for the carrying on of insurance business in the Republic by underwriters at Lloyd’s.

In regard to the minimum investment in Government securities, hon. members will remember that I announced as part of my Budget proposals that certain financial institutions would be required to invest more in Government securities. The institutions that we have in mind are insurance companies, private pension funds and unit trust schemes.

I do not think it is necessary for me to say much about the necessity for these institutions to support the Government sector. This is generally accepted. They have in this respect more than merely a moral duty. These institutions are to-day the collectors of the public’s sayings and they are vitally concerned, in the interests of their policy holders or members (i.e. pensioners) or investors, as the case may be, with combating inflation by assisting to finance Government expenditure in a non-inflationary manner. Moreover, they have a duty to assist with the financing of the infra structure which is the precursor of other investment opportunities.

At the moment the Insurance Act provides that long-term insurers and short-term insurers must make minimum investments equal to 25 per cent and 30 per cent, respectively, of their insurance liability in, mainly, securities of the public sector, i.e. the Government, local authorities, the Land Bank, Escom, etc. We now propose that the prescribed percentage in respect of long-term insurers also be increased to 30 per cent, so that long and short-term insurers will be on the same basis. This is considered equitable. I may add that prior to 1959 the percentage was 40 per cent, but certain items have since been deleted from the prescribed range of assets so that the proposed basis of 30 per cent is more or less equivalent to the basis which applied before 1959. Insurers will have a reasonable period within which to comply with the higher percentage.

We further propose a sub-minimum of 10 per cent of insurance liabilities for investment in Government securities. According to statistics we have taken out the average investment of all long-term insurers in Government securities at the present time is approximately 6 per cent. The proposed 10 per cent is accordingly considered reasonable. We also propose that those insurers who do not comply with the proposed sub-minimum when this legislation comes into force must invest at least 15 per cent of their annual increase in assets in Government securities until such time as they are able to comply, but not exceeding five years or such further period as the Minister may grant. Furthermore, certain relief is provided in respect of the financial year during which this legislation comes into operation. This is in the form of a reduction of the prescribed 15 per cent proportionate to the portion of the financial year which has expired on 1st October, 1966.

The same principles, with adaptations, which are considered reasonable in the particular circumstances, will be proposed in respect of the other financial institutions I have mentioned earlier, namely pension funds and unit trust schemes. These amendments will be included in the Finance Bill. I may mention in passing that we do not go so far as to apply these principles to investment companies, which mostly are not expanding institutions and which do not enjoy registration and supervision under special legislation.

In this connection there remains one more matter that I should specifically mention and that is that we have been at great pains to preserve a healthy balance between institutional investment in Government securities on the one hand and securities of the semi-Government sector on the other. Here I refer to municipalities, Escom, the Rand Water Board and that kind of body. The limits which are now proposed for Government securities are modest, in the case of insurance companies one-third of the minimum for prescribed investments, and in the case of pension funds one-fourth. We are as far as possible protecting the interests of the semi-public institutions. I am sure that they will still get their fair share. These institutions which normally offer a slightly higher interest rate than the Government should attract the funds they need, especially if it is borne in mind that the margin between the sub-minimum for Government securities and the higher minimum for the whole public sector will now to all intents and purposes be their sole preserve.

I now come to the proposed amendments concerning Lloyds. Lloyds have up to now enjoyed special treatment in the South African insurance market. The Insurance Act of 1943 permits the carrying on of insurance business in the Republic, firstly, by insurers registered under the Act and, secondly, through the agency of brokers at Lloyds who have in the past placed business emanating from this country mostly with underwriters at Lloyds, but also to some extent with so-called fringe companies, that is to say, other oversea insurers who are not registered to carry on business in South Africa. Whereas the Act requires every registered insurer to maintain adequate assets in the Republic to cover all its insurance liabilities, which requirement has lately been tightened up so as to provide for an additional solvency margin of 10 per cent of the previous year’s premiums, the Act has permitted Lloyds to do insurance business here without having to maintain any assets in the Republic; barring a relatively small deposit with the Treasury of R60,000. The only other assets compulsorily available in the Republic in respect of Lloyds business, including business with fringe companies, have been the various deposits of R10,000 each made by Lloyds agents in South Africa. There are 25 of them so the total amount is R250,000.

On the premiums collected in respect of Lloyds business a flat-rate tax of 2½ per cent is payable which, in turn, compares favourably, from the Government’s point of view, with the tax paid on the average by other insurers, i.e. the insurance companies. Taken on the whole, however, Lloyds have for many years carried on insurance business in the Republic on conditions less onerous than those with which other insurers have had to comply, that is from the point of view of maintaining assets here.

The position hitherto enjoyed by Lloyds must be seen in the light of developments over many years. There was a time in the growth of our insurance market when it was undoubtedly more essential to have an additional outlet for some of our insurance risks, i.e. to Lloyds, than it may be to-day. Our local insurance industry has in the meantime developed and is to-day in a position to retain for its own account a much larger slice of our insurance business than it was at the time of enactment of the Insurance Act in 1943. But our market, even assuming that it develops to the utmost extent, will never be in a position to retain all our insurance risks for its own account. This one can say because insurance, in essence, is international. Not even the most advanced country can close its borders and think that it can carry all its insurance risks. In passing I may say that while this happens to be the nature of insurance it naturally does not mean that we will not energetically promote the growth of our local insurance industry to the maximum extent compatible with our economic development.

It is thus clear that the presence of Lloyds in our market serves a useful purpose in regard to reinsurance and the placing of special risks. Moreover, Lloyds are non-tariff and for that reason are in a position to introduce very healthy competition into our market.

Lloyds operate in a unique way. Underwriters are not concerned with the collection of premiums, the issue of policies or the settlement of claims. These matters are all handled by brokers. The underwriters merely assume risks and, while under British legislation substantial reserves have to be maintained in respect of such risks, they are in the final analysis responsible to the extent of their private means. This set-up under which private individuals assume insurance risks throughout the world necessitates the remittance of premiums to London. Because of the necessities of the system and also because of the creditable centuries-old record of Lloyds we have up to now not insisted on assets being maintained in the Republic by underwriters at Lloyds. But in fairness to our registered insurers who must comply with stringent requirements and also because we have recently witnessed an instance where the sanctity of insurance contracts was disregarded by governmental action, the time has now arrived for us to introduce a new basis for the conduct of Lloyds business. In doing so we are still mindful of the special manner in which Lloyds operate.

The proposed new arrangement, in essence, is that underwriters at Lloyds will in respect of all business written subsequent to 30th June, 1966, have to maintain deposits with a banking institution, which may be invested in other assets in the Republic, amounting to 70 per cent of net premiums. Together with such assets there will be available to cover Lloyds’ liabilities the aggregate deposits with the Treasury by Lloyds agents in the Republic which it is proposed to increase in each individual case from R10,000 to R20,000, making a total on the present number of agents of R500,000, as well as the premiums still in the hands of agents awaiting remittance to underwriters at Lloyds, which at any time is estimated to be equal to three months’ net premiums. The aforementioned ratio of 70 per cent of net premiums has been calculated by the Government Actuary to place Lloyds on a par with registered short-term insurers in respect of the assets the latter must maintain to cover (1) unexpired risks, (2) outstanding claims, and (3) the solvency margin of 10 per cent of the previous year’s premiums. The deposits and assets must be held under the control of a representative which the Committee of Lloyds must appoint in the Republic and the assets must be maintained in the forms enumerated in the Third Schedule to the Act in such a manner that at least 50 per cent of the total deposits and assets are in Part I assets, that is deposits with banking institutions and gilt-edged securities like government stock, etc. Also, the latter percentage has been calculated by the Government Actuary to place Lloyds in the same position as other registered insurers. A sub-minimum of 20 per cent for investment in Government securities is proposed which likewise places Lloyds on a more or less equal footing with other insurers.

Lloyds will under normal circumstances only be entitled to withdraw the moneys deposited here during any particular month after the expiry of a period of 12 months. During the said period of 12 months the deposits or assets may not be utilized for the purposes of Lloyds’ normal insurance business. The effect of this arrangement will be that after the initial build-up period Lloyds will have assets in the Republic at any given point of time to cover all their outstanding claims and carry their unmatured risks to expiry. On the proposed basis Lloyds’ liabilities will be covered as well as those of any registered insurer who complies with the minimum valuation basis of the Insurance Act. To take the proposed arrangement to its logical conclusion, we take the power to apply the deposits and assets maintained here to meet Lloyds’ insurance liabilities in the event of their becoming unable through whatever circumstances to carry on their business here. It follows that the carrying on of Lloyds business in the Republic should be conditioned on compliance with the requirements of the Act, in particular the maintenance of the required amount of assets. This we specifically provide for the sanction for failure to comply with the requirements being the immediate ceasing of Lloyds business. In terms of the Bill we will have the power to prescribe by regulation the information to be submitted by the representative of Lloyds as well as agents to the Registrar. This we propose doing in such a way that we will have a continuous check on the amounts required to be deposited, as well as the actual deposits and withdrawals.

I mentioned earlier on that a certain amount of insurance business emanating from the Republic was placed through Lloyds brokers with fringe companies, i.e. companies not registered here. Except with the prior written approval of the Registrar we now stop this type of business altogether, since the fringe companies are quite obviously not in a position to comply with the requirements imposed on Lloyds. I need hardly point out that in those cases where the Registrar does give approval no assets will be maintained in the Republic in respect of the liabilities undertaken and it therefore goes without saying that the Registrar will only give his approval in the most exceptional circumstances where no other suitable cover is obtainable.

In regard to the flat rate of taxation of 2½ per cent of gross premiums which Lloyds business attracts, I have mentioned that it compares favourably with the amount of taxation which other insurers pay on the average on their business results, so much so that Lloyds have asked for some relief and have proposed a different and, as they maintain, more equitable basis of taxation. I am prepared to consider these proposals and, if necessary, will introduce legislation dealing with this matter during the next session. The aspects which I have dealt with are the main features of the proposed new Lloyds arrangement. I may add that in Clause 1 of the Bill we propose to amend the definition of “approved reinsurances” in order to recognize reinsurance effected with Lloyds as approved reinsurance for the purposes of the Act. This is equitable and we can now do this since Lloyds will now maintain assets in the Republic on an equal footing with other insurers. This should be to the benefit of our insurance industry since sound reinsurance is a sine qua non for the proper development of our own insurance industry.

Apart from the matters that I have explained we deal with a few minor matters in the Bill which are in the nature of improvements or corrections and which need no particular explanation now. If necessary, I will explain these minor provisions at the Committee stage.

Mr. Speaker, although this Bill deals mainly with matters of policy in regard to which naturally the Government alone takes the final decision we have nevertheless, from the practical point of view, consulted the interested parties in the insurance industry, that is the long-term and the short-term insurers, the incorporated insurance brokers and also Lloyds, and I am pleased to say that they are either in agreement with the provisions of this Bill or concede, if only tacitly, the necessity there for. As far as Lloyds are concerned, I am sure that the arrangement which we now propose will place their association with our market on a much sounder footing than in the past. I shall have a small amendment to Clause 6 (b) at the Committee stage to rectify a drafting error.

I now commend this Bill to the consideration of the House.

We are prepared to give the Bill our support at the Second Reading. We are grateful to the hon. the Minister for having made available to us a senior official of his Department to explain the whole workings of the Bill and to discuss it with us, which has made it much easier for us to deal with the question and to make up our minds as to our attitude towards it.

The hon. the Minister has pointed out that there are two main points in the Bill. One is the introduction of the principle that there is to be a minimum investment in government securities by insurance companies. That is really carrying out what he said in his Budget speech, and we think that there is a case to be made out for that under existing conditions and we do not object to it. The main part of the Bill deals with the question of Lloyds as underwriters, which, as the hon. the Minister has explained, is a unique organization, quite distinct from ordinary insurance companies and Lloyds have over centuries developed a way of doing business which is quite unique. We agree with the hon. the Minister that the time has come when the operations of Lloyds underwriters, whilst they are still essential to the economy of the country in the various branches of work that they do, both in short-term insurance and long-term insurance, should be brought into line with ordinary insurance practice. And that is really what is proposed in this Bill. We accept the hon. the Minister’s assurances that this matter has been fully discussed and at great length, both with our own insurance companies and with Lloyds of London, and that this Bill represents to a very large extent an agreed measure, and in those parts which might not be regarded as completely agreed measures, they at any rate represent a tacit agreement that the insurers, whether Lloyds or our own insurance companies. do admit that there is a case to be met and that the Government has put forward reasonable proposals.

The handling of the insurance business in the last few years under the hon. the Minister, I think, has vastly improved and to-day I think it is fairly good. I think that the understanding and the relationship between what is after all a most important financial and economic branch of our lives, namely the insurance world, I think the relations between that world and the Government are good. I think so long as full consultation takes place between the Department and these bodies and so long as agreement can be reached by experts on both sides to see that the interests of all parties are fairly protected—the Government and the public and the insurers themselves—this House should be prepared, as far as possible, to accept the recommendations which come as a result of those discussions and are put before the House as representing the considered views of all sections of the industry and the Government as well. For that reason we are prepared to support the second reading of the Bill.

It was really amusing to hear the hon. member for Constantia say this afternoon that the hon. Minister has handled insurance so well during the past year that it is now in a sound condition. I want to say that the Minister has always done so, ever since he became Minister. The terrible moans and groans which we had here two years ago have now actually come to the surface, and we now see what it all meant. They are now repudiating their own past behaviour, and we thank them very sincerely for having displayed such stout-heartedness.

Mr. Speaker, we owe the hon. the Minister a great debt of gratitude for having come forward with this legislation. He referred to Lloyds, and we know what happened in Rhodesia. when a foreign power complicated the matter and Lloyds was unable to pay out its claims in Rhodesia. That is not to say that something similar will or can never happen in South Africa, but that just goes to show how far-sighted the hon. the Minister is in preventing even such a possibility, something which can happen. I just want to point out that this legislation was before a Select Committee in 1943 and that at that time the hon. member for Fordsburg, the present Leader of the House. Minister Schoeman, said, inter alia, in a debate (Hansard 1943, col. 4524)—

In addition the hon. member for Fordsburg also said the following (Col. 4525)—

In addition to that the present Minister Schoeman, who had been a member of the then Select Committee, also said the following—

If we were to look at the 1964 report of the Registrar of Insurance we would find that we had altogether 180 insurance companies in our country, of which 93 were domestic and 79 were overseas companies, and at the moment, or at least as at 30th June, 1964, there were 28 firms who were empowered to do business as agents, brokers and insurers of Lloyds, and these agents of Lloyds received a total of R5,023,000 in premiums during the 1963 calendar year, and during that period they paid out R2,396,000. Therefore, even if we take administration costs into account, approximately one quarter of that R5,000.000 in premium moneys must have been nett profit, which proves to us that a tremendously great profit is being made by Lloyds in South Africa. It is true, as the hon. the Minister illustrated to us, that the Lloyds insurance group has rendered a great service to South Africa. In the first place it brings free competition with one’s domestic insurers and it renders exceptional services. It undertakes certain kinds of insurance which one cannot get from other insurance companies in South Africa, for example certain short-term insurance. But, Mr. Speaker, if we were to look at the figures we would also find in the report for 1964 that besides R3.242.000 for re-insurance the premiums received during that year by domestic companies totalled R164,695,000. whereas the overseas companies received R103.571.000 In other words, of a total of R270,508,000 R103,571,000 had been received by overseas companies here. Those companies are controlled from abroad and these profits are sent out of South Africa as dividends or by other means, and in that way it affects our foreign currency. Now I want to suggest that since the hon. the Minister has come forward with a new scale of taxation for the future, the position should perhaps be reconsidered. As the hon. the Minister said, it was established in 1943 already that Lloyds was only paying 24 per cent on its gross premium income. Subsequent to that taxes have undergone a tremendous change in South Africa and have increased while Lloyds has been placed in a position where it can make much greater profits than it has done in the past. At that time 21 per cent might have entailed a great pressure on its earnings, whereas that might not be the case to-day. That is why I want to ask the hon. the Minister to consider increasing the 2½per cent.

In addition I also want to say that we, as the then hon. member for Fordsburg said in 1943, want to protect our domestic companies, and since we have a great number of companies I find that the question of whether or not we should accommodate our domestic companies further as far as taxation scales are concerned, and whether or not a difference should be made in the rate of taxation is an open one. The R103,000,000 in premiums which these overseas companies are earning in South Africa is equal to the total amount which we have voted this year for Social Welfare and Pensions in this Budget. That just goes to show what proportions it assumes and what a tremendous amount it is. As a result of the coming into being over the years of the different insurance groups, domestic as well as overseas, the total assets which insurance controls to-day in South Africa, in 1964, amounts to R1,423,138,000, of which the overseas companies alone control a total of R295,391,000 in assets. That is a tremendously large amount.

We do not want to turn a blind eye to the services which those companies have rendered to the South African economy, we do not want to belittle it, we do not want to disregard it, nor do we want to oust them but I think that the time is both ripe and ready for us to look after what is our own first. That is why I want to say that when the rates of taxation are revised in future we should take these factors very thoroughly into consideration and see whether it is not time something more was done for our domestic companies.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is unfortunate that the hon. member for Sunnyside who has just spoken did not take the lead given by his Minister. The oblique criticism of Lloyds I think was quite unwarranted at this stage. The Minister indicated the importance of this agreement and the importance of this organization to South Africa. I think it was very unwise for the hon. member for Pretoria (Sunnyside) to rake up the bones of 23 years ago with an oblique criticism of Lloyds, whilst the Minister welcomed this agreement with Lloyds.

I would remind the hon. member for Pretoria (Sunnyside) of the South African vessel which was wrecked on the shores of South Africa only a month or two ago. The claim was paid very promptly indeed and I am sure that no South African company would have liked to pay that claim. I suggest that the time has arrived when we can say that we are going to do business with people all over the world, and this criticism, deliberate criticism of companies from overseas who regard South Africa as a good investment, I think was unwarranted at this stage.

I did not criticize them.

It was oblique criticism. not direct criticism, and it was meant to be oblique criticism. For that reason I suggest that the hon. member will be well-advised to follow the lead of this Minister. We accept this Bill. We think that the arrangement which the Minister has made is a good one, that it is in the interests of the insurance companies, in the interests of South African would-be insurers and in the interests of the country, of all parties concerned.

I do not want there to be anything in regard to this matter which is not clear. It is quite true, and we admit it readily, that in our history the overseas insurance companies have meant a great deal to South Africa. I said that in my speech too. I added that as our economy in general, as well as our insurance, has developed we have taken a much greater part of the insurance business upon ourselves, and I am convinced that that position will improve even further. But we will never be able to become entirely independent, particularly as far as reinsurance is concerned, of overseas bodies. There is therefore no difference of opinion about that, nor did the hon. member for Sunnyside question what they meant for us in the past and what they still mean to us to-day. What he did point out was that even to-day they were still doing such a great share of the insurance business in our country, and in that he was perfectly correct too. I did not check his figures, but I know that in the broad sense that is the case, and I may perhaps avail myself of this opportunity to state what the policy of the Government is in respect of overseas companies doing insurance business in South Africa. Our policy is in the first place that there are certain stages which they have to go through. You know, Sir that they usually begin here as a mere branch of an overseas company. The next step is that they are then registered as South African companies. I have spoken personally to several of these companies.

We know that during the past two years there has been a merger of quite a few of these companies under a new South African registration. That is part of the implementation of our policy. They have accommodated us in that respect and we ought to give them credit for that. But I also told them that that was not the end of the road for them. The first step on that road was that they should acquire South African registration. But then they might still be subsidiaries, perhaps 100 per cent still, of an overseas company. The next step should therefore be for them to make a portion of their shares available to inhabitants of South Africa. The third step would be for them to make more than 50 per cent of their shares available in South Africa. The last rung of the ladder which they have to ascend would be for them to make their entire share capital available to South Africans. However, I do not expect that to happen soon, just as I do not expect the third step to be taken soon. We must bear in mind that when we want to have these overseas companies pass into South African hands it means that demands are going to be made on our exchange. In fact, because I cannot afford to lose foreign exchange I am already in the position to-day where I have to refuse applications for the purchase of South African shareholding in foreign companies. But should they come forward and make the gesture of making a portion of their shares available to South Africans, we shall try and help them to become more and more South African. That, in general, is our policy. Apparently there was some misunderstanding between the hon. member for Sunnyside and the hon. member for Pinetown. The hon. member for Sunnyside said that he readily conceded that the overseas companies have meant a great deal to us, but that he thought that these interests should gradually be decreased.

Now I just want to thank the hon. member for Constantia, and through him the hon. Opposition, for supporting this Bill. I think, as they do, that what we are taking here is a step forward.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to move—

1. (2) Section 14 (2) (c) of the principal Act is hereby amended by the substitution for sub-paragraph (ii) of the following sub-paragraph:
   1. “(ii) the owner has failed to comply with any requirement of Section 22 (1) with reference to the said occurrence (the onus of proving that the registered company concerned could not reasonably within 14 days after the occurrence have been informed of the occurrence and of the place and time thereof, shall be on the owner concerned), or has knowingly furnished the said registered company with false information relating to the said occurrence.”

Mr. Chairman, I suppose the Deputy Minister still proposes to move the amendment on Clause 2 which stands in the name of the hon. the Minister of Transport? Could the hon. the Deputy Minister indicate what his attitude is to the amendment to Clause 2 of which the hon. member for Durban (North) has given notice? I ask this at this stage because the wording of the proposed new clause to follow Clause 1 suggests that this new clause and the amendment go together. It seems to me that if the amendment of the Minister to Clause 2, as well as the amendment of the hon. member for Durban (North) to Clause 2, are moved, in a sense we would be saying the same thing twice. I concede, however, that they can stand together. If the hon. the Deputy Minister could indicate to us what his attitude is to the amendment to be proposed by the hon. member for Durban (North) it might assist us to settle our attitude in this respect.

I am not prepared to accept the proposed amendment by the hon. member for Durban (North). To my mind the door has already been opened to a person who wants to prove that he was unable to report within 14 days. If I were to accept the hon. member’s amendment it would, to my mind, open the door too wide, which would defeat the whole purpose of this amendment. It may also lead to the words “as soon as may be” being open to different interpretations, which is the very thing I want to avoid by means of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am approaching this matter entirely from the basis of trying to get the most satisfactory wording. The hon. the Deputy Minister says he thinks this amendment will open the door too widely, but I am not convinced that the amendment of the hon. member for Durban (North) will not secure the object of the hon. the Deputy Minister to a greater degree.

Order! I cannot allow the hon. member to discuss that amendment now. It has not as yet been moved. I have allowed the hon. member to raise the point only with the object of giving the hon. the Deputy Minister the opportunity to reply. The hon. the Deputy Minister has now replied and I cannot, consequently, allow any further discussion on it.

This proposed amendment to Section 14 (2) places the onus on the owner to satisfy the court before he can escape any possibility of recourse. This seems to me to arise from the policy agreed to by the consortium that they must now pursue rigorously all possible claims for recoupment from the insured in as many cases as they can in terms of the Act. The position is that it is impossible for a vehicle owner to know of all the circumstances under which these accidents might happen and which might give rise to the occurrences in respect of which the onus is now to be upon him in terms of this amendment. I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister is not going a bit too far with this amendment. The Act as it stands at the moment, particularly its provisions relating to power of recoupment and of recovery from the insured and the obligation to report, seem to me to be reasonably sufficient to meet circumstances as they arise. After all, who is the person against whom the right of recourse is going to be exercised? It is not going to be exercised against a person without any substance, but will normally be exercised only against persons of substance, persons who would normally conduct their business in a proper and efficient manner. Therefore I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to consider abandoning both amendments, i.e. to Section 14 and to Section 21. It seems to me that there are objections to pursuing the amendment of which the hon. the Deputy Minister has given notice, although it may be an improvement on the draft we have before us. What I am really getting at is whether it is not more desirable to increase the penalty for not reporting “as soon as possible” as the Act now requires. The person who is not likely to report an accident is also most likely to be a person who is not worth powder and shot when it comes to the insurance company taking action to recover from him. Will this not be the best way to deal with this evil, i.e. to increase the penalty for non-compliance rather than to attempt to get around it in this rather vague way?

As far as the right of recourse is concerned. it should be specifically noted that the proviso inserted in Section 14 (2) never existed before. Whereas, in terms of the Act as it reads at present, the right of recourse could always be exercised in the case of persons who did not report “as soon as may be”, the door is now being opened so that they may in fact escape the right of recourse. In any case, the 14 days provision has not been inserted to facilitate the right of recourse. On the contrary, the object of it is to make it clear to the public that they will not be made subject to this right of recourse as a result of an incorrect interpretation of Section 22 (1). The amendment I am moving here now is in actual fact in the interest of the public itself, because although the public may have been under the impression before that they were acting within the purview of the provision, that was in fact not the case and they were subject to the right of recourse although it was not a matter of negligence on their part, but only a matter of an incorrect interpretation of Section 22 (1).

With great respect to the hon. the Deputy Minister I should like to point out that the Act as it now stands imposes upon the owner the obligation to report “as soon as may be”. If he fails to report “as soon as may be” then he subjects himself to the penalties which entitle insurance companies to a right of recourse. The effect of the amendment of the hon. the Deputy Minister is to change these words “as soon as may be” and it is here, I think, where all these complications are arising. I suggest that even if these amendments are adopted the position legally will still be “as soon as it is reasonably possible”. It will still in effect be that. I submit that the Act is definite as it stands, i.e. that the insured must report “as soon as may be” after the accident and if he fails to do that the right of recourse arises. What the hon. the Deputy Minister now wants is that he should report “if possible” within 14 days and if he does not he has to discharge the onus that he could not reasonably have done so. This is rather a complicated approach. I submit that the Act has been working satisfactorily up to now and that those who do not report accidents are in any case not worth powder and shot. The only way to get at them is to increase the penal provision. Thereby they can be made to suffer some punishment. Insurance companies are not going to exercise their right of recourse against a person who has no assets and who will therefore not be in the position to discharge any claim which might be preferred against him.

I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister is by this amendment achieving what he wants to achieve. It seems to me that the position in terms of the new clause now proposed is that if an owner is able to discharge the onus, namely that the insurance company could not have been informed within 14 days, then the right of recourse falls away entirely whereas if one acted as suggested by the hon. member for Green Point it would still be possible to have a right of recourse against the owner notwithstanding that the owner, or a driver (in certain cases) could show that the company could not have been informed within 14 days. In other words, insurance companies may gain something on the swings but lose other things on the roundabouts. As against this a much more artificial situation is being created; because, if you can discharge the onus of showing that you could not have informed the insurance company within 14 days you are completely free from the right of recourse. That will be a highly artificial situation. I think it will be better, as the hon. member for Green Point has suggested, to leave the matter as it is. The insurance companies will then in certain respects gain on the swings and the owner in other respects. In general, however, a fairer position will result.

The argument used here by hon. members is based on the assumption that the words “as soon as may be” will be approved. That is not, however, the correct view. The view which should be adopted here is that a specific number of days is going to be made applicable. Now the hon. the Deputy Minister comes along with this amendment, an amendment which should be viewed in that light. But the amendment goes further and provides that if any member of the public should be prejudiced thereby such person would be met in the manner set out in the amendment. For that reason I think the amendment of the hon. the Deputy Minister is the right one if read in conjunction with the relevant sections in the Act, because the amendment will mean that a concession will be made to the public. I do not think there will be any vagueness as far as its interpretation is concerned. As a matter of fact, only one interpretation can possibly be attached to it. Any person will know that he will have to make a certain report within 14 days and that if he does not do so he will have the opportunity to explain why he could not do so within 14 days before recourse can be had. If he succeeds in discharging this onus there is no right of recourse against him. For that reason I thing this amendment is a very reasonable one, and I fail to see that it will create the problems hon. members opposite foresee. I think we should accept it like that, and for that reason I want to support the hon. the Deputy Minister.

Mr. Chairman, it does seem that the hon. the Deputy Minister is not prepared to accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Green Point, namely that he abandons the amendment to the words “as soon as may be”, in other words that he leaves those words there. The new clause which the Deputy Minister wishes to insert here depends so much upon what decision this Committee will come to in regard to Clause 2. I wonder whether the Deputy Minister will not agree to let this clause stand over until we have decided in what form Clause 2 is to appear. If he agrees to this proposal, we shall be able to discuss this clause in a far more reasonable atmosphere than we are doing at the moment, not knowing what is to come. In those circumstances, if the hon. the Minister is agreeable, I move—

I think the Deputy Minister has already indicated that he was not prepared to accept the suggested amendment in Clause 2.

Sir, although the suggested amendment in Clause 2 may not be acceptable to the hon. the Deputy Minister, I have moved that this clause stand over because some other form of amendment which could be suggested may be acceptable to him.

Mr. Chairman, I agree. It is a reasonable request. However, I do not know of what use it will be to me to agree that this clause stand over, because I am not prepared to accept the words “as soon as may be”. If the hon. member wants to suggest other words, he may do so now, under this clause, or he may suggest that it be done.

No, I cannot. That is the difficulty.

Motion put and negatived.

Mr. Chairman, I shall then speak on the proposed new clause. As the hon. the Deputy Minister said, this was a very reasonable request. It is very difficult to discuss this new clause without dealing with Clause 2. You will appreciate, Sir, what has happened here. When this Bill was originally introduced, there was no amendment to Section 14 of the Act. This amendment was omitted. It was something which had not yet been thought of by the hon. the Deputy Minister when he introduced the Bill. This is a matter which was dealt with during the second reading and has now come to light. Everything that has been said by the hon. the member for Potchefstroom relates quite clearly to the person who does not report an accident. If all this clause did was to say that someone must report an accident within 14 days, otherwise certain penal sanctions will flow from his omission to do so, I do not think there would be any objection at all, apart from the objection which was raised, namely that this is probably unnecessary because the law in regard to this matter is quite clear.

When one deals with the right of recourse, I suggest to the hon. the Deputy Minister that the situation is quite different. I suggest to him that when this Bill was originally drafted in the form in which it is at present, no one thought about the right of recourse being affected by Clause 2, which is the next clause. I am obliged to deal with that now. The hon. the Deputy Minister does not like the words “as soon as may be”. I wonder whether the Deputy Minister will indicate whether his objection is to adding any words at all or whether it is just the words “as soon as may be”, that he does not like. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister understands my point. If he does not like the words “as soon as may be”, and if he feels they are too vague, we can always substitute other words. I wonder whether the Deputy Minister would indicate whether his real objection is to the words “as soon as may be”. I gather that it is. Will the hon. the Deputy Minister then not be prepared to accept words other than “as soon as may be” in the amendment which is on the Order Paper in connection with the next clause, which I am afraid I must refer to because it has reference to the proposed new clause we are discussing at the moment. I wonder whether the Deputy Minister will be prepared to accept words such as “as soon as possible” or “as soon as reasonably possible” or words like that? I see, Sir, that the hon. the Deputy Minister is smiling and shaking his head. But is this not precisely the difficulty one is in?

Order! The hon. member is now discussing an amendment to a clause which has not yet been put.

Yes, Sir, that is the difficulty. This is why I moved that this clause stand over until we have dealt with the clause to which this refers. Be that as it may, let me say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that the only reason why we are discussing this matter is to prevent the Deputy Minister having to come back to this House with a further amendment. I shall tell the House. The hon. the Deputy Minister proposes to insert the words which appear in brackets in the amendment which appears in the Order Paper under his name on page 144, namely:

If I may say so, that is merely a procedural matter. This is a rule of evidence. It says here that the onus of proving that the occurrence could not reasonably have been reported within 14 days is on the owner. It is all very well to say that, provided that there is a legal provision somewhere which says that you are excused if you can show that you could not reasonably have reported the occurrence within 14 days. That was the position before. The position was that you had to do it “as soon as may be”. It was a matter of evidence as to whether or not you did it “as soon as may be”. What we are providing for here in this Bill is that it shall be done within 14 days, and not that it shall be done within 14 days “or as soon as may be”, or “within a reasonable time” or “if it is reasonably possible”. It says “within 14 days” and there is no excuse allowed. Here, however, we provide for a rule of evidence for something which does not exist. In other words, you must do it within 14 days. That is what it is going to say. It is not going to say “within 14 days if it is reasonably possible”. Here is a rule of evidence saying that the onus of proving this was not reasonably possible is upon the owner. But you are not allowed to be excused by proving it. This is my point.

This is why I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will reconsider allowing this provision to stand over until we have discussed Clause 2. We will then be able to see the substance of the point in regard to which this rule of evidence is being made here. This rule of evidence will then relate to something which we already have before us in its final form. I appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister, because this is for his sake more than for anyone else’s sake. If he does not do this, he will make confusion worse confounded and he is going to have to come back with another amendment to provide for words such as “as soon as may be”, or “as soon as reasonably possible”.

Mr. Chairman, I am not a jurist, but to my mind there is nothing obscure about this amendment which has been moved by the hon. the Deputy Minister. If it is clear to me it should after all be clear to the man in the street as well and even to that hon. member. Let us see what the implications of this amendment are. As Section 22 (1) of the Act is now being amended in terms of Clause 2 of this Bill, it is now being provided that the owner and the driver of the motor vehicle have to give notice of any accident within 14 days and no longer “as soon as may be”. That applies to the vast majority of people who cause accidents and who are themselves the drivers of the vehicles. One can almost say that in 85 per cent of the accidents which occur the vehicle is driven by the owner. He is not being excluded under the amendment which the hon. the Deputy Minister is moving here; in other words the Act, as amended here, will apply to the vast majority of the public, 85 per cent of them, who previously all fell under the vague provision that they had to give notice of the incident “as soon as may be”. In other words, in a 100 accidents for example all those 100 drivers or owners were able to come forward after a certain period of time with the excuse that they had not sooner been able to furnish details of the incident. Now 85 per cent of those people will immediately fall under the provisions of the Act, but there is a small minority of interested parties for whom this clause makes provision, i.e. that 15 per cent who are the owners of the vehicles but who were not themselves driving their vehicles at the time of the accident. The intention here is to place that small group of motor vehicle owners in the position where action will not be taken against them if they have neglected to give notice within 14 days, provided they can prove that they had had no knowledge of the accident prior to that. Hon. members of the Opposition cannot come forward with the argument that one is, as a result of this amendment, merely throwing the matter open again and that one can, in that case, just as well use the words “as soon as may be”. That is not so. In my opinion there is no excuse in the case of 85 per cent of the people; they must give notice within 14 days. But one is making an exception here for a small group of motor vehicle owners who do not themselves drive their motor cars. I think it is necessary that that group be taken into consideration, and that is precisely what the hon. the Deputy Minister is doing here. That is why we can do nothing else than to support this good amendment. Therefore I do not think that hon. members of the Opposition can put forward the argument that what they want to propose, something which will actually come to the same wording as that in the original Act, can be connected with what the hon. the Deputy Minister is proposing in his amendment.

I think the hon. member for Parow has demonstrated exactly the difficulties which are going to be encountered here. He says that he is not a lawyer and to him this is very welcome because he says it is very clear. He says that now it will not be a case of reporting “as soon as maybe”, and he says that he does not know how long that is; he says that it must be done within 14 days. That is how he reads this. Sir, he is quite right; that is just what it does say. It does say that it must be done within 14 days and no longer than 14 days, and ne’er the twain shall meet, because if you do not report within 14 days you commit an offence. But so far as what we are dealing with here is concerned, the new clause which the hon. the Deputy Minister quite properly proposes to introduce to deal with the right of recourse, I want to ask the hon. member for Parow to consider this situation: Take the case of the man who is driving a car and who has an accident. If he does not report it within 14 days he commits an offence, and that is one thing, but the right of recourse that the insurance company can exercise in terms of Section 14 of the Act, which is here being amended, is this: You can exercise the right of recourse against the owner of the motorcar if the incident was not reported by the owner of the motorcar within 14 days. The owner of the motorcar or the lorry or whatever motor vehicle it is, may not know within 14 days …

That is the idea of the amendment.

Let me just finish my sentence. The hon. member for Parow seems to be seeing the light. The owner of the motor vehicle may not know within 14 days, if the person who was driving the vehicle did not tell him about the incident within 14 days. The object of this amendment is to make provision for the right of recourse, for which the Bill made no provision in the first place, and what it says is that you have a right of recourse if the owner has failed to comply with any requirement of Section 22 (1) which, as we are going to amend it, means that you have not reported the incident within 14 days, not as “as soon as maybe” any more, but within 14 days, and that is when you have a right of recourse. What appears in brackets thereafter in the amendment which the hon. the Deputy Minister has moved, does not say that if it was not reasonably possible to do so then you do not have the right of recourse against the owner; what it says is that the onus of proving that it was not reasonably possible for you to do so is on you, the owner. It does not say “if you actually prove it”; the onus is on you, so you go to court and you prove it. How does the court determine whether or not there is a right of recourse against you? It determines it by posing this question: Has the owner failed to comply with any requirements of Section 22 (1) of the Act. The court will then look at Section 22 (1) of the Act. If the court looks at it as it now reads, it would say that he did report as soon as may be, even if it was three weeks later, because he only learned about it three weeks later and as soon as he could do so he reported it. What is the position now? You look to Section 22 (1), not to Section 14. to determine whether or not the right of recourse exists, and Section 22 (1) says “within 14 days.” And so you say that the insurance company has the right of recourse against the owner. Sir, let us make no mistake about it; this is not just an academic matter.

Sir, I am not wishing to advertise this company but they have a monopoly in any event so it is not really an advertisement: Take a company like Coronation Brick and Tile in Durban. That organization has an enormous number of vehicles. It has hundreds of 10-ton trucks running around Durban. If one of those is involved in an accident and someone is injured— and it is quite easy for these things to become involved in accidents; it is quite easy for them to injure someone without the driver always being aware of it—what is going to happen? Organizations of that kind are going to have the right of recourse exercised against them, if I am correct in suggesting that a strict interpretation will be placed upon this Bill in the form in which it is going to emerge from this Committee if the hon. the Deputy Minister’s attitude remains what it is, if that strict interpretation is applied, then this is going to be a most unsatisfactory situation, which is not the intention of the Department. I know that the hon. the Deputy Minister does not intend this result to flow from it. All we are saying on this side of the House is this: Why not make it clear, because it is not clear at this stage. There are hon. learned members on this side who have advocated a point of view in relation to the legal interpretation of this, and I may say that it is a perfectly valid legal point of view. These hon. learned members on this side may be wrong, but let me say that the legal advisers of the hon. the Deputy Minister may also be wrong. We have a genuine doubt here and we are raising this point in the hope of improving this legislation, in a spirit of helpfulness and friendliness. If there is that doubt, then it seems to me that we should in this Committee be able to find a way in which we can set the matter beyond doubt so that it is quite clear that the intention of the hon. the Deputy Minister and his Department will prevail and that these anomalies will not arise, and that the situation which could arise, if the courts interpreted this strictly, will in no circumstances arise. If the hon. the Deputy Minister feels at this stage that he cannot accept the amendment and if he feels that perhaps the matter is not clear I ask him to give us some indication at least that he will review this matter or take counsel’s opinion on it in order to resolve something which, as the hon. member for Parow says, is really a matter where lawyers disagree and where the layman is quite happy.

I want to state clearly and unequivocally that I accept the good intentions which those hon. members have. I accept that they may perhaps have real reasons for concern, but on the other hand they must also accept and appreciate my standpoint. In my opinion the amendment, as it has been proposed here, is clearly and unambiguously worded, even for those companies which have many motor vehicles in their possession and who work with many motor vehicle drivers. It was in fact the intention of this amendment to accommodate those people. What is it that I have tried to do here, Sir? I have tried to bring clarity in regard to the words “as soon as may be”, where they would be open to different interpretations on the part of the ordinary public. I do not want there to be any misunderstanding on the part of anyone about the expression “as soon as may be”. I am now proposing a specific period of time, namely “within 14 days”. That already makes it immediately clear to the man in the street, but I also want to be accommodating. There may be circumstances where people are not able to do it within 14 days, and that is why the words “if reasonably possible” are being inserted. But if I were to accept the amendment of my hon. friend opposite and insert the words “as soon as may be”, then I would once more find myself in the same difficulty. Where I have tried to bring clarity to the public and to the man in the street, I would then once more find myself with something which was not clear, because those words “as soon as may be” would again be open to different interpretations. I want to tell the hon. member for Durban (North) that I accept his good intentions; I have no doubt about them. He must also accept my good intentions. If I have made a mistake, I shall be the first to admit it. The hon. member has predicted that I shall have to introduce an amendment on a later occasion. If it proves necessary, I shall do so. But if I think that I have not made a mistake, then the hon. member must also accept that.

I want to add one further thought for the hon. the Deputy Minister’s consideration. We are trying here to meet a difficulty. I think we are all agreed that prompt notice should be given to companies to enable them to get evidence, to enable them to visit the scene of an accident quickly to see what has happened and to enable them to get witnesses and so on. but I want to put forward this thought and it follows from what was said by the hon. member for Parow: At the present moment the law is that the reporting to the company must be “as soon as may be”. If I accept what the hon. member for Parow has said, and that is that in the case of 85 per cent of the accidents the owner is the driver at the time when the accident takes place, when is “as soon as may be”? I suggest that the majority of them regard it as that day or the next day and they get in touch with their insurance company. What does the amendment do now? Now they are under no obligation to report to their insurance company until the fourteenth day after the accident, and I mention that to the Deputy Minister as another difficulty which arises from his amendment. He is now extending that period, in 85 per cent of the cases, to 14 days instead of the present period which may be the following day or two or three days after the accident. I want to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that these views I am giving him are the views of one of the companies concerned who feel, as we have felt on this side, that this Bill is acceptable except for Section 2. the inclusion of which has caused the difficulties. We have indicated that otherwise the Bill is acceptable, but immediately one came to the amendment of Section 2, then it became necessary to have the hon. the Minister’s suggested new clause. I want to add this thought for the Deputy Minister’s consideration when he is giving consideration to the consequences of the amendment that it will probably be to the disadvantage of the companies in that the driver will now have a longer period in which to delay making the report.

Surely the Committee Stage of a Bill is the stage where we should try to improve the Bill? But the Opposition astound me; I cannot make out what they are envisaging here. The hon. member who has just spoken said that, if this amendment were to be passed in this form, it would mean that people would not report the accidents before the 14 days had elapsed. But if the words as printed here “within 14 days” remain, they will also be able to wait until the fourteenth day. Why should the words which are now being inserted make any difference? It makes no difference. People can still wait until the fourteenth day.

I said that the words, “as soon as may be”, may mean that the accident is reported the next day already.

No, it can mean six months; it can mean two years. That argument of the hon. member does not hold water at all. But these words, “if reasonably possible” which the hon. the Deputy Minister now wants to insert, leave an opening, if something happens for which the man is not to blame and which makes it impossible for him to report within 14 days, for him to be excused and to be exonerated from blame for not having reported the accident. What do these words mean? The man must give notice within 14 days. Of what must he give notice? He must give notice of the incident, of where and when it took place; he must furnish the name and address, if he has this information, of anybody who has been injured or killed and of every person in the vehicle in question when the incident occurred; he must give a description of any other vehicle involved in the incident; he must furnish the name and address of the driver of every other such vehicle and of any person who witnessed the incident, as well as any other reasonable information in regard to the incident which he has at his disposal and which the registered company may request from him from time to time. If this information were complicated then I could understand the attitude of the Opposition, but if the man waits longer than 14 days some of this information could possibly be lost. I think the hon. Deputy Minister did not go far enough. He should have provided that this information should be furnished within 48 hours. That would have been much better. Mr. Chairman, what the Opposition is now trying to do is to put up a fight for road hogs, if I may use the word, the people who cause death on the roads, who cause accidents and who do not care two hoots about what happens. It is those people the Opposition is putting up a fight for here this afternoon. If people have to report accidents within 48 hours, they will also be much more careful. I am very satisfied with this clause as it stands here. If the period within which the accident has to be reported is extended, then one is tending to promote even more road accidents and more irresponsibility, and one is not accommodating the insurance companies; neither is one accommodating the police who has to investigate the matter. That is why I hope the Opposition will accept the clause as it stands here.

New clause put and agreed to.

Clause 2:

I move the amendment standing in the name of the hon. the Minister of Transport—

I do not propose to move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper because the hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated that he does not like the words “as soon as maybe” in any event. What I want to suggest to the hon. the Deputy Minister therefore, to meet the situation that we dealt with when dealing with the new clause we have just accepted, is that he should insert after “occurrence” in line 21, the words “became known to him”, so that the owner of the motor vehicle must report within 14 days after the occurrence became known to him. If the Deputy Minister wishes to add to that that the onus of proving that the occurrence did not become known to the owner when it occurred, then obviously one would be quite prepared to agree to it. I accordingly move—

It stands to reason that I am not prepared to accept this amendment, for how would one know when it became known to the motor vehicle owner? I think that is going too far altogether. The hon. member really wants to open the door too wide now. The hon. member also knew in advance that I would not be prepared to accept this amendment.

The Bill before the Committee at present provides for the insertion in Section 22 of the words “within 14 days”, but Section 22 (3) of the Act (the penal provision) still uses the words “within a reasonable period”. For the consideration of the Committee and the hon. the Deputy Minister I suggest that Section 22 (3) be amended and that the words “within 14 days” be inserted to bring it into line with Section 22 (1). I think it will be an improvement. It is merely a technical point. At this stage I should like to reiterate the appeal I made to the hon. the Minister during the second-reading debate, Le. that the penalties provided in Section 22 (3) should be increased, because my experience indicates that these matters are not regarded in an adequately serious light by the public; that there is too much negligence in reporting these matters, and an increase in the penalties will serve to re-endorse the gravity of the matter. I just wanted to mention these two points as regards Section 22 (3).

To me there appears to be no need to amend sub-section (3), because sub-section (3) relates to cases where the motor vehicle owner failed to report within 14 days; he then has to report within a reasonable period.

Amendment proposed by the Deputy Minister of Transport put and agreed to.

Amendment proposed by Mr. M. L. Mitchell put and negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to. Title:

I move the amendment standing in my name—

Agreed to.

Title, as amended, put and agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

Report stage disposed of.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, you will permit me to say that it is an exceptional privilege for any Minister to be able to submit to this House, within a short space of time, two private Bills which you, Mr. Speaker, kindly ruled may be introduced as public measures, for the establishment of universities.

As is generally known, there is a Rand Afrikaans University Committee in Johannesburg, consisting of some 20 members, which has been striving for the establishment of an Afrikaans university on the Rand for the past six or seven years.

The idea of an Afrikaans university on the Rand originated in a genuine need, and can by no stretch of the imagination be deemed to be directed against any existing university or other institution for higher education. In course of time the authorities and leading figures in the private sector placed more and more emphasis on the necessity for a more positive endeavour to help achieve for our White population the greater and more complete development of its potential, and the above-mentioned need accordingly became more and more pronounced. It is the natural fulfilment of a process which began with Afrikaans primary schools and secondary schools on the Rand, which in turn necessitated the establishment of an Afrikaans teachers’ college in Johannesburg.

In 1951 there were 97 Afrikaans-medium primary schools, 5 Class II schools and 15 Afrikaans-medium high schools with an aggregate of 47,343 pupils in the three school-board districts Witwatersrand East, Witwatersrand Central and Witwatersrand West.

In June, 1962, the above-mentioned three school-board districts had 105 primary schools and a further 12 parallel-medium primary schools with predominantly Africans classes, while the number of high schools had grown to 29 Afrikaans high schools and four parallel-medium high schools with predominantly Afrikaans classes. At that time the total number of Afrikaans-speaking pupils was 83,962. It is estimated that in 1970 there will be no fewer than 118,000 Afrikaans as against 96,000 English-speaking pupils on the Witwatersrand.

In view of this situation the Transvaal Education Authorities consented in 1960 to the establishment of an Afrikaans teachers’ college in Johannesburg. In 1961 this college was established with 152 students, and at the beginning of 1964 close to 750 students had enrolled.

The Government had to consent to the essential graduate training of a considerable percentage of these students being undertaken under the University of South Africa. Of the 591 students in 1963 more than 100 took the university courses of the college. Although the Rand Afrikaners and the students concerned were most grateful for this concession, the ideal is still education through direct contact between university lecturers and students. As the Goudstad Onderwyskollege provides for 1,200 students, it follows naturally that from this source alone 200 to 300 students will be available for the contemplated university every year.

The great loss suffered by the country as a result of the fact that thousands of Afrikaans speaking pupils were not drawn timeously into Afrikaans educational institutions from the beginning to the end of their training, is demonstrated clearly by a survey undertaken by the Johannesburg Skakelkomitee in 1955. That survey revealed that of the 486 matriculation pupils who left 20 Rand Afrikaans-medium high schools at the end of 1955, only 110 (22j per cent) attended universities or teachers’ colleges for further training, while economic reasons compelled 151 (31 per cent) to take up employment. Of the more than 800 pupils at high schools who left school after only Std. 8 or 9, but who were able to pass the matriculation examination, many could not afford university or teachers’ college training after matric.

The increasing demand among the Rand Afrikaners that Afrikaans institutions should meet their educational needs from the beginning of the school years up to and including university training, was in turn the result of the increase in the number of Afrikaners in the Witwatersrand area. In considering the number of universities required, one should therefore not only have regard to the total population figure, but also to the population distribution. After all, large concentrations of a population group justify their own university or universities. In many similar urban concentrations there are two or more universities, for example in Ottawa, Montreal, Sydney and Melbourne. Washington boasts no fewer than ten university institutions, five of which are full universities.

In 1921 only 30,000 of the 252,000 Whites in Johannesburg were Afrikaans speaking. In the course of the next 15 years, from 1921 to 1936, the number of Afrikaans-speaking people grew to 62,000 out of the total of 257,000. In 1951, after another 15 years, the figures were 108,000 out of 359,000. At the moment the Afrikaans-speaking people in the entire Witwatersrand area total approximately 400,000 out of a total of 774,000 Whites, Almost 51.5 per cent of the White population of the Witwatersrand is therefore Afrikaans speaking.

The Witwatersrand and neighbouring areas, which represent about 3,345 square miles, or .7 per cent of the total surface area of the Republic, accommodate—

According to, the 1960 census figures 1,790.988 of the total White population of 3.088,492 of the Republic are Afrikaans speaking, i.e. 58 per cent. It is estimated that in 1976 there will be approximately 3,887,000 Whites in the Republic, of whom 2,300,000 will be Afrikaans speaking, i.e. 59.2 per cent.

In 1960 64 per cent of all students and pupils in the Republic were Afrikaans speaking; a survey undertaken at the eight universities for Whites just before the youngest university was established, i.e. the one in Port Elizabeth, revealed that although half of the matriculates at the end of 1961 were Afrikaans speaking, only 37.2 per cent Afrikaans-speaking students, as against 64.05 per cent English-speaking students, were enrolled at the universities in that year. It is characteristic of the fact that Afrikaans educational institutions did not keep pace with the increase in the Afrikaans-speaking section of the population, that from 1910 until 1965 there was no change in the proportion of four Afrikaans to four English White universities in South Africa. That demonstrates the great need for another Afrikaans university.

As regards the student potential in respect of the size of the population, the following figures relating to the proportion of student numbers to the total population figure (White and non-White) in a few countries, are most illuminating:

Although the number of White students at our universities is second only to that of the U.S.A. it should be noted that the Whites in South Africa are bearing a tremendous intellectual responsibility. Because the White population has to supply leaders not only for the Whites but for the entire population and frequently for territories beyond our borders as well, our need of academically trained people is more pressing than in any other country in the world. It is equally true that even today the potential of our White population is by no means being fully developed. Hardly half of the students who register at our universities attain a degree, which indicates that there is a great elimination process and a great waste of the intellectual potential of the Whites in South Africa. An additional university will help to bring more students to university and to produce more graduates.

Do we have the teaching staff?

Yes

An important question as regards the student potential in respect of university requirements, is whether there are actually students available for university training, and why they cannot be enrolled at some university or other. A scientific inquiry undertaken by Dr. E. J. Marais, now principal of the University of Port Elizabeth, while he was still Deputy President of the C.S.I.R., into our manpower potential, particularly in respect of scientists and technologists, also reveals the grave “waste”, particularly as regards end-of-school material. Statistics of the Transvaal Education Department show that the “waste” among Afrikaans-sveaking people is larger than among people of other language groups. A random test carried out in 1960 revealed that of 9,595 pupils who attended 15 Rand high schools at the time, at least 789 who were desirous and intellectually capable of enjoying higher education were financially unable to continue their studies after matric. A scientific inquiry by Mr. J. P. Coetzee, Director of Munitions Production, and Dr. S. P. Lighthelm, showed that the Republic is at present wasting the manpower of half a university. They inquired into the number of students lost as a result of a lack of money for studying and found that in the years 1960, 1961 and 1962 from 500 to 600 persons were lost annually. They found, furthermore, that some of our most brilliant matriculates or potential matriculates were doing inferior work for the simple reason that their parents could not even meet their daily needs, even if they obtained a bursary to continue their studies up to matric or to go to a university.

As a result of the high costs of the establishment of a university, it is argued that existing universities should be expanded and that more bursaries and other privileges should be made available at such institutions, because the existing universities are capable of absorbing this student potential. The fact that the existing Afrikaans universities have already grown by 112 per cent in the past ten years, refutes this argument conclusively. In fact, it is becoming more and more evident that there is not enough room for students at our existing universities; no room in lecture halls; no room in hostels; no room in laboratories; no room in the time and attention of professors. It is therefore physically virtually impossible for them to provide for the normal growth of the next years as well as the losses that have to be prevented. If the growth-rate of the past ten years is maintained, we shall have more than 100,000 students in South Africa in 1973, and if no new university or universities are founded, there will be an average of more than 10,000 students per university. The University of Pretoria will then have more than 17,000 students and Stellenbosch more than 11,000. Our two smallest universities will then have almost 4,000 students each.

Although it is true that there are many universities abroad that are much larger than our present universities, it is a fact that large numbers result in impersonality and inadequate personal contact. Because the quality of a university is not dependent upon numbers, some of the most famous universities in the world are kept small deliberately. As has been indicated in this House on previous occasions, I also believe that a university should not have many more than 6,000 students. Furthermore, it is an acknowledged fact that it is more effective to build from the ground than to extend and renovate. When our existing universities were founded, nobody could foresee their large growth, with the result that their planning was on much too small a scale. Large expansion necessarily entails the continual construction of new buildings, larger lecture halls, more hostels and larger sports grounds. Whether the additional provision is made at existing institutions or at a new university cannot make a significant difference to the costs.

The increase in the number of Afrikaans-speaking people is mainly an increase in the number of Afrikaners in the urban areas. It is in fact in these areas that the Afrikaans-speaking people are following the less remunerative vocations in larger numbers, and therefore do not have the financial means to send their children to centres outside the Witwatersrand area for further studies. The Afrikaans-speaking people who went from the rural areas to the cities found a haven mainly in the sub-structure of the urban economy. In fact, the process from bottom to top in this vocational structure is a very slow one as well. At the moment only approximately 6,800 of the 40,500 Rand directors, working owners, architects, engineers, physicists, medical doctors, lawyers, etc., i.e. only 161 per cent of the prosperous people on the Rand, are Afrikaans-speaking. In Johannesburg the position is even worse. Here only 81 per cent of the professional and entrepreneur group is Afrikaans-speaking.

The area in which the proposed university will have its seat yields 61 per cent of South Africa’s total mineral production and 40 per cent of its industrial production. Sixty-two per cent of the country’s electrical power is consumed here; half of the Republic’s purchasing power is created here. Sixty per cent of the new industries registered in the past eight months are situated in this heartland.

A recent American survey shows that the entrepreneur and highly professional group is being produced consistently by the same existing group, and that there is very little movement from other groups to this group. The fact that vocational structure becomes rigid in this way means that the Afrikaans-speaking people will have great difficulty in moving to the higher income group along natural channels. The same survey also shows, however, that the most important way of moving from a lower level of the vocational economic structure to a higher one, is by way of the universities and higher institutions for commercial and technical development.

Because a very large percentage of the Rand urban Afrikaners are therefore financially unable to send their children to Afrikaans universities elsewhere, they will for the most part remain confined to their inferior economic position, unless an Afrikaans university is established within their reach.

One of the most popular arguments advanced in opposition to the establishment of university colleges for the Bantu and the Coloureds some years ago, was the contention that there were not enough lecturers available and that those who were in fact available could be used much more advantageously at the existing universities. That this argument was invalid has been proved by the fact that the above-mentioned colleges have found the necessary staff without prejudicing other universities to any notable extent. None of the existing universities lost as many of its staff to the new university colleges as did the University of South Africa, and this university was barely affected. This argument proved invalid in the case of Port Elizabeth as well.

The argument that an Afrikaans university on the Rand will find it difficult to obtain the required teaching staff is simply not valid, for as a result of his idealism and the position I have outlined, the Afrikaans-speaking person has qualified himself mainly for the educational field. In fact, the Afrikaans universities in general do not find it difficult to obtain staff. It has been proved time and again in our history that every new creation on the part of the White resulted in the provision of the staff required for its development. The issue in our country is not a shortage of manpower for the present growth-situation, but the judicious placement of workers who are capable of performing more responsible services. We cannot allow artificial restriction of our growth potential to have the result that gifted people are chained to less important work. A normal growth draws the trained people to the top and draws the gifted people from below to fill the gaps.

The question whether our academic manpower is adequate may be answered as follows At present we are producing 5,000 graduates annually, of whom 1,000 attain advanced degrees and 100 doctorates. Approximately another 1,000 persons are studying abroad, mainly for advanced degrees, and of these, about 100 also attain doctorates every year. There is therefore a potential of 200 doctorates a year. What is more, if a university is at all worth its salt, the first result will be that it will be able to supply its own needs. The university should draw more students from the group that does not go studying at present, and from the ranks of its own students lecturers, inter alia, should be provided in turn.

Despite the lesser economic means of the Rand Afrikaners, there is no doubt that the share they will have to contribute can be found. At present the total purchasing power of the Afrikaans-speaking people in the region of the proposed Rand university amounts to R300.000.000 a year.

The Council of Rand Municipalities has promised its full support for the principle of the establishment of a Rand Afrikaans university, in terms of which the university will receive R1,226,500 in the next ten years. In addition there is a promise of R200.000 by the Transvaal and Free State Chamber of Mines, of R150,000 by De Beers Consolidated Mines, and also other promises and grants which on 31st May, 1966, amounted to approximately R1,956,850, apart from gifts in kind amounting to R170,000. To provide a free site for the University, as was done by the City Council in the case of the University of Port Elizabeth, the Cabinet has for its part decided to make a certain amount available for the acquisition of a site. Without exception, various committees of experts appointed to inquire into a possible site found that a site of 175 acres in Auckland Park was suitable for the erection of the University. The University Committee has also consulted with the Executive Committee of the Transvaal Provincial Administration about the academic needs of the students at the Goudstadse Onderwyskollege and about temporary accommodation and lecture facilities for the students of the new university during the planning years. The Executive Committee is prepared to make all these available to the university when as from 1968, as it is hoped, the university will supply the needs of the students of the Goudstadse College as well as other students who want to take courses for the B.A. degree.

The committee’s request that its legislation be introduced does not mean that it will be charged with administrative and other functions that will entail the expenditure of considerable amounts of money while the site is still in the process of being acquired.

I now come to the separate provisions of this Bill, which I wish to discuss briefly, although in some cases I shall do so in somewhat more detail. The provisions of the Bill are in the main similar to those in respect of other universities established by Act of Parliament. As is stated in the preamble, there exists a desire that a university which shall be Afrikaans in spirit and character be established on the Witwatersrand, and a university to be known as the Rand Afrikaans University is accordingly established by Clause 2. As regards Clause 1, I want to bring it to the notice of hon. members that there will be an amendment on the Order Paper whereby that part of Clause 20 that refers to subscription to the principles set out in the preamble to the Constitution of the Republic, is deleted in that clause and inserted in the preamble. Clause 20 is perhaps the most important clause, a clause with regard to which there may be some misunderstanding. Clause 20 is perhaps the greatest hitch in this legislation. I therefore want to proceed at once to deal with this clause first of all.

Hon. members will know that the private Acts of the existing universities include a provision with the side-note “Prohibition of religious test”. That, in any event, is the position as far as seven of the existing universities are concerned. As regards the eighth, namely the Potchefstroomse Universiteit vir Christelike Hoër Onderwys, the side-note reads “Maintenance of Christian character of the University without application of denominational test”. In the case of the University of Port Elizabeth the side-note reads “Religious freedom”. If it is borne in mind that every university has of its own accord included a prohibition of religious tests in its private Act, the question of the efficacy of such a self-imposed prohibition, a prohibition which, admittedly, was accepted by Parliament, immediately occurs to one. In the Acts of none of the seven universities, nor in the case of Port Elizabeth, has any provision been made for sanctions if a person considers that he himself has been prejudiced by a university on the grounds of his religious beliefs, or if he feels that someone else has been preferred by a university on account of his religious beliefs. It is remarkable how slavishly this particular provision was copied for half a century, and that there are people who consider that as long as one has that provision and takes it over holus bolus from other universities, one is safeguarded against the danger of a religious test being applied. I have yet to see the man who, although he suspects that, will institute an action. From my own experience I may tell you of a very highly educated person—he has two doctorates—who wrote to me and told me that he had applied to all the universities for a lectureship, but at none of those universities, Afrikaans-language and English-language universities, could he obtain a post. He could only suspect that the reason was that he was a Roman Catholic. But even if he could have proved that that had been the c?.se he would have been quite powerless, and that despite this slavish imitation for 50 years now. All that was done, ever since the University of South Africa included such a provision in its private Act in 1916, was to copy it slavishly every time, as a result of pressure that was exerted. That is the so-called protection. But surely many other things have to be inserted in an Act if one wants to attach real meaning to that provision. I have told heads of universities that what is standing there is useless; it is merely a consolation, and in actual fact a dummy— one sucks it, but nothing comes out of it.

It is an affirmation.

Yes, it is an affirmation, a humble affirmation. I will admit that. As far as this Bill is concerned, we have proceeded to make a positive statement in Clause 20 thereof. It relates to science and science only. It is now provided that a person will be admitted to this university as a student, a lecturer or an administrative officer on the grounds of academic and administrative qualifications only. That is positive.

I now want to give this hon. House the assurance that there are no sinister ulterior motives in this. If one has sinister ulterior motives, one goes about matters in a different way. Sir, have you ever seen any concern furnish the reasons why it did not appoint a certain person? Any undertaking, whether a university or a business undertaking, has to employ the most highly qualified people, people with the required abilities and qualifications. One does not look for this kind of nonsense in a university. In the preamble to this legislation this university declares that it is Afrikaans in spirit and character, and that it adheres to a certain fundamental principle. That is a kind of profession of what it stands for, and it stands for that positively. But a university should not tolerate this kind of nonsense. In fact, when one deals with university matters that kind of thing is actually beneath the dignity of such an institution. I hope I shall receive the full support of all hon. members in this regard. In this case we must break this thing once and for all, this piousness which is actually devoid of all meaning and which is not aimed at eliminating certain people and admitting others. The council, or the principal, or the senate, or whoever has to decide about appointments, selects only the best people. If they fail to do that they will soon pay the penalty in hard cash, because those institutions will not attain the standards maintained by other competitive universities. I therefore hope and trust we shall approve this provision unanimously. I have no reason to think it will be otherwise; I have no reason to suspect that that will not be so. I do not know what the position is elsewhere, but in our Afrikaans society we only look for people who can put across the concept. It is the duty of the principal and of the council to see which people are attuned to the objects and the constitution of this university, and when they make appointments it will be done solely on the grounds of ability and qualifications.

The remaining clauses of this Bill are simply the usual ones. I shall just mention them briefly. In Clause 3 it is provided that the seat of the University will be in Johannesburg, but it may conduct its university activities in surrounding magisterial districts, provided that in Vanderbijlpark or Vereeniging no lectures shall be given in a subject in which lectures are given there by the Potchefstroom University.

The university is incorporated by Clause 4, and its constitution is laid down by Clause 5. The customary provision as regards the vice-chancellor, the principal and the chief officers of the university is contained in clauses 7 and 8.

The representation on the council of the university (Clause 9) is wide in order that, in addition to the State, the major interested concerns on the Witwatersrand in the municipal, educational, church, business and cultural fields may have seats. As a temporary measure there is a representative of the University of Pretoria and one of the Potchefstroom University, as well as one person appointed by the Minister, to represent the convocation until its membership reaches the figure of 100. In the Senate (Clause 10) the Minister appoints professors of the above-mentioned two universities—once again an interim provision— to ensure that the scope of the teaching and the examination standard will be of such a quality that they will merit just recognition throughout the academic world from the outset. Provision is also made for committees of the council, committees of the Senate and, by Clause 11, joint committees of the council and the Senate.

A graduate of the university need not become or remain a member of the convocation (Clause 12), provided that he notifies the council accordingly. Then follows the appointment of lecturing staff (Clause 13); the faculties (Clause 14) of arts (which shall include departments of law and social science), science, education and commerce and administration; degrees, diplomas and certificates (Clause 15); and admission to equivalent status (Clause 16).

Because this is a new university provision is again made—as in the University of Port Elizabeth Act, 1964—for external examiners from another university. This provision will of course be repealed in due course, just as in the case of Port Elizabeth, and provision is made accordingly in Clause 17.

Furthermore, provision is made for discipline in Clause 18, and for degrees honoris causa in Clause 19. I have mentioned Clause 20 briefly. Clause 21 covers incidental vacancies, while Clause 22 provides for the appointment by the Minister of members of the council and alternate members until the university’s own statute is announced in the Gazette, as well as for interim regulations as regards the quorum for and procedure at meetings of the council.

That, briefly, is the purport of the Bill. As in the case of the establishment of the previous university, I hope I shall receive sincere co-operation to be able to meet this need on the Rand, not only for the benefit of a certain section of our population, but also to establish on the Rand a university which is really essential to our entire country, in the full sense of the word. I move.

Mr. Speaker, I have on a previous occasion referred to the change that has taken place in the manner of presentation of an application for the establishment of a university in South Africa. That change took place for the first time with the introduction of a Bill for the establishment of the University of Port Elizabeth, and this Bill is being introduced in a similar manner. The change was from a private Bill, Bills sponsored privately, to a Bill introduced by the Minister himself. Under the old system we had the situation where the sponsors of the application for a university introduced a private Bill. The private Bill was sponsored in this House usually by a member of this House, and then the Bill was referred immediately, formally, to a Select Committee. In serving in those Select Committees I had the experience of meeting the sponsors of such Bills. We met the men who were applying for the university, the leaders of the community. It was a great advantage and a great pleasure, I think one of the pleasantest experiences I have had in Parliament. And that was the system followed in the establishment of the University of Natal, Rhodes University, the University of the Free State, and the Potchefstroomse Universiteit vir Christelike Hoer On-derwys. That is the system that was followed. It was an eminently suitable one. But with the establishment of the University of Port Elizabeth the Minister himself became the sponsor, and the result was that we did not meet the Port Elizabeth people who had established the university. We were not able to understand their aims, their activities, and we were not able to give them the assurance of our support, where we could give that support. It is a great pity that we miss that personal touch.

Now, as I listened this afternoon to the hon. the Minister reeling off the statistics, I thought what a pity it is that this Bill has not been introduced in the manner of a private Bill. It is very necessary for us to study the speech the hon. the Minister has given us today. I sincerely trust that copies of that speech are available. It is quite impossible for any member in this House to follow all the statistics. I tried to as far as I could. I can usually do so. The Minister spoke confidently of these figures, and they are most interesting figures. We need an opportunity to study the Minister’s speech, as it deserves. I should like to be able to do so.

When I refer to the Minister sponsoring a Bill, I do not mean an amending Bill. We believe in the autonomy of a university being maintained. That was the basis of the establishment of a university through a private Bill. But if the university wishes to have an amending Bill—it is usually a matter of detail—introduced by a Minister in order to save money —we have no objection to that. It is a matter for the university when it has its autonomy. I know of one university that prefers to introduce its ordinary amending Bills as private Bills.

As the hon. member knows, it takes a very long time to get a private Bill through.

I know the procedure. I think the old procedure, especially in the case of establishing a university, was worthwhile. Because we need time to consider this Bill, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I move that the debate be resumed to-morrow. Permit me to add that in saying “to-morrow”, I want to give the hon. member for Kensington the assurance that when hon. members have the speech, they may give me a date on which they will be ready to discuss this matter further.

Motion put and agreed to.

Order! Before I ask the hon. the Minister to move the motion for the Second Reading of the Potchefstroomse Universiteit vir Christelike Hoer Onderwys Amendment Bill I wish to point out that my attention has been drawn to Clauses 3 (c) and 4 of the Bill. The matters provided for in these clauses are not covered by the Title of the Bill and they should therefore be regarded as not forming part of the Bill. As the provisions are not foreign to the subject matter of the Bill, they may be incorporated at the Committee Stage by means of an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Last year the Potchefstroomse Universiteit vir Christelike Hoer Onderwys introduced lectures on economics in Vereeniging. Similar to decisions taken by the University of Stellenbosch in 1955 and by Rhodes University in 1959, the Council of the firstmentioned University decided at the end of last year that legislative provision should be made for its extra-mural university activities. The Registrar consequently submitted a Bill to the Department of Education, Arts and Science for its comments. As it is possible to proceed with the proposed legislation as a public measure, it was decided that it should be introduced by the Government—much to the annoyance of the hon. member for Kensington. The aim of the Bill is in the first instance to make provision, by amending the Potchefstroomse Universiteit vir Christelike Hoër Onderwys (Private) Act, 1950, for university activities outside the seat of the University, namely at Klerksdorp, Vereeniging, Vanderbijlpark and Sasolburg, as from 1st January, 1965. This is effected by the proviso to Section 2 of the Act appearing in Clause 1. There was a gradual increase in the need for university training at Vereeniging and vicinity until the student potential there justified a request for local lectures. Seeing that it is more convenient for university lecturers, because of the distance, to come from Potchefstroom rather than from Johannesburg to give classes in Vereeniging, the Potchefstroom University was approached to start giving lectures on economics there and in due course to extend the lectures to other departments and surrounding centres.

In the past difficulty was experienced from time to time by universities in connection with raising private loans because financial institutions questioned their competency to raise loans other than with the Government as a result of a provision in the Universities Act, 1955, in terms of which the State may grant a loan to the council of a university for certain purposes. A temporary solution was found by amending the lastmentioned Act in 1959. However, universities were advised to make provision in their own private acts for raising private loans and this is now done in Clause 2. In this clause the university is also empowered to guarantee building loans granted to members of its staff in the same way as the University of Cape Town has been able to do since last year. Hon. members will recall that we effected this amendment for the University of Cape Town last year.

The Higher Education Amendment Act, 1946, contains only one section which has not yet been repealed, namely Section 7, which provides for the establishment of committees of the council and the senate and of joint committees of the council and the senate of a university, and which I also intend repealing in due course. It has not yet been repealed. The Universities Act at present provides for standing committees of the council but not for the establishment of ad hoc committees of the council which are established by election, as Section 9 (1) does in fact provide in the case of the senate—hence the proposed Section 7 (7) (b) (ii) contained in Clause 3.

In Clause 4 provision is made in Section 9 (2) for standing committees of the senate in substitution of the position in terms of Section 7 (b) and (c) of the aforesaid Higher Education Amendment Act, 1946. The wording has been adopted from Section 11 (2) of the University of the Witwatersrand. Johannesburg (Private) Act. 1959. This provision is necessary for the establishment of the senate’s executive committee and its boards of faculties. The aim of sub-section (3) is to permit standing committees of the senate to delegate more of their powers unless the senate forbids them to do so.

A new section is inserted by Clause 5. namely Section 9A for the establishment of joint committees of the Council and the Senate, which is a re-enactment of Section 7 (d) of the Higher Education Amendment Act, 1946, which will be repealed in due course, and once again the wording has been adopted from the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg (Private) Act, 1959.

As a result of the growth which the university is experiencing, its Council finds it necessary to make provision for a Deputy Registrar and for more than one Assistant Registrars in Clause 6.

The aim of Clause 7 is to provide in Section 15 (2) that the examination regulations prescribing the pass-standard need not necessarily be published in the Government Gazette in terms of Section 17 of the Universities Act, 1955. If approved, the Senate would not only enact and submit curricula for approval to the Council but also the examination regulations —something which already is standing practice at the university.

Clause 9 deals with the form of the examination to be held in terms of Section 18 and it has the same aim as Section 15 (2) contained in Clause 7, to which I have already referred, but something else is added. In terms of Section 16 (b) of its Act, i.e. the private act of Potchefstroom, the University may confer the status of honours bachelor or master on the grounds of an examination, but nothing prevents it from holding that examination itself. However, the form of that examination cannot conveniently be prescribed by statute or regulation because it concerns individual cases and hence the proposal that it be held “under the control of the Senate and subject to such conditions as the Senate may determine” instead of “in accordance with the statutes”.

The remaining clauses deal with the substitution of obsolete expressions, improve a translation and give a short title to the Bill, and I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.

The introduction of this Bill is an example of what I referred to when we were discussing the previous Bill. This is an amending Bill. We regard the Potchefstroomse Universiteit vir Christelike Hoër Onderwys as an autonomous body, and when that autonomous body wishes to change its character in any way that we approve of, we are very pleased to assist. Sir, these amendments have obviously been introduced in the light of experience. When the University was first established all the possibilities of the future could not be foreseen. The language has now been improved and better definitions have been provided, but I regard the most interesting part of the Bill as Clause 2, the extension of the work of the Potchefstroom University to these other towns near Potchefstroom. We welcome that. I think that is a most welcome development. We said many years ago when discussing these universities that Rhodes University should have had greater opportunities in assisting and developing Fort Hare. They did have in the beginning. We felt that Pretoria University could have assisted more with the university of Turf-loop in the north. Where Potchefstroom university wishes to extend its extra-mural facilities we will give it the fullest support. I think it is an excellent development in our university education in this country. I see that provision has been made that we shall not have competition between universities; that we shall not have two or three Afrikaans-language universities establishing extra-mural classes in the same village or mining town. I understand that that is being arranged. Well, that is necessary of course. With that proviso we welcome this Bill; we will give it our hearty support.

I think the hon. Minister in particular will realize how thankful I am to-night for the ruling given by you, Sir, in this House that this type of Bill will be dealt with by the hon. the Minister and no longer by members themselves. I also owe the hon. member who spoke just before me a debt of gratitude for the attitude adopted by him and that he, too, regarded this extremely important provision in this Bill as a welcome development. To me as a past student of this institution, and also because it is one of the most important institutions in my constituency, it is definitely a privilege to support the second reading of this Bill.

The potchefstroom University originated from the theological seminary of the Reformed Church which was in existence in Burgersdorp towards the end of the previous age. In 1919 the seminary became a university college called the Potchefstroomse Universiteitskollege vir Christelike Hoër Onderwys, and in 1950 this House granted autonomy to this institution and it became the full-fledged university it is at present. This university forms an integral part of the community and aims at serving in terms of its motto “In U Lig” (In the Light of God). This amendment Bill which is now serving before this House contemplates the extension of the university in various spheres: firstly, extending university activities to areas outside Potchefstroom, namely to the municipal areas of Klerksdorp, Vereeniging, Vanderbijlpark and Sasolburg, as well as to the magisterial districts of Potchefstroom, Klerksdorp, Vereeniging, Vanderbijlpark and Sasolburg; secondly, additional financial and contractual powers, namely to invest money, to borrow or lend money, and to enter into various types of contracts, such as leases and contracts of purchase, which it may be required to enter into; thirdly, extension in respect of administrative staff; and fourthly, greater independence in connection with the pass-standard in examinations.

These amendments, all of which point at expansion and development, therefore confirm the sound growth which has always characterized this university. It started in 1921 with a teaching staff of 15 and 60 students; in 1948 there were 69 members on the teaching staff and 866 students, whereas 2,660 students enrolled this year. In this connection it is interesting to note that approximately 33 per cent of all students enrolled at this university is engaged in post-graduate study. This is the highest percentage at any university in the country and I think a very proud testimonial for the teaching staff of that university.

Mr. Speaker, a university is a community of lecturers and students who are united for the purpose of performing the following: firstly, the task of teaching and instructing; secondly, that of conducting research; and thirdly, that of educating and moulding. The university has to bring the student closer to those things which will be important to him throughout his life. The university’s connection with life covers all spheres. On 25th February, 1959, at Stellenbosch, the late Dr. H. F. Verwoerd stated the task of a university to be the following (translation)—

Order! I just want to point out to the hon. member that he is digressing very far from the subject under discussion. He must confine himself to the amendments contained in the Bill.

These amendments which have been requested, were mooted as long ago as 1952 by various bodies and persons, especially in the vicinity of Klerksdorp in the western Transvaal, when it was asked that B.Comm. courses and courses in economics should be extended to that area. These courses were subsequently offered after hours but were offered in Potchefstroom itself and the university even subsidized the travelling expenses of students in this connection. In 1960 representations were received by the university from the Vaal Triangle area for the extension of courses, for which permission is requested in this Bill, to this area. Requests were also made, as has already been mentioned by the hon. the Minister, for extensions in the field of business administration. An investigation in this area has proved that extension is essential in this area, especially after these bodies and persons pointed out that it was contemplated to establish extensions to industries and new industries involving a capital of approximately R100,000,000 in the Vaal Triangle during the next 10 to 15 years. I just want to point out that there was a White population of 39,226 in Vereeniging in 1960, approximately 26,000 in Vanderbijlpark, approximately 11,000 in Sasolburg and approximately 42,000 in Klerksdorp. At the beginning of this year 76 students had already enrolled for the courses offered in this area and of this number 17 were post-graduate students. The background to the entire matter under discussion in this House at the moment is to be found mainly in the desire of the universities to render service. The universities are the obedient servants of their communities but at the same time are extremely expensive institutions. This Amendment Bill also provides for financial arrangements which may be made. In order to combine the two basic facts, namely the desire to serve and finances, there is a progressive movement in the direction of enduring inconvenience and of making sacrifices instead of establishing a university in each of these areas. Therefore I want to appeal to all bodies and persons who contribute to the finances of universities not to regard their contributions as gifts or donations but as the best investment we can make for our future. On a certain occasion someone said: If a university plays a great role in the life of a nation, the entire nation becomes great. In so far as the University of Potchefstroom is concerned, my predecessor, Dr. J. H. Steyn, said the following during the second-reading debate on the Potchefstroomse Universiteit vir Christelike Hoer Onderwys (Private) Bill on 24th February, 1950—

The Potchefstroom University adopted this course with one motive only, and that is to be of greater service, in spite of sacrifices.

Bill read a Second Time.

Sir, this is an important clause. This is virtually an enabling bill and certain important factors are being brought into being by definition. The definition of “non-White employee” for instance, excludes certain groups of employees and similarly the definition of the Bantu Education Account and of the Consolidated Revenue Fund brings into reckoning the financing of this Pension Fund and pension scheme. The point I wish to put to the hon. the Minister is the question of the definition of the Bantu Education Account and its practical application. I believe that it is the intention, as far as this pension scheme is concerned, that the R for R basis of contribution shall come into operation, and as far as the Bantu teacher is concerned the contribution from the Government side on the R for R basis will have to be met from the Bantu Education Account. This Bantu Education Account is pegged to a limited amount of, I believe, R13,000,000, and in all probability that R13,000,000 is fully allocated and fully spent. It would appear therefore that there may be a practical difficulty involved with regard to the R for R contribution that has to be provided from the Government side in order that this pension fund can be established. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister if he can give this Committee an assurance that the definitions set out in this clause will not present a practical difficulty with the result that it may not be possible for the pension fund to be launched and to function on the basis set out by him in his second-reading speech. I hope that the hon. the Minister will be able to give us some further information in regard to this aspect.

I should like to support the hon. member for Umbilo. Of course, the pegged amount of R13,000,000 does not represent the whole of the Bantu Education Account. However, that is by the way. The point is that a very great strain is being placed on the Account at present for the education of children. We have even had the position that Bantu parents have been prepared to forgo school feeding in order to get money to educate their children. Therefore I feel that the hon. the Minister should give us some assurance—perhaps he cannot do it; perhaps it should be done by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development—that the Government will subsidize the Bantu Education Account sufficiently to make it possible for them to make these contributions. Otherwise it will have to come out of this Account which is already quite unable to pay any more money.

I think there can be absolutely no question of introducing a change in the principle because pension contributions inevitably have to come from the same account from which salaries are paid. I think that we must therefore accept that it is not possible to accept another principle in this connection, but that the rand for rand contribution in respect of the pensions of Bantu teachers, whose salaries are paid from the Bantu Education Account, must also come from that Account. But now the question arises whether that Account will be able to meet its obligations in this connection; will problems not arise as a result of which that Account may not be able to meet its obligations under the scheme? There are two answers to that. On the one hand it is a question of collecting the moneys to be paid into that Account, because as the hon. member for Kensington rightly said, it is not only the contribution from the Consolidated Revenue Account but also the total amount collected in taxes from the Bantu which are paid into that Account. According to our calculations an amount of R50,000,000 in taxes is overdue at present and if this is properly collected that Account will be able to meet all its obligations and will be able to afford all the necessary extensions. But now the question is: Suppose collections do not succeed as the Department concerned would like them to succeed and there is a shortfall in the account, what will happen in such case? Will there not be a problem with the payment of the rand for rand contribution? However, provision has been made for that too because there is an arrangement—and I think this answers the questions of the hon. member for Umbilo—that if the Bantu Education Account cannot meet all its obligations from its revenue this year, the Treasury may make an interest-free loan to the Fund for meeting those obligations. In due course an increased loan may even be granted in this way from year to year until the time may be ripe for an increase in Bantu taxation and for the redemption of that amount. Therefore there are various possibilities and there is no reason why the Fund should not be able to meet its obligations at any time. Hon. members may rest quite assured about that. I do not think that we can discuss the desirability of that here and now. The question merely is whether it can happen and the., reply is that the necessary arrangements do exist for ensuring that it will be possible to meet those obligations.

Clause put and agreed to.

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

Bill reported without amendment.

This Bill was before us last on 12th August and we are sorry that it was not brought forward sooner. This Bill deals with the compulsory deduction of Trade Union dues and the Minister, in his second reading speech, has told us that the reason for the introduction of this Bill is that he has had representations from various sources asking for this legislation. He also told us that there had been a measure of discrimination among the employers as far as the collection of dues from trade unions is concerned. We know that the Bill has been to a Select Committee. Evidence has been heard, and at this stage I, with the other hon. members on this side, would like to pay a tribute to the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. member for Pretoria (West), who acted so ably as Chairman of that Committee. The hon. member for Pretoria West has pointed out that we have the finest industrial conciliation legislation in this country that can be found anywhere in the world. He also said that there was evidence in the Select Committee to this effect. We agree with him entirely that we have legislation which is the envy of many countries in the world. But then the hon. member, I think, rather argued against himself when he started saying that it was necessary for us to have efficient, organized trade unions and employers’ organizations in order to maintain the principle of collective bargaining. We have that, and that is why it works so well. We are not in want as far as that is concerned. We have these very responsible trade unions in this country, and we also have responsible employers’ organizations. Our conciliation legislation has worked to this effect, as was said by the hon. the Minister, that out of 103 industrial agreements registered, only nine did not contain the clause for the compulsory deduction of union subscriptions. The legislation we had before us, in a slightly different form, was submitted to the Industrial Tribunal and they rejected the principle of compulsory subscriptions being collected by the employers, but at a later stage, when further evidence and amended proposals, were brought to their notice, they agreed with the principle. We on this side, as the hon. member for Yeoville has said, agree to the principle on the basis that the majority of industrial agreements do embody a clause where provision is made for the compulsory deduction of levies, but in this Bill there are other strings attached to it which naturally we cannot accept. This particular amending Bill strikes at the very root of industrial conciliation. It is in conflict with the whole of our voluntary collective bargaining system, of which a very strong point was made here. Up to the present moment the compulsory deduction of levies has been a point which has been argued between the employers and the employees and in the spirit of collective bargaining we have the position as I have stated it. The Government, I think, should be very careful in amending our industrial conciliation legislation. It would be an undesirable position in which to find ourselves if we were to find that the Government was taking the place of the employer. That would be wrong. The Minister mentioned that there was evidence of discrimination between the collecting of dues for one union and another union, but I would like to test that.

The Minister of Labour knows that when you negotiate an agreement, whether you are negotiating with one union or with three unions, you invariably find that as the result of the negotiations, if a clause is inserted in the agreement for the compulsory collection of dues, it applies to all the unions. I do not want to bring in the question of whether it is Coloured unions or White unions. I think that is the position and I do not think the Minister would give assent to any agreement if there was discrimination between the unions. He would not agree to such an agreement being promulgated. When you test that, one wonders where this discrimination arises. The suggestion here is that the Minister supports the splinter unions, unions which have not taken part in the negotiation of the agreement. There are a number of unions which are very anxious to get established, as we know, but these particular unions, are not party to Industrial Council Agreements either because they are not representative of the majority of the workers or because they are not recognized by the employers. So the terms of the agreement are not negotiated with these particular unions. Therefore I have a feeling that the Minister, in bringing forward this charge of discrimination as far as the employers are concerned, will find that it is not true discrimination. I think he knows the employers’ organizations in this country fairly well and that they have up to the present shown that their bona fides are above question. Should the union be one of standing, I am fairly certain from my own experience that with an employer organization of standing there will always be negotiation, and the figures we have put forward here today show the degree of negotiation that does take place. So by enacting this legislation the Minister—I know he did refer to these splinter unions and he said this was an unfounded fear, but there is no doubt about it that it is there, and the Minister’s own statement about discrimination proves that the unions he is referring to did not take part in the original discussions on the negotiation of any agreement. I think we must realize that the unions are established by workers who have similar interests, but they never get very far, as the Minister should know, without the support and the co-operation of the employers. The employers’ organizations in this country have gone a long way towards assisting the establishment of trade unions, and without the assistance of the employers’ organizations we would not have the trade unions we have to-day in this country and we would not have had this wonderful industrial peace we do have. When there are negotiations with these responsible unions, they are able to negotiate many fringe benefits. To-day I think it is the policy of the Department of Labour, not to register any industrial agreement unless there is a pension fund agreement embodied in it. They also have sick fund agreements and they have other agreements embodied in their industrial agreements, plus the compulsory deduction of levies. But it has always been a matter for negotiation between the employers and the employees. The unions, as I have said, are recognized trade unions, and to be registered they must be in good standing. In other words, the fees and levies, as far as the members are concerned, must have been paid up. So the Minister is faced with the position of having to decide who he is going to help by this compulsory deduction. He has to have a registered union before he can help them, because before the union can be registered the members must be paid up members in good standing.

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

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, when we adjourned for dinner I was dealing with the qualifications of unions that are in good standing, those unions that have paid-up subscriptions and are recognized accordingly. Of course it would be an impossible situation if you had a union that had no paid-up subscriptions. In this Bill the Minister although he says that he will not extend the right of compulsory deductions of dues unless the unions concerned were representative, that is if they represent, for example, 51 per cent of the workers, he goes further and says that he reserves the right to vary this position and apparently the protection in the case of a small splinter union which finds itself in difficulties and cannot negotiate with the employer. The Minister therefore can step in and grant that union the right to compulsory deductions. The whole effect of industrial conciliation rests on unions who are in good financial standing and representative. Those members in this House who have had the experience of negotiations can appreciate the impossible situation that would develop when you have a number of unions in the same industry with which to negotiate. The whole question of industrial conciliation would break down. The Minister makes an excuse, if I might call it that, for removing the right of the compulsory deduction of subscriptions from the employer to himself. He says it is like a sword hanging over the employees’ heads.

He is right.

Mr. Speaker, some hon. member said that he is right, but now he takes the sword from the employers unto himself in the right to withdraw this concession at any time. Surely it would be better for the unions themselves to negotiate with the employers concerning the deduction of dues, than for them to have to negotiate with the Minister. Mr. Speaker, as I have said, do not let us amend our industrial legislation to the extent where the Government takes the place of the employer. It has been admitted in this debate that South Africa probably has the finest industrial legislation that there is in the world but do not let us tamper with that industrial legislation if it will put the Government in the place of the employer. We have got on very well up to date, but the Minister now finds it necessary to interfere in this legislation quite unnecessarily. I would say that members of the recognized trade unions would prefer to negotiate with the employer rather than the Government. Now they are placed in the position where they have to negotiate with the Government, cutting out the employer. At the same time the Government in terms of this particular Bill can only legislate for the deduction of dues and it has been said during this debate that employers would as a matter of goodwill also deduct sick fund benefits and pension benefits. Mr. Speaker, I think that those of us who understand industrial legislation will say that they just cannot do that. They are prevented by law from doing that. They cannot make deductions indiscriminately and this particular Bill only provides for the deduction of union subscriptions. What is therefore going to happen to those unions who have built up sick funds, pension funds and other benefit funds and who now find that these deductions cannot be made by the employer. Most employers and employer organizations would do this as a matter of goodwill but there is no compulsion. Then you must consider those unions that have built up these medical aid funds—and hon. members must not forget that the Government does not provide these things—and pension scheme and other benefits which the Government does not provide. Could hon. members imagine the predicament in which that union would find itself if the Minister decides to withdraw these privileges. What is going to happen? What organization would these unions have to undertake the collection of these particular dues? The hon. the Minister in his reply might say “you know that will never happen” but the law is there and it can happen. If the hon. the Minister decides in his discretion that he wants to withdraw these privileges from a union, he can do so. It is in his hands and he can do so because it says so in the Bill. The whole question of the collection of dues by compulsion is in the hands of the Minister. He may do this, he may recognize a union or may not. As I have said the sword which the Minister has said has been hanging over the head of the employees has now been removed and he has taken the sword. I feel that the employees—not that they have no faith in the Minister, but he is a most difficult person with whom to negotiate— would prefer, as they have done in the past, to negotiate with the employer. Employees have the protection of the Act and should there be disagreement they have the other machinery in the Act with which to settle their differences. But here we have the hon. the Minister taking all these powers. He is taking the place of the employer and as I have pointed out, he has not convinced the House concerning the discrimination because as I have said in order to enter into an Industrial Council agreement, no matter how many unions are involved, there must be agreement. The hon. the Minister himself would never assent to an agreement where one party was cut out as far as the collection of dues was concerned. He would never agree to it. The hon. the Minister knows that those workers who are not covered by an industrial agreement are covered by a wage determination. The argument has also been put forward concerning the building workers who are spread over the country and the great difficulty that is experienced in collecting dues. Not only the building industry, but the engineering industry is in the same position. These workers are paid from a central point and if the unions are in a strong position and they are unions of standing, and most of our unions are, and the employers organizations are also organizations of standing, an agreement can be negotiated for the collection of those dues at a central point. The difficulty, however, arises in respect of those splinter unions which we know exist and which would like to climb on to the bandwagon and which have great difficulty on account of a lack of funds in establishing themselves. As they are not recognized by the employer organizations, on the basis of negotiation, they find that they have difficulty in existing as unions. The proviso in this Act helps them and I think that we have got to face up to the fact that when we talk about the formation of a union, the House must realize that under the Act it is possible to form a union within an industry or in a workshop. You could form a separate section of that union within a workshop. I quote as an example the Railways where the aircraft artisans regardless of whether they may be affiliated to one of the Railway unions, may feel dissatisfied and they could then form a union within that workshop and apply to the Minister for the compulsory deduction of dues.

They can do that now, can’t they?

No, they cannot. They can form a union but until we pass this Bill they cannot apply to the Minister for compulsory deductions. The hon. member for Brakpan knows that. These artisans can form this union and then apply to the hon. the Minister for the compulsory deduction of dues by the signing of stop-orders. You could—in an engineering workshop which is covered by a very powerful union and looks after its members and has obtained fringe benefits for them—find a mushroom or splinter union starting up and registering a percentage of members in that workshop. They may not be representative of 51 per cent, but the Minister in his discretion can decide whether those people are being discriminated against and decide to apply this law to them so that you have this splinter union within a union. It is possible for a member of a union to belong to several unions so that we will have this position where the whole trade union structure in this country is broken up by these little splinter unions because the only way they can exist is by finance and the hon. the Minister is now giving them that power. They can build themselves up and the employer on his side will find it unsatisfactory because he does not have to deal with one union but with a number of unions in trying to negotiate an agreement. The whole structure of our industrial machine as we know it to-day will therefore start to break down. You cannot negotiate with 50 to 60 people, a sub-committee of one is perhaps the best. The less unions there are, the better as far as the representative basis for negotiation is concerned. But when you are dealing with a number of unions, the employer is in the position that it becomes impossible to negotiate and that it takes years to conclude an agreement. That, Mr. Speaker, is the basic danger of this Bill. We all know that there are these trade unions in South Africa which are ambitious to break down our present trade union structure. They have had great difficulty and the difficulty has been described as discrimination. It is not discrimination, it is a matter of the well organized employer organization not recognizing those unions which are not representative of the workers. And so when we come to the story that there is discrimination, we say that there is not discrimination in the negotiation of an agreement. The hon. the Minister would never sign an agreement if all the parties were not in agreement. That argument therefore falls away and we must look at the other side of the question, namely splinter unions. This Bill protects those splinter unions and breaks down the very sound structure of unions that we have at present and the industrial relations which we have in this country to-day.

Mr. Speaker, it has become the fashion in this House for hon. members on this side of the House and hon. members on that side of the House to agree with one another, but unfortunately the hon. member who has just sat down did not follow that fashion. If he had come along to-night and had agreed with this side of the House on this legislation he would have been doing something really worthwhile for the White worker of the Republic of South Africa. The hon. Member for Salt River said everyone was satisfied and happy as far as collective bargaining was concerned. The hon. member was a member of the Select Committee and I want to agree with him and also express my congratulations, my thanks and appreciation to our Chairman, the hon. member for Pretoria (West), for the very efficient way in which he handled the matter. But to come back to the question of collective bargaining I want to quote what was said by Mr. Smit, who represented the South African Confederation of Labour. We find his words in question 52, page 27, of the evidence. He was asked:

“Is that the reason why you prefer to have legislation instead of an arrangement which rests on a voluntary basis?” Mr. Smit replied: “Yes. In the industrial world it is absolutely damning to see how often it is used as a means of extortion against trade unions.” Now I want to tell the hon. member that Mr. Smit, who is surely regarded in the Republic of South Africa as being one of the greatest trade union leaders, told us that the way in which these employers had used collective bargaining was something appalling. Then the hon. member for Salt River, who represents a workers constituency, comes along and starts raising imaginary difficulties. I want to tell the hon. member that he really tried very hard to-night to read something into this Bill which really was not there. He said the hon. the Minister was a difficult person with whom to co-operate. Now, as I know the hon. the Minister, and I have known him for many years, I may give him the assurance that the hon. the Minister is the easiest person in this House with whom to co-operate.

It was nothing personal.

Mr. Speaker, I accept that it was nothing personal, but on account of the knowledge the hon. the Minister has of labour affairs in this country, I am convinced that there will be no trouble in regard to this matter. I also want to come back to the hon. member for Yeoville who said that this legislation really made a small dictator of the Minister. Is that fair and just, Mr. Speaker? Is it fair and just to say that the legislation serving before this House tonight makes a small dictator of the Minister? Was this legislation not introduced for the very reason of extending the sound relations which we all admit are existing between employers organizations and the employees? Is it not true that the various trade unions which gave evidence before the Select Committee stated their problems to us? In 1956 when the Industrial Conciliation Act was considered by this House, hon. members opposite produced the very same arguments here. They saw ghosts. Do they not admit to-day that that 1956 legislation is the best industrial legislation on the Statute Book? Is it not the 1956 legislation which is responsible for racial harmony in our country? Is it not that legislation which improved relations between the employer and employee to such an extent that we have had no strikes in our country in all the years since that year? We are proud of that legislation. It would be foolish of any government to meddle with legislation which effected racial harmony and industrial peace in the country.

But, Sir, now we do feel that there are certain trade unions which are being discriminated against. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Durban (Point) knows that that was the evidence given before us. We had before us evidence of the discrimination which was taking place. Where we have been experiencing this tremendous industrial boom in our country in the past number of years, which trade unions have been experiencing difficulty? The trade unions of the construction industry are the very ones who have been experiencing difficulty. They are the ones who are in the forefront of the development of our country. They are the ones who have to go to the far corners of our country to be in the forefront of the development of our country. The construction workers and the men in the engineering industry are the ones who have to do so. [Interjection.] What that hon. member knows about trade union affairs is dangerous. Therefore he must please keep quiet. Those very people who are in the forefront, namely our construction workers, are the ones who are developing this country of ours in the industrial field and they are the ones who are experiencing problems. What do we find are the problems of these trade union members? We have the evidence before us in what the trade union leader told us when he said that it was important that the trade union members should be in good financial standing. Where does the artisan find himself? He may be working far afield. He may be gone for weeks. Take the large firm of Stewarts and Lloyds. Many of their artisans work for more than six months on a large construction project here in the Cape. How can that artisan get to Johannesburg to pay his membership fees?

They pay those fees in Cape Town.

Mr. Speaker, there is no trade union for him here in the Cape. How can a person presently employed in the Cape get to Johannesburg to pay his dues? In addition there is another major problem. We find that since the introduction of the five-day working week the artisan has found it difficult to pay his dues. Where we now want to assist that artisan and with the sound relations we have established over the years, hon. members now come along and say that mushroom trade unions will shoot up overnight. Hon. members know that that will not happen. It has been proved time and time again in evidence that it cannot happen. I want to tell the hon. the Minister to-night that we on this side of the House and also the workers in the Republic of South Africa—no matter to what political party they belong— will welcome this legislation. The workers know that it is to their advantage. I want to tell the hon. member for Salt River that it has often been my privilege to accompany a widow upon the death of her husband to a trade union office so as to learn what benefits were due to her. If he had witnessed the sorrow in that office if the trade union leader told that widow that her husband had failed to keep up the payments of his trade union dues and that there was nothing for her, he would have been in agreement with us to-night in our attempt to prevent such things from happening. I also want to ask those hon. members: “Why would employers, if they had made provision for stop-order facilities for all other matters, suddenly decide to withdraw those facilities overnight as a result of this legislation?” The employers will not do so because they want to retain the good relations existing between the employer and the employee. No extra work is involved as far as this is concerned. We who represent the Witwatersrand all welcome this legislation and we hope and trust that it will be put into operation as soon as possible so as to eliminate the sorrow and suffering we have experienced in recent times.

Mr. Speaker, the case for consideration this evening is contained in two clauses of the Bill. The one clause deals with the desirability of having compulsory deductions. The other gives certain powers to the Minister, either to approve, or to disapprove, of certain actions in regard to Industrial Council agreements. Sir, I would not pay too much attention to the impassioned and aggressive speech made by the hon. member for Brakpan. I should like to give you a few facts. The hon. the Minister in his Second Reading speech said that there were 51 agreements in existence which provided for compulsory deductions by way of stop-orders, etc., and only 10 did not provide for these facilities. My information is slightly different and that brings me to my main point this evening and the reason why I am on my feet. There are actually 103 Industrial Council agreements in existence according to my information. Of these only nine do not contain a clause whereby the employers are compelled to deduct the membership fees and pay them into the Industrial Council funds. It is rather interesting to examine the industrial agreements which are affected and which fall within that number. These are, strangely enough, mostly in the Cape Province and concern the building industry in Albany, East London, Kimberley, Port Elizabeth, Queenstown and the industrial agreement which covers the building industry in the Transvaal. That means that there are six. Of these six, five are agreements in which the trade union on the workers’ side is a Coloured union, and has been so declared as a trade reserved for Coloureds in the Cape Province. There is really only one industry affected which concerns Whites and that is the building industry in the Transvaal. Then, Sir, there is the general agreement which affects the Bloemfontein municipal undertaking. That affects Whites. They do not have compulsory stop-order facilities. The commercial distributive trade at Kimberley, with which I am very familiar, and the ophthalmic industry, which is a very small industry, are also affected, and that is all. Here we have, arising out of agreements between employers and employees, a state of affairs whereby over 90 per cent of all industrial agreements include a stop-order clause under which the employers undertake to make the necessary deductions. I therefore cannot see any arguments succeeding which try to challenge that. Furthermore, when one considers that those agreements which do not include this facility are agreements between Coloured trade unions and employers, one must realize that all arguments in favour of this provision fall away. There is no rhyme or reason whatsoever for the introduction of a legal provision to make these deductions compulsory. After many years of experience in industrial councils and in negotiations on international, national and local level, I can assure you, Sir, that employers, to my knowledge, are only too glad to have an agreement which works. They are only too happy to have agreements under which employees pay trade union dues to their trade unions so that the trade unions can conduct their affairs properly and satisfactorily.

The trend in industry to-day, Mr. Speaker, has been on the lines that even employers themselves have clauses in agreements whereby they too are compelled to deduct their dues and pay them into an industrial council fund. It is a bipartite agreement whereby the employer and the employee contribute similar amounts. Therefore we find ourselves considering a Bill in which all trade and industry, with a few minor exceptions, enjoy these stop-order facilities. If the Bill was being introduced merely to peg that state of affairs, there would be no complaint.

My objection to the legislation is based on the fact that the Minister gives himself the power to depart from that principle by recognizing a small union which, as the hon. member for Salt River pointed out, could quite easily be as small as a workshop or some sub-section or minor division of an industry. In the ordinary course of events, one might say that from the Coloured man’s point of view— I do not want to argue this matter from that point of view at all—it is desirable to have compulsory deductions. When, however, one sees that the Minister may do this, or may do something else, in regard to an exclusively White union, or an exclusively Coloured one, then without beating about the bush and with one’s knowledge of the background of certain White unions, one must realize that an effort is going to be made to wean away from mixed unions and mixed organizations those White workers whom the applicant mushroom union feels it might be able to handle better than is being done at the present time.

Arising out of a remark made by the Minister of Immigration yesterday, who was formerly the Minister of Labour, I believe that the thinking behind this Bill was there to be seen, because he said that immigrants coming to this country do not like trade unions. They work from daylight to dark. One must realize that this type of legislation lays itself open to abuses.

When the hon. member for Salt River said that the hon. the Minister was a difficult person to deal with, he did not mean that the hon. the Minister in his personal capacity is difficult. He is a most charming gentleman. What he was trying to say was that those with experience in negotiating industrial agreements know that you cannot negotiate with an individual in the person of a Minister, who is remote. That is the difficulty that he envisages. There is no shadow of doubt that our legislation is sound and always has been. The trend has generally been wholesome and in the right direction. Employers have in the main been amenable to the introduction of various benefits and concessions for employees. I go further and say that employees and trade unions never give up a concession once they have been granted it. Once a trade union obtains a concession it never, to my knowledge, allows that concession to go by the board. Trade unions in the main are well-organized. They consist of knowledgeable people and they follow the practice of associating freely together and bargaining collectively.

I therefore come to my main objection to this Bill, namely that the Minister gives himself the power to recognize minor trade unions. We are in agreement on the compulsory aspect, although I have tried to demonstrate that it is unnecessary. We do not, however, wish to discuss that point. I believe the sting is in the tail. When the Minister gives himself the power to depart from, to withdraw, to withhold or to agree to, I visualize that we are entering upon the slippery slopes of disagreement and industrial unrest. The trend in this country to-day is, because of the Government’s policy, that there should be separate unions, Coloured and White. The point I want to make is that when we come to negotiate an agreement, with which union does the employer negotiate? Which scale of wages is the one which is going to be applicable to that same industry? If the employers group is also split on the basis of White and Coloured groups, what agreement is going to be drawn up and who will be a party to it when there are two employers organizations, namely White and Coloured, negotiating with two employee organizations, namely White and Coloured? That can happen in the same industry and I foresee that the hon. the Minister is treading on extremely dangerous ground. I think his motives are probably quite honourable in this regard, namely that he finds that certain industries are poorly represented in the trade union field. What he has, however, to guard against is the trend we have all experienced— and I speak from thirty years experience—of an appeal being made to White trade unionists to set up a separate union and to provide certain extra and additional benefits whereby they can entice away White workers. You know of course, Sir, that job reservation has failed.

Where do you get that from?

What job reservation does, is this: It provides the hon. the Minister with a wonderful weapon to hold over the heads of employers and to say:

If you do not do this, “pasop”. If one reads the statistics of mining and industry and commerce in this country to-day, one finds larger and greater numbers of non-Whites doing jobs formerly done by Whites, and therefore it is obvious that job reservation as such has failed and will fail.

We are not static.

If we are not static, it makes it worse. If we are not static and the development continues, we are going to find ourselves in the position that there are far more jobs to be done, far more people to be employed, and those people will be largely non-Whites. My anxiety in this Bill, therefore, is to ensure that, instead of splitting the trade unions, which has been the policy of the Government, there should be some negotiating machinery whereby the artisans, whatever the colour of their skins, will be assured of a basic wage. The man who is going to suffer, once a basic wage lower than that for Whites is agreed to than for the Coloured group, is the White man. I can assure you, Sir, that Coloured persons will be employed in preference to Whites. My contention, therefore, is that once we pass this legislation, which leaves it open to the Minister, in the second clause, to grant recognition to minorities—do not let us hoodwink ourselves—the organizers of the trade unions who have been active, and who have complained, will immediately go for a shop or a sub-division or a minor portion of an industry and endeavour to get registration. Then, having done that, they will insist that the employers make the deductions in the rest of the industry in respect of that particular group. I contend further that in dealing with this type of industrial legislation we are faced with the problem of who is going to negotiate for the Coloured person. I think you will hear it argued, Sir, that this is to the benefit of the Coloured man. I would say that in the normal course of events that might be so, but a Coloured trade union needs the guidance and advice of the White union in any particular industry. They already enjoy stop-order facilities. If the law stops there, and says that all existing agreements will continue so far as stop-orders are concerned, then I am quite happy. What I dislike is the power which the hon. the Minister gives himself to withdraw a concession, which might have been negotiated over a bargaining table in an industrial agreement. I conclude my remarks by saying that the system of compulsory deductions finds favour, because it already exists; it has been negotiated. What we are anxious about, and what I personally am very anxious about, is this power which the Minister gives unto himself. It can be said that it will not be used lavishly, that it will be used very carefully on only rare occasions, but I say that Ministers change, and I think that to place absolute powers in the hands of one man in that direction strikes at the very heart of our industrial legislation and industrial agreements. The whole basis of industrial agreements is to bargain collectively. It is not to have one man laying down the law.

In the first place I should like to thank the hon. the Minister sincerely for the introduction of this Bill. I want to do so, not only for my own part, but also on behalf of the workers of my constituency, which is exclusively a workers’ constituency. This Bill meets a long-felt need on the part of the employees. I must say frankly that the reasons the Opposition has advanced against the Bill so far have just as much body as the mortal remains of the party sitting over there. We have been hearing the death-rattle of a dying political party. It is quite clear to me that the United Party speakers pretend here that they are pleading for the benefit and in the interests of the White workers, but they are doing exactly the opposite. They are opposing this legislation, not in the interests of the White worker, but in the interests of the employers in the country. They are stabbing the White South African worker in the back. Strangely enough, the same hon. member of the Opposition who opened this debate also opened the debate in 1956, when the Industrial Conciliation Bill was introduced, except that he was then the member for Vereeniging, and now he is the member for Yeoville. In 1956, when the Industrial Conciliation Bill was introduced here, the hon. member for Yeoville was the star on the United Party labour front, but he did not stay there long, for when Barziillai, the National Party star, appeared on the horizon of Vereeniging, he vanished like morning mist before the sun.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to prove that the arguments of the Opposition are unfounded and that they used exactly the same arguments to-day as those used by them at the time of the Industrial Conciliation Bill. This side has not submitted this Bill precipitately to the House for approval. It is a well-considered Bill; it was referred to a Select Committee that made recommendations to this House, and that was also the case with the 1956 Industrial Conciliation legislation. This side of the House has never produced precipitate legislation. Every measure was referred to a Select Committee. When the Industrial Conciliation Bill was introduced here in 1956, the hon. the Minister said the following about the principles of the measure (Hansard, Vol. 90, Col. 261)—

I now want to ask this question. Sir: Does not this proposed legislation comply particularly with the last-mentioned object, i.e. to retain and strengthen White leadership in the economic sphere?

I want to refer to the statement I have made here, namely that the Opposition is adopting exactly the same attitude as in 1956. On the introduction of that Bill in 1956 the then member for Vereeniging (now the hon. member for Yeoville) moved the following amendment (Hansard, Vol. 90, Col. 602)—

What did the hon. member say when he introduced the debate on 29th August, 1966? The hon. member used more or less the same words; he said the following (Hansard, Col. 1631)—

In 1956 he was most concerned about industrial relations, but it is admitted unequivocally by both sides of the House that we have never had greater industrial peace and quiet in South Africa than in the past 10 or 12 years. Now the hon. member is again concerned about sound industrial relations—

Then the hon. member continued and said—

This shows that the Opposition are still exactly where they were in 1956. The same arguments are still being used; the same objections are still being raised. No wonder the hon. member for Yeoville is still so pessimistic, because even in this speech of his there was a suggestion of the following:

if there were a depression, what would become of the White worker in South Africa? I maintain it is therefore all the more necessary that we should reinforce and strengthen the White trade unions in this country, so that if a depression came, the Whites would not be forced out of the White industries by the Coloureds or the Bantu or the Indians. Sir, the arguments advanced here by hon. members of the Opposition are frivolous. I want to give those hon. members some advice. When the legislation was introduced in 1956 the same hon. Minister, who was then the member for Alberton, cautioned the members of the Opposition. And where is the erstwhile member for North-West Rand? What became of him after the 1958 election? What became of the erstwhile member for Edenvale? Thus I could mention 4 seats named by the hon. the Minister. Where is the erstwhile member for Umhlatuzana, who was the leader of the United Party labour group in the House of Assembly? He has vanished. There is the hon. member for Rosettenville. I like that hon. member. We have something in common, even if it is only my nickname.

We Jews must stand together.

I want to tell the hon. member for Rosettenville this: He has a pleasant personality; he should not allow the hon. member for Yeoville to take him in tow, because if he did that it is as sure as fate that he, too, will never again see the inside of this Chamber. I ask the hon. member for Salt River:

What has become of his colleagues who served on the Select Committee at that time? Where is the erstwhile member for Maitland? Where is the erstwhile member for Turf-fontein? Where is the erstwhile member for Benoni? All of them were members who represented workers’ constituencies. They are no longer here to-day. I just want to tell the hon. member for Rosettenville that unless he takes it easy he, too, will not be a member of this House for long. I am not speaking of the hon. member for Karoo; he is just about out already. Mr. Speaker, we have heard the arguments used Here by hon. members of the Opposition. They are allowing themselves to be taken in tow by the hon. member for Yeoville. The hon. member for Yeoville referred to industrial unrest. In this regard I want to refer to an article which appeared in “The Manufacturer” of December, 1964, immediately after it had become known that this Bill was to be introduced. Who are the people to whom “The Manufacturer” belongs? They are the large employers. The language used here by the hon. member for Yeoville is exactly the same as that used by the employers of this country. I therefore believe that I am entitled to say that the Opposition is not pleading here on behalf of the workers; they are pleading on behalf of the employers in this country. And what did those people say? They said: “It will lead to the formation of totally undesirable trade unions.” But I want to go further. What happened in 1956, when the Industrial Conciliation Bill was introduced here? Here I refer to the Rand Daily Mail of 26th January, 1956. What appeared in that paper? “A Bill to splinter.” In this debate we have heard exactly the same arguments. Mr. Speaker, we have trade unions that are affiliated to the Trade Union Council. There is mention of mushroom and splinter trade unions. For years there have been trade unions like the Transvaal Broom and Brush Workers’ Union, with 54 members. Is that not a mushroom trade union? Then there is the Tobacco Workers’ Union, with 70 members, the Association of Furniture and Allied Workers, with 98 members, the Gravediggers and Cemetery Employees, with 98 members. The United Party should join that trade union, because that is where they belong. I am not certain whether they should join that or whether they should join the Funeral Undertakers’ Union, with 61 members. Surely the United Party cannot come here again to-day with that argument of the splintering of trade unions. They followed the Trade Union Council, which, as we know, turned turtle; which originally joined the Labour Confederation in making recommendations in connection with this Bill. But there was a switch in status in the secretariat of that so-called Trade Union Council. If we refer to the Sunday Chronicle of 11th April, 1965, we find the following heading: “Dynamic leader has taken over. He will recruit every worker. All Africans will be in trade unions.” I want to ask the United Party this question to-day: If we had recognized the non-Whites in the trade unions to-day, would they have adopted the same attitude in respect of this Bill? Let them get up like men and tell us. If we recognize the non-Whites in our trade unions, in mixed trade unions, will they adopt the same attitude?

That has nothing to do with this Bill.

It has everything to do with the Bill. In February, 1964, the Trade Union Council consented to the introduction of this Bill, and strangely enough, towards the end of 1964, when another secretary was appointed, it suddenly discovered that the original secretary, who had died, had written a letter of which the executive was unaware all of a sudden. The question that occurs to me is this: Is it not as a result of the fact that there was a change of secretaries in this Trade Union Council that they are not adhering to their original decision, and that they now want to organize the non-Whites in the trade unions? No, the United Party must not come with these stories. The main objection of the employers to this measure is the fact that they begrudge the worker the freedom of association to decide for himself to which trade union he wants to belong. We also heard that from witnesses. I can quote from the report of the Select Committee. In paragraph 671 the following question was put to Mr. Du Plessis—

He replied as follows—

The whole problem is that the employer wants the right to decide to which trade union the employee may belong; the employee may not have the right of freedom of association, but the employer wants to enter into agreements with whichever trade unions he wishes. Mr. Speaker, those were the arguments advanced here by the hon. members of the Opposition. The hon. member for Yeoville spoke of the definition of membership fees. I will concede readily that as “membership fees” is defined in the Bill, it allows the deduction of membership fees only. It does not allow the deduction of fees for fringe benefits. I feel that if that is an obstacle, and if later appeared to be that, the Minister and this side of the House would be prepared to consider amending the definition of “membership fees” in such a way that it could also include deduction of fees for fringe benefits. But although fringe benefits are important to the employee at this stage, his basic benefits are of vital importance to him; his wages are at issue; his sick leave is at issue; his leave benefits are at issue; those are the basic things, and if a trade union is representative and members can have their trade union fees deducted by means of stop-orders our trade unions will be representative and then they will have the right to enter into an industrial agreement that will safeguard those benefits. Those fringe benefits are not of such extreme importance as the basic benefits.

In conclusion I want to say that the sooner this Bill is placed on the Statute Book, the better it would be for the interests of the workers in South Africa. There are too many employers who regard the White worker in this country as irresponsible. Our White workers in this country are responsible people; if they were irresponsible, we would not have had this industrial peace and quiet in the country.

The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark became a little bit excited. He spoke so fast that I could not quite catch everything he said, but he did give me the impression that he was a champion of the White workers of South Africa. Sir, let me tell him that I am a champion of the Coloured workers of South Africa, without whom you just cannot get on. This country cannot do without the Coloured workers, and the plea the hon. member should make in this House is not for one section of the workers but for all workers who have the hard task of supporting the economy of this country. I want to tell the hon. member, who comes from the Transvaal, that he should get a little bit of the Cape feeling as far as the workers are concerned, and I want to tell him that one of the reasons why a certain Coloured trade union came into being in the Cape was the fact that the Coloured workers in the Cape were being dominated from the Transvaal, so they formed themselves into a trade union called the Wood Workers’ Union of South Africa. They have said to me as their representative that they want this Bill to go through, despite what the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark has said. He did his best to stop me from supporting this Bill but I am going to support it. I am supporting it because we who sit in this House as independent Coloured Representatives have always considered it our duty to consult the Coloured people who are affected by legislation which is put before this House, and in conformity with that principle of consultation with the Coloured people affected, I got in touch with certain Coloured trade unions and they gave me a mandate to support this Bill because they want this particular clause which provides for the deduction of fees. The hon. member for Karoo gave certain figures here which differed from those given by the Minister. However, it makes no difference to my point of view. The fact is that there is already a trend in some of these agreements between employers and Coloured trade unions to provide for the deduction of fees. I spoke to one of these trade unions; it is called the National Union of Furniture and Allied Workers. The parent body has entrenched this particular principle of deduction of fees in their agreement, but they said that their two allied trade unions, the Plywoods and the Saw-millers, have not yet been successful in getting this provision inserted in their agreements, and they have asked that I should support the principle that this provision be written into the agreements of these allied trade unions. I went further and discussed this matter with the South African Wood Workers’ Trade Union, which is a completely Coloured trade union, and they wanted it as well. They have a complaint, however, and I am going to put it to the hon. the Minister, and here, Sir, I am going to ask for your indulgence. While the point that I am going to raise here is not in the Bill, it is germane to the whole question of Coloured trade unions and White trade unions which have come into being. The hon. the Minister ought to come to the assistance of the trade unions who have voluntarily formed themselves into a Coloured trade union. The Minister ought to assist them so that their members will not be taken away by a mixed union which still exists in the same organization. I want to give the example of the break-away of the Woodworkers’ Association. There is still a mixed union with headquarters in the Transvaal, and the Woodworkers’ Union is in the Cape. The mixed union does not want a separate union of Coloured people. They have done everything in their power to try to make it difficult for this Coloured trade union to exist and to expand. They have suggested to me that I should put it to the hon. the Minister that he might find it possible, either by an amendment in this House or in the Other Place, to make it illegal for a mixed union to accept any member of the trade where there is a Coloured union existing for that trade. Sir, this point is germane to the Bill because if the Coloured trade union is not given these powers to deduct membership fees, this is what happens: When a member’s fees to the Coloured trade union are outstanding for two or three months, they have found that when they say to him, “What about your dues?” that member simply says, “Well, goodbye” and he then goes over to the mixed union, to the detriment of the Coloured union which is struggling to pay its way and to obtain for the Coloureds the very benefits which the mixed union can give them. I feel that I am entitled to ask the hon. the Minister to protect those trade unions from having their members seduced, if I may put it that way, to go over to a mixed union. I have the documents before me in which they make the special appeal and I will gladly show them to the hon. the Minister. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Karoo says to me that they want apartheid. It is not a question of wanting apartheid. They have found that as the majority of carpenters in the Cape belong to the Coloured community, they would do well to form themselves into a trade union in the Cape, and that is what they have done. There are very few Coloured carpenters in the Transvaal and in the other provinces. Up to now—I say this for the benefit of my hon. friend who made that interjection the Coloured carpenters in the Cape have been dominated by the White union in the Transvaal and they have found it detrimental to their interests. They have asked me to ask the Minister to give them the opportunity of getting members for their union, without the mixed union being able to accept those members. At any rate, from the way you are nodding your head, Mr. Speaker, you apparently feel that I am going beyond the scope of the Bill so I will not pursue this aspect. Sir, the power to deduct dues is a bargaining power in the hands of the employer; it is a power which this hon. Minister should not take away. That is what I understood him to say. the Minister did actually deal with that in his speech. He said—

I think the hon. the Minister is perfectly correct.

Did you read the evidence?

No, I didn’t, but if the hon. member is suggesting now that what the Minister says is incorrect he must have his fight with the Minister. But I agree with the deduction by the hon. the Minister that it is unfair for an employer to have a whip in his hand with which to beat the worker.

Would you rather that the Minister beat the worker?

Oh no. I want to say to the hon. members that in the interest of the Coloured people whom I represent in this House, it is essential that this Bill goes through and that the principle enshrined in it about the deductions should be accepted as soon as possible, because they are waiting for it.

On behalf of my constituency, on behalf of the White workers in the Uitenhage-Port Elizabeth complex, and on behalf of a White trade union which is a tremendously strong organization in my constituency, i.e. the S.A. Iron, Steel and Associated Industries Union, I should like to avail myself of this opportunity of conveying our sincere thanks and appreciation to the hon. the Minister for this Bill. I am doing so on behalf of the White workers in that area. The hon. member for Boland will forgive me. for not following up on his speech, but I should like to return to the principle of this Bill, and I want to make a few remarks in order to convey to you, Sir, how I see the Bill, and why I say that it is in the interests of the White worker.

This Bill places an obligation on employers in respect of compulsory stop-order facilities which will result in sound and well-organized trade unions, and that is what the White workers desire. Employers who refuse stop-order facilities usually do so in order to crush the trade union in question. What I want to quote has already been quoted during the sitting of the Select Committee, but allow me to quote it here as well. I should like to refer to Factory Regulation No. 30. That is the type of notice which one has, since 1961, and possibly even before that date, been coming across everywhere in the factories in the Uitenhage-Port Elizabeth complex. It reads as follows [Translation]—

What is important is the following paragraph—

That is the way in which the White workers have been fettered in the past, because the collection of trade union fees has been done by means of an organization which was based on voluntary service. Now the hon. the Minister is placing that obligation to grant those stop-order facilities to the White workers, as well as to the Coloureds, on the employer. In reality the Bill means that the worker asks the employer to do him a service at a remuneration, which is a collection fee of 5 per cent. In the past employers were able to keep a specific trade union out when it came to negotiations between employers and employees, with the result that the trade union became aggressive and was perhaps able to enforce its claim by means of a workers’ strike. This Bill, as I see it, will entirely eliminate the foregoing possibility. The Bill does not compel any worker to belong to a specific trade union. Stop-orders are entirely the voluntary right of the workers. The stop-orders are creating a major facility for the workers and are in themselves written proof or guarantee that they are members of a specific trade union of their own choice. The stop-order eliminates the tendency for the employer to keep his workers unorganized, a tendency which many employers have and which we cannot deny. Another result which the stop-order will have is that the employer will no longer be able to decide for his employees to which specific trade union they must belong. The worker now decides himself, in his own interest. The strength of a trade union or of any organization depends upon the number of paid-up members which it has under its control. As far as I can see, this Bill will stimulate the increase in membership as far as trade unions in South Africa are concerned. Negotiations with employers on behalf of its workers is, after all, the main purpose of a trade union. And a trade union can only negotiate successfully if the trade union in question is a reasonably strong organization. The stop-order facilities which the hon. the Minister is now creating will place the trade union’s financial position above any suspicion.

In the short time at my disposal I should like to return to the arguments which have been used by hon. members opposite. I want to refer to what the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark said here, and I want to take it further. The hon. member made the assertion that hon. members on the opposite side are acting on behalf of the employers, or certain of them; but that is not all. Hon. members opposite, and in particular the hon. member for Yeoville, are speaking here on behalf of the Trade Union Council of South Africa, a multi-racial trade union, and I want to prove that that is so.

What is the policy, in brief, of the T.U.C.? We all know that T.U.C. condemns, unconditionally, all forms of racial discrimination which undermine the civic freedom and the social integrity of the individual, and that it believes that the future prosperity of South Africa depends upon the widest acknowledgement of the workers as equal partners in all fields of socio-economic undertakings and development. That is why I want to say to hon. members opposite that the members of White staff associations whose racial pride has been watered down to such an extent that they feel at home in mixed trade union federations, must realize that they are subordinating the interests of White workers to that of the non-Whites.

I should like to dwell for a moment on what the hon. member for Yeoville said here yesterday. The hon. member opposed the Bill on behalf of the United Party. In my opinion, what the hon. member said was according to the Sunday Express of 10th April, 1966, when that newspaper had the following to say—

That is the hon. member for Yeoville. In brief, what the hon. member’s speech amounted to, word for word, was a leading article in the Sunday Times of 17th April, 1966, in which that newspaper stated as follows—

Those are the very arguments we have heard from hon. members opposite. The amendment proposed by the United Party in the Select Committee, where they spoke of negotiations with the employers in question, is unacceptable because it is only after months of negotiations with employers that trade unions will have to prove that the employers have deliberately refused to grant the stop-orders. Some employers make use of stop-order facilities as a means of coercion against trade unions during negotiations. The standpoint of the White workers, which is my privilege to represent in this House, is as follows Our standpoint is that the deduction of the trade union membership fees ought not to be a negotiating factor, but should be regarded as being on a level footing with the deduction of contributions to pensions and medical funds, with this difference that it should in the case of the trade union take place on a purely voluntary basis and upon a written request by the trade union member. A trade union should only negotiate on matters which envisage the improvement of wages and other conditions of service of its members.

I want to conclude by saying that in the Uitenhage-Port Elizabeth complex the following employers, such as General Motors, Ford, Samad, Firestone, General Tyre, and Goodyear are not prepared to grant stop-orders for registered trade unions. At least that was the position in the past. Trade union officials do not have the right of access to their members in the factories. Branch committee members of the trade union are not acknowledged, and no official trade union notices may be put up on the employers’ premises. Even collectors of the trade unions in question are strictly forbidden to collect membership fees. Since 1960 the number of Whites in the motor assembly industry in the Uitenhage-Port Elizabeth complex has increased by 1,835; the increase in all other industries has been 5,418. That is why I say that this Bill which is being introduced here is in the interests of the White workers, and that is why we welcome this Bill.

The hon. member for Uitenhage has accused this side of the House of opposing this legislation on the ground that we are speaking on behalf of the employers and the T.U.C. We repudiate this charge completely. There is no truth whatsoever in the charge and hon. members on that side of the House know it. [Interjections.] On the contrary, we oppose this measure because we have the interests of the workers at heart. [Laughter.] I will tell the hon. members who have laughed so loudly why I say this. The workers of South Africa want the power to compel employers, at their request, to deduct membership fees. That is what the workers want and not a single member on the Government side of the House will deny it. All the evidence led before the Select Committee was to that effect. Do you know, Sir, that after two days of debate in this House on this Bill the hon. members on the Government side still believe that this is the principle of the Bill? Sir, it is no such thing. If that is the principal of the Bill, why has not the Government introduced a Bill along the lines of the 1965 draft Bill? Why has that not been done? Perhaps the hon. member for Uitenhage could have told us that, and the hon. member for Vanderbijl-park. The 1965 draft Bill which was introduced in this House and which was sent to the Select Committee provides precisely what we on this side of the House support. It provides quite simply that the employer of an employee who is a member of a registered trade union shall, if requested to do so by the employee, in the manner prescribed from time to time deduct from the employee’s remuneration any amounts which may become payable to that trade union by such employee by way of membership fees and shall within one month of the deduction remit it. Sir, that is quite clear and quite simple. It compels the employer to deduct, on request by the employee. This is what trade unionists want and this is the principle that we on this side of the House support, and we have supported this principle all along. We made that perfectly clear in the Select Committee. On 9th February, 1966, the Select Committee unanimously resolved—and we were parties to that resolution—that in the opinion of the Committee legislation is desirable to amend the Industrial Conciliation Act, 1956, in order to provide for the compulsory deduction of trade union subscriptions. This is the principle which was adopted by the Select Committee and which we supported, and we have remained consistent to that principle.

What about your amendment?

What does this Bill do? Does it compel the employer to deduct membership fees on request by employees? It does no such thing. Sir. It gives a complete and unfettered discretion to the Minister of Labour to do what he likes in this regard because whilst subparagraph (a) of subsection (1A) says that the Minister may on application by a certain number of trade unionists grant this power, in subparagraph (b) the proviso makes this a completely unfettered discretion within the hands of the Minister. In any event, I point out that the word in subsection (1A), subparagraph (a), is “may”. The Minister may, even if he is requested to bring in legislation by the overwhelming number of the members of the trade union—even if that is the situation it is within the discretion of the Minister to refuse; and I challenge any hon. member on the Government side to deny that is the case. Is this what the workers of South Africa want? Of course it is not, because this sort of thing will damage tremendously the whole trade union movement which is based on negotiation between employer and employee without any Government Department and without any Minister of State interfering. This is the crux of the matter, and up to now we have yet to hear why this is necessary. Why is it necessary for the Minister to take powers of this sort? Perhaps the Minister will tell us also who has requested this. What trade unions have requested that he should have this complete discretion in his hands? [Interjection.] I hear an hon. member say that they have no objection to it.

Has any trade unionist objected to this Bill?

The hon. member for Brakpan asks whether any trade unionist has objected, but I ask the hon. member this question:

Does he consider that trade unionists are not capable of handling this sort of thing in negotiations between themselves and the employers? Does he consider that they require the Minister of Labour to intervene and to resolve this on their behalf? We on this side of the House do not take this attitude. We believe that the trade union movement is perfectly able to deal with this matter themselves in the way in which they have dealt with it in the past. I repeat that we are still convinced that the Bill should merely compel the employers to deduct these membership fees at the request of the employees, and that there is no justification whatsoever for a discretion to be given to the Minister of Labour in this Bill.

The hon. member for Uitenhage has read out a certain article by Tucsa, and he said that this was the attitude also of this side of the House. In particular, the hon. member for Uitenhage suggested that Tucsa’s contention was that the Minister cannot be trusted to use the power wisely, and he said that this is the contention of this side of the House. It is no such thing. We do not suggest that the Minister cannot use the powers he is getting under this Act wisely. What we say is that it is a power which should not be in the hands of the Minister at all, because it goes completely contrary to all principles of industrial negotiation. In fact, it goes completely contrary to the collective bargaining principles, which are the basis of all industrial legislation. But apart from that, the point is this. The evidence which was led before the Select Committee showed that in some instances there were difficulties in obtaining the agreement of employers to make these deductions. We concede that there was such evidence, but in order to overcome this problem there is no need to give the Minister the powers he is taking under this Bill. All one needs is a Bill, as I said a moment ago, along the lines of the draft Bill introduced in this House in 1965, simply compelling the employer to deduct. [Interjection.] This interjection is really not worth taking seriously.

The final point I wish to make is this. The hon. member for Karoo has pointed out that the majority of industrial council agreements already provide for this compulsory deduction and it is done in such a way that the Minister has no power of intervention whatsoever. He is not brought into the picture at all. That is the case with the majority of industrial council agreements to-day and it has worked perfectly well. So I ask once again, in the light of that evidence, why is this measure now being introduced, a measure which not only goes against the principle of industrial conciliation, but will also do harm to the trade union movement by encouraging the small unions to hive off and to create opposing factions within the same industry. This is an undesirable feature and one which can only cause harm to the trade union movement generally. So we believe that this is not the proper way to deal with this matter, and for that reason we oppose the second reading of this Bill.

I want to say to the Opposition’s credit that over a period of ten years they have not shown any change in this sphere of labour. In spite of the fact that ten years ago, in 1956, we heard the same old scare-stories in this House about the destructive effect that such a measure would have on the trade unions—precisely the same old stories that we heard ten years ago— and in spite of the fact that the trade union organization has grown in these ten years, we now have to hear the same old hackneyed stories in this debate. But what is more, in these ten years there has been no change either as regards the source from which the Opposition gets its guidance and its strength. Ten years ago they sought guidance from the Trade Union Council. When the Industrial Conciliation Bill was being discussed in this House and Mrs. Solly Sachs was sitting in the gallery, it was the hon. member for Yeoville who had to leave the Chamber from time to time during the discussion to hold consultations with her and the other members of the T.U.C. in order to obtain arguments to use against us in this House. We saw that with our own eyes. To-day we find the same source again, but today there has perhaps been only one change as far as the source is concerned. In those years the organ of the T.U.C. appeared in two languages only, but now it has undergone a change. I have We its latest policy statement, which was issued in English, Afrikaans, Zulu, Xhosa, Sotho and South-Sotho. That is the only change that has occurred in these years. The whole crux—that is the term that was used by the hon. member for Musgrave—of this matter and of the opposition to this measure lies in the fact that the T.U.C. is concerned that this measure may affect them adversely.

You know that is untrue.

Order!

I withdraw that and say that the hon. the Minister ought to know that.

What I ought to know is that the T.U.C. is concerned that this measure may affect them adversely. They are concerned because they fear that this compulsory stop-order system will encourage the establishment of separate trade unions. This side has nothing to be concerned about in that regard; on the contrary, this side of the House wants that to happen. We want separate trade unions to be established. We want them to grow and to become strong, because that is in accordance with the policy which this Government stands for. We expect that this measure will lead to a greater development of that separate trade union movement in South Africa.

And greater development of Bantu trade unions as well?

If the hon. member wants to plead for that, he has sufficient opportunity of doing so. Our attitude in regard to Bantu trade unions is clear enough. We recognize no Bantu trade union, and the hon. member ought to know that. I now want to deal further with the matter of the T.U.C. The concern is about the decline of the T.U.C., and that is the crux of the matter. The crux of the matter as far as the United Party is concerned is not the interests of the worker, because if they were concerned about the interests of the worker it ought to be a consideration with them that they want to see the workers in this country properly organized into trade unions, and a stop-order system such as this helping the workers to become organized into those trade unions and to join those trade unions so that they, together with the employers, can sit on the industrial councils in order to negotiate for better conditions of service. That is what helps the worker. But that is not what those hon. members want. They are only concerned about the Trade Union Council, and they regret the fact that it will now be broken down. No wonder that they themselves are so broken down to-day that we only have a skeleton sitting opposite us. Now. the hon. member for Musgrave asked me which trade unions want this system and who have expressed themselves in favour of it. Apart from the other documents which have come into my possession I have here only one document, dated 9th March, 1966. It is a letter from the Co-ordinating Council of South African Trade Unions, one of the largest federations of trade unions. They write as follows [translation]—

That is what counts with us. It is the opinion of these people that counts with us, not the Trade Union Council, a leftist organization which is issuing its documents in five languages already, which is directed more at Bantu trade unions than White workers in this country. Mention has been made here of the discretion now to be exercised by the Minister and that he would allegedly not exercise it properly. The present Minister may still exercise it properly, because he is such a charming fellow, but the next one will presumably be a tyrant, and will exercise the discretion in an unreasonable way. Now, that is the usual type of story we hear whenever legislation comes before this House, and we need not dwell on it. I shall rather say something about the point of view of a very important body such as the Building Employers’ Organization. I want to quote what they have had to say about the discretion of the Minister. In their August, 1966, edition of “The South African Builder”, which is the official organ of the National Federation of Building Trade Employers in South Africa, they have written as follows about the Bill before this House at the moment—

Then they refer to the Minister’s discretionary power contained in this measure and say the following—

This powerful employers’ organization has no objection to this discretion. They consider it a necessity and they go on to say that they do not want to express any opinion on the question of separate trade unions, apart from saying that in their view—

That is what is said by this powerful employers' organization, the Building Employers. Therefore one need not take any notice of this T.U.C. dust-raising taking place in this House this evening.

However, I want to reply to one other point of criticism which has been raised here. In his speech the other day the hon. member for Yeoville, inter alia, asked the question why the stop-orders under this Bill were only applicable to ordinary membership fees and not to other contributions to benefit funds. Surely it is crystal-clear that this entire inquiry was directed at trade union membership fees? It was not directed at any other aspect. As a matter of fact, it also formed the subject of the inquiry by the industrial tribunal at the time. The investigation was limited to the deduction of trade union membership fees and did not deal with other contributions that workers wanted to make. If workers want to make other contributions by way of stop-orders, the bargaining machinery exists and they have the right and the liberty to negotiate with their employers about that in the industrial councils. I therefore think that it is totally unnecessary to include it here. As a matter of fact, it is unnecessary if one considers the fact that some of the funds to which contributions are made by the workers are strike funds. And I think it is really too much to expect from employers that they should, by way of a compulsory stop-order system, deduct money from the workers which is to be paid into a strike fund which those workers can then use against those employers when they are not satisfied about some matter or other. Just as the strike fund has been excluded, so all the others have been excluded, because they did not form the subject of the inquiry by the industrial tribunal or the Select Committee, and the workers who have asked for this are highly satisfied, as is shown by this letter from the Co-ordinating Council, with this concession which they have been granted.

There is one other aspect which was raised by the hon. member for Salt River and to which I want to reply. He made the statement, inter alia, that we had satisfactory bargaining machinery. Yes, the bargaining machinery that we have is sound. But it is only effective if the workers through their trade unions are able to sit on those industrial councils in a representative way. If the workers are not sufficiently organized into trade unions, they cannot state their point of view satisfactorily on those industrial councils. I said that in my second-reading speech and I now want to repeat it in replying to this point. I have to approve an industrial council agreement probably every second day now. One of the requirements for the approval of an industrial council agreement is that the trade unions must be sufficiently representative. They must represent a sufficiently large percentage of the workers in the trade concerned. Very often industrial council agreements are submitted to me in which the workers do not have sufficient representation but because it is the only existing trade union, because it is the only one represented on that industrial council, one is simply obliged to approve that agreement. However, the fact that the trade union is not sufficiently representative is not a good thing. Therefore it is no use to sing the praises of the bargaining system here if one does not enable the trade unions to become strong enough to participate in that bargaining as they should. This measure is going to enable the trade unions to fulfil that legitimate role.

It has been said that most of the industrial council agreements provide for compulsory deductions. From evidence which has been submitted to us, whether before the Select Committee or to me by deputations, it is abundantly clear that there are employers in this country who discriminate against these right-wing, against these conservatively inclined, against these separate trade unions. They discriminate to such an extent that they are prepared to grant stop-order facilities to a mixed trade union in the industrial council agreement, but are in many cases not prepared to grant them to those separate trade unions. Where one finds such discrimination, I think the Government has a duty, in the interests of justice, to take a step such as this in order to compel such employers to do their duty by the workers.

It has been said here that we are striking at the root of bargaining. What nonsense! Under this measure we are not forcing trade unions to put this stop-order facility into operation. We are not forcing trade unions to do so. A trade union has to ask for it. If it does not ask for it, it does not get it. It is not told, while a pistol is being held to its head, that it must accept a compulsory stop-order system. How one can reconcile that statement by the Opposition with this is therefore beyond my comprehension.

The hon. member for Salt River also said here that we now wanted to support splinter unions. No, we do not want to support splinter unions. As I have said, we want to afford those trade unions who want to be separate an opportunity of expanding and becoming strong. In this respect I am grateful for the support which the hon. member for Boland gave to the matter. In actual fact he even took the matter a little further. He pleaded that in a case where there was a mixed trade union and the Coloureds seceded and established their own separate Coloured trade union, we should actually intervene to prohibit that mixed trade union from continuing with its activities. I can only say to the hon. member for Boland that he can be very glad that he is not a Nationalist, because if he had expressed such a point of view as a Nationalist, he would definitely have been branded as an extremist.

When we placed this measure on the Statute Book in 1956, we gave an undertaking that we would not use it to kill mixed trade unions. The hon. Minister sitting over there who handled the legislation said that they could bleed to death. That was the expression that he used. Well, if they should bleed to death, then let them do so. I am not concerned about that. But we are not going to use legislative powers to strangle or crush them to death. Let them go their own way. Consequently I unfortunately cannot accede to the extremistic request made by the hon. member for Boland.

I want to conclude by saying that this measure is going to make an important contribution towards, firstly, creating a strong trade union organization for us in this country. We, the Government, welcome a strong trade union organization, for the reason that the trade union organization fulfils an extremely important function within the framework of the entire industrial set-up, and within the framework of the industrial council agreement. They are the people who have to act as the watchdogs over the interests of the workers. They are the people who have to bargain for better conditions. They are the people who have to bring forward complaints about any unfair treatment. In the interests of industrial peace we therefore want to see a strong trade union organization being established in this country. And this is a measure which is going to make a very important contribution. I admit that it is not in the interests of the T.U.C., but it is definitely in the interests of the workers of South Africa.

Motion put and the House divided:

Ayes—87: Barnett, C.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, H. L; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Brandt, J. W.; Carr, D.M.; Coetzee, J. A.; Delport, W. H.; de Wet, J. M.; de Wet, M. W.; du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Fouché, J. J.; Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Haak, J. F. W.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Henning, J. M.; Heystek, J.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.; le Grange, L.; Ie Roux, J. P. C.; Malan, J. J.: Malan. W. C.: Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pienaar, B.; Rail, J. J.; Rail, J. W.; Rail, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Raubenheimer, A. L.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Smith, J. D.; Steyn, A. N.; Swiegers, J. G.; Torlage, P. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Merwe, C. V.; van der Merwe, H. D. K.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Tonder. J. A.; van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.: Visser, A. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: G. P. van den Berg, P. S. van der Merwe.

Noes—29: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bennett, C.; Connan, J. M.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lewis, H.; Lindsay, J. E.; Mitchell, D. E.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Raw, W. V.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Waterson, S. F.; Webber, W. T.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst, A. Hopewell.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As you know, Sir, now that the dam at Koppies is being enlarged, the Roodepoort Settlement Committee and the Weltevreden Settlement Committee have applied to be taken over by the State in order to ensure a better distribution of water. This Bill has been before the Examiners, and the Standing Orders relating to Bills of this kind provide that after the Bill has been read a second time, no further action shall be taken for five sitting days, so that any person who has any objection to the Bill may lodge his objections in those five days. If no such objection is made, the entire Bill is regarded as a public measure. At this stage, therefore, I want to do no more than to move that the Bill be read a second time.

This side of the House supports the second reading of this measure. We think it is a good Bill. Just after the adjournment for dinner this evening some of the hon. members on the opposite side asked me why so many Bills had been disposed of this afternoon without having been opposed by us on this side. My reply to that was that it was because they were good Bills. As long as the Government comes before this House with good Bills we shall support them. The Bill we are dealing with now is a good one, too, and is in the interests of the people there.

As the representative of the people concerned in this matter, I just want to say that we are very glad that the hon. the Minister has come forward with this Bill. This Bill is of particular significance to the settlers at Roodepoort and Weltevreden. They are experiencing a serious water shortage at the moment, and they are hoping that once the dam at Koppies has been raised, they will also get some of the overflow water. As committees they retain their rights under this measure, but they hope that they will also share in the benefits that will result from this measure I therefore feel obliged to convey their thanks to this House and to the hon. the Minister.

Bill read a second time.

The report quoted in newspapers to-day from the London Daily Express about the decision of the British Government to terminate the presence of the Royal Navy in South Africa has been brought to my notice. It is with regret that I learned of this premature publication, because negotiations in this connection are still in the initial stages. I presume that the British Government has also been embarrassed by this publicity. Earlier this year the British Government informed the South African Government of its intention for economic reasons to terminate the presence of the Royal Navy in South Africa, with the retention of certain privileges. We were assured that an announcement in this regard would only be made after mutual consultation, consultation which has not yet taken place. I should like to emphasize that neither the South African Government nor the South African Press has to date released any information in regard to this matter. I feel, however, that I owe it to the public of South Africa to state that in the light of these intentions on the part of the British Government which have now been publicized and in the light of the manner in which the British Government has honoured the spirit of the Simonstown Agreement, a revision of this Agreement has become essential. In regard to the other matters mentioned in newspaper reports, I do not intend making any comment. I trust that hon. members and the Press will also refrain from further unnecessary comment or speculation.

The hon. the Minister has just made a statement which is of very great importance to South Africa. He has indicated that it is his intention to consider an amendment to the Simonstown Agreement, which, as far as we are aware, is the last remaining international treaty in the field of defence which South Africa has with the outside world. It is unfortunate that a matter of this very great seriousness should have been announced in the unofficial way in which it has been announced. It is a matter for regret that it should have been released in the form in which it has been released. Under the circumstances and in view of the announcement made by the hon. the Minister I do not intend pursuing this matter any further at this stage. I do not intend saying more than just to point out that it is a matter of the deepest regret and also a matter of deep concern for South Africa that this should have come about. I hope that the hon. the Minister will find it possible in the course of this debate to take the House further into his confidence and to give us further information in order that a clearer picture may emerge. At the moment it seems that preliminary negotiations have taken place and now there is this Press report only of a unilateral revision. Perhaps by to-morrow, when this debate will be continued, the Minister may have some official information or news which he can disclose, when it may be possible to debate the matter in more detail. But under the circumstances which now prevail I think it would be wise not to take the matter any further now than merely an expression of regret.

This I think is an appropriate moment to deal with one or two other matters relating to defence. The first of these ties up with the announcement which the hon. the Minister has just made. We believe that there is a great deal of unnecessary secrecy in regard to the portfolio of Defence and that it would be far better for South Africa if many things which the Minister regards as being secret and which he thus keeps to himself were also known to the public. There have been many changes around us since we last discussed the Defence Vote, changes which inevitably affect the defence strategy of South Africa. Here I refer in particular to U.D.I. in Rhodesia, to the imminent independence of Bechuanaland and Basutoland, and A.D.I. i.e. Approaching Declaration of Independence, in the Transkei and other areas. These are all matters which have to be considered in connection with defence strategy. For the man in the street, for the father and mother whose child is called up for defence, it would surely be far better if the Minister were to give an assurance to South Africa that these changes which are taking place around us have been considered. They are changes which affect our neighbours and our own defence strategy and are matters upon which the hon. the Minister should tell South Africa much more. For instance, to what extent does he take these changes into account in his planning? To what extent, in his advance planning, does he take into account possible agreements with our neighbouring states? Do we, in fact, have any agreements? Do we, in fact, have any agreement with any neighbouring state at all? Are our forces in any way committed, either internally or externally, in terms of any such agreement other than the Simonstown Agreement? I think the Minister should realize that our people are now a responsible people who are deeply concerned about their future. Moreover, they are a people who can be trusted with frank disclosures and we request assurances in regard to matters which affect them so closely, matters such as their own security. I do not want to take this aspect any further at this stage. It is a delicate issue which can quite easily go wrong if handled wrongly. I felt, however, that I should give the hon. the Minister the opportunity of dealing with this question in this debate. It is because of that that I raised this matter.

In the little time left to me I should like to pay tribute to our Defence Forces in two respects. Firstly, I want to pay tribute to all our forces for the magnificent Republican Day parade which they staged on 31st May this year. It is something of which South Africa can be proud, a major exercise in mobilization involving administrative and supply problems on a large scale. All South Africans are proud of what was achieved. All of us also regret the tragic end of that day. Personally I should like to pay a sincere tribute to Brig. Jan Burger, whom I had the privilege of knowing. I regarded him as one of our finest soldiers, a man cast in the mould of the finest traditions of our Defence Force. We appreciate the way in which he handled the parade and I am deeply sorry for his untimely death. I should like the Minister to know that all of us from this side of the House subscribe to these sentiments.

The second tribute is in respect of something not quite as spectacular—a small incident which, nevertheless, did our Defence Force a lot of good. I refer to the rescue operations carried out in connection with the wreck of the Seafarer. An operation like that is far better for the reputation of the force in the eyes of the public than any public relations officer could ever achieve by writing articles. An operation like this, timeous and well handled as it was, does a lot of good to the Department of Defence.

I should like to associate myself with the congratulations expressed by the hon. member for Durban (Point). We on this side also want to express our appreciation to the Defence Force for the magnificent display we were able to see on Republic Day. It was a display which was a credit to South Africa, which made it feel more secure and which showed the world that South Africa was prepared to defend itself in case of trouble. In addition, we on this side want to avail ourselves of this opportunity to congratulate the hon. the Minister on his appointment as Minister of Defence. We know him as a man possessing the qualities of drive, thoroughness and fine administrative ability. Accordingly we are satisfied that under his leadership the Defence Force of South Africa is in good hands. We have also got a new Commandant-General, and we want to congratulate him on his appointment as well. It is an important and responsible position that he now holds in South Africa. He has already made a start with the greater rationalization of the composition, of our Defence Force, the introduction of closer co-ordination among the respective sections of our Defence Force, the formation of a supreme command and the closer integration of the three sections of the Defence Force in South Africa. The attempts which are being made to bring about this closer integration, something which other countries such as Britain and the United States are also seeking to attain, can only be to the benefit of South Africa and may introduce a new era in the history of our Defence Force, We want to wish the hon. the Minister and the new Commandant-General every success in the performance of the great task which they have in our fatherland,

I want to use the few minutes that I still have at my disposal to express my thanks for the large number of houses which has been built for members of the Defence Force during the past number of years. We know that housing is a major stabilizing factor as far as our Defence Force is concerned, because it is one of the things which serve to retain people in the Defence Force. Accordingly we are glad that a number of years ago the Government accepted it as its policy to accommodate 60 per cent of the members of our Defence Force in official living-quarters. Our Defence Force has expanded tremendously since that time, and as a result the number of houses which have to be built to accommodate that 60 per cent has shown a tremendous increase as compared with the number required when the scheme was first undertaken. However, we are glad that that is the policy of the Government. I should like to inquire from the hon. the Minister to what extent the restrictions on expenditure which have been introduced have a restrictive effect on the endeavours of the Minister and his Department to provide this accommodation. As I have said, the provision of accommodation is one of the factors which serve to retain people in the Defence Force. Not only is cheaper accommodation provided to members of our Defence Force in that way, but it also brings other benefits with it. We know, for example, that members of the Defence Force who are accommodated in departmental houses are provided with transport to and from their work as well. These and other things are all benefits which are available to those members of the Defence Force who stay in departmental houses. Accordingly I want to express the hope that, notwithstanding the restrictions on expenditure which have been introduced in order to curtail expenditure in view of the inflationary tendencies in our country, we shall nevertheless be able to allow some latitude as far as the provision of housing to members of our Defence Force is concerned, so that we may carry on with the provision of housing. A large number of these houses have been built in my own constituency, and I can testify to the gratitude of the Defence Force members concerned for the soundly and neatly constructed houses which have been provided for them. I shall be very sorry if this scheme cannot be continued.

We have read in the Press that there are plans for assigning more comprehensive functions to our commandos. I shall be particularly glad if the hon. the Minister can tell us what his ideas are in this regard. We know that the discipline of our commandos has been tightened up lately and that vigilance platoons, units which have a special function, have been formed in most of those commandos. We know for what purpose the commandos have been organized, and if new duties are now to be assigned to them and if they are to receive improved training, we should like the hon. the Minister to give us more detailed information in that regard.

Progress reported.