I move as an unopposed motion and pursuant to notice—

seconded.

Agreed to.

stated that the petition was on the Table.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move—as an amendment to this amendment—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.

In Clause 3,

I move—

1. (1) ter. No commercial banking institution shall for remuneration undertake or perform any work in connection with the administration or distribution of the estate of any deceased person.

May I at once say that I am prepared to accept an amendment in order to make it quite clear, to insert after “remuneration” “except where the bank has been appointed executor.” There is no question but that the commercial banks have in the past gone beyond the scope of their operations, and it is felt generally that some protection must be given to the profession in order that they may be safeguarded in future.

What do you mean by “felt generally”?

My amendment boils down to this, that I want to entrench a practice which has existed up to the present, and that is that the banking institutions would be allowed to be appointed as executors and where they are appointed as executors they will be allowed to administer the estates concerned, but where they are not appointed as executors it is unfair that they should come into competition with the ordinary practitioners. It was never intended that they, as financial institutions, should be allowed to administer estates, thus they are going beyond the scope of their business activities. I am asking the House to accept the principle which is already in force, namely, to entrench the practice which has existed in the past, but that the banks shall not be allowed in future to extend their operations beyond acting as executors in estates which they will be allowed to administer. I hope the House will accept this amendment because it is in the interest of the profession. We must as far as possible try and protect the interests of the young attorneys of this country. If we do not do so the young attorneys will not be able to make a living. There is a very sound reason for asking the House to accept the amendment. The practitioners who are administering estates are not allowed to keep money in their own accounts for that purpose. They have to keep the money in an account for such special purpose. If you allow the banks to administer estates for which they are not appointed executors, they will have a further privilege of being allowed to open up accounts in their own branches which is entirely in conflict with the spirit of the Estates Act and it is therefore undesirable that they should be allowed to administer estates for which they are not appointed as executors.

I may say at once that I cannot accept this amendment. The Select Committee went very fully into this Bill. Bank managers gave evidence before the Select Committee and this question was never raised in the form in which it is now raised. I am afraid it would affect to a large extent a number of people who desire to appoint the banks as their executors, if they are not allowed to receive remuneration.

I specially mentioned that I was prepared to accept that amendment, and I suggested an exception in the case of executors.

Even then I cannot accept it. I think it is going very far and I do not think the promoters of the Bill, the four Law Societies, would support the amendment. Unfortunately I have not been able to get into touch with them, but I am certain they would not accept it. The Select Committee gave this careful consideration, and it would be a mistake at this stage to accept this amendment.

I am surprised at the hon. member who is piloting this Bill through the House. He has introduced a Bill to protect legal practitioners against unlawful competition, and he is now watering down his Bill so that it practically has no further meaning. If he goes on giving in and making concessions, we may just as well leave the Bill alone, because it appears to me from the provisions of this Bill that everybody can get exemption. The business of the banks is to deal with finance and not to administer estates, and they are the worst offenders in cutting into the work of legal practitioners. There are numerous instances, and hon. members opposite know it as well as we do, where, as the result of the strong financial position of the banks, the public sometimes have a revolver put to their heads. If a man is in financial difficulties, or if he wants to overdraw his account in the bank, the manager of the bank often goes to him and demands that he shall do all his business with the banks, that the bank is to be appointed as executor, and, further, that the bank is to administer his estate. That is not the kind of work which the bank should do, and that is why I am in favour of the amendment of the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys). The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) said that he wanted to protect legal practitioners against any unlawful competition. Does he know that he is asking every attorney under this Bill to contribute £10 to a Fidelity Fund, while the hon. member is now making the position of the attorneys more and more difficult. By and by he will allow an opening for someone to come in and do some of the work which the attorneys should do. I really think he should now stop making concessions, because otherwise this Bill will have no meaning whatsoever.

I am very sorry the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys) has thought fit to introduce a contentious matter in this Bill. This is supposed to be an agreed Bill. The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) has gone out of his way to meet all the original objections to this Bill, and I am under the impression that the intention was that the banks would be excluded from certain provisions of the Bill. Now the hon. member for Prieska tells us that the banks are not fit and proper people to administer estates. They would have to open banking accounts with themselves, and they would get a certain amount of remuneration that way. He also told us that an attorney handling trust money has to open a trust account with the bank. What is the difference, whether the banks open accounts themselves, or whether an attorney opens a trust account with the bank? The hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) also raised certain objections to the effect that the banks would get new facilities under this Bill. Let me say that the banks in South Africa have a reputation second to none. I challenge any hon. member to prove that any individual has lost any money which has been entrusted to the banks. I am afraid I cannot say the same about the attorneys, and if there are any institutions to whom people should be allowed to leave their affairs—it should be the banks. I think it is the banks who can be trusted to do that kind of work properly. Can we say the same thing about the attorneys? Under this Bill we hope a certain amount of protection will be given to the public. But I think it is a little bit of assumption on the part of the attorneys to ask us to pass this Bill, and expect us to include an amendment that will prevent the banks from administering estates.

Order!

Yes, I knew you would not allow me to deal with it.

Why does the hon. member do it then?

I would advise the hon. member for Prieska to withdraw his amendment. The banks have carried on this work very successfully. They are the most competent people in South Africa to deal with estates, and I am not reflecting on any individual when I say that that cannot always be said about the attorneys.

What about the trust companies?

Attorneys should be very careful what criticism they pass on anyone in regard to the handling of trust moneys, considering the terrible state of affairs we have had in South Africa in the last ten years, and for an attorney to get up and criticise the banks is tantamount to an impertinence. If that were not so, there would be no necessity to speak of a Fidelity Fund being established. There is no need to establish such a fund for a trust company, or for the banks. I hope the hon. member will withdraw this amendment, and allow this Bill to pass after an honourable agreement has been come to about its being regarded as an agreed measure.

As the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys) is apparently wider in scope than contemplated, I would put it right by moving—

We do not want to interfere with a man’s testamentary right. Any man has the right to appoint his executor. Beyond that, I support the amendment of the hon. member for Prieska.

I want to second the amendment of the hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson). In answer to the hon. member for Greyeville (Mr. Derbyshire) I only want to say that this Bill was introduced first of all to do away with unjust competition with professional men. The question is not whether one can trust a solicitor or whether one cannot do so. We have had trust companies for many years and they have done the work, and the banks have not done it. The banks are there to deal with finance in the country, to advance money and give credit, but what is the position now? Hon. members themselves will know of cases where the banks have been brought in to administer estates, although it was never intended that that work should be done by the banks in this country. If a man wants to overdraw his account he is asked whether he will leave his estate to the bank. The banks make quite enough money without interfering in the administration of estates. We have trust companies in this country which have been in existence for years, and can be trusted, and we also have attorneys. Unfortunately there have been cases where money has been misappropriated, but this Bill aims at putting that sort of thing right, and at preventing similar occurrences in future. We are asked to contribute to a Fidelity Fund which will comprise a large sum of money. That money is not contributed by the public, but the scheme was’ started by the Law Societies themselves. Now the hon. member for Greyville comes here and wants the House to understand that the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys) contends that the banks are not competent to do the work. That is not the position, but we do say that it is not the kind of work which the banks should do. When the hon. member talks about certain attorneys who have misappropriated money and who have committed certain wrongful acts, then I want to tell him that there are a great many butchers who sell short weight, but that does not give me the right to say that he does so. If there are certain butchers who sell short weight, that does not give us the right to cut out all the butchers. We want the banks to stick to the work they have set themselves out to do, and in that respect we want to support them, but they should not do work which is outside their sphere of business. If the bank wants to appoint some person or other as executor we are prepared to allow them to do the work in such cases under the amendment of the hon. member for Ermelo. They are not prevented from appointing whomsoever they want as executor, and if people want to appoint a bank as their executor they can do so, but if they do not appoint a bank as executor then the banks should not have the right to administer such an estate. We want the work to be done by the people whose profession it is to do that work. Rather do away with the attorneys and say that you want to abolish them, but if hon. members want the attorneys to continue doing their work, and if there are trust companies to do the work, why should the banks come into the picture? Let them operate within their own sphere and do not let them come in to do the work of the attorneys.

On a point of personal explanation, Mr. Speaker, owing to the noise in the House I was unable to hear the amendment of the hon. member (Mt. Jackson). He assured me this morning that he intended moving an amendment to the hon. member for Prieska which would have the effect of nullifying same, but I now find that is not so, and I must oppose the amendment moved by the hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson).

Question put: That the word “subsection”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Bill.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—54:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Baines, A. C. V.

Bell, R. E.

Blackwell, L.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Christopher. R. M.

Collins, W. R.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

De Kock, A. S.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henderson, R. H.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Molteno, D. B.

Neate, C.

Nel, O. R.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pocock, P. V.

Reitz, D.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Steyn, C. F.

Sutter, G. J.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van d. Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Tellers: J. W. Higgerty and W. B. Humphreys.

Noes—47:

Bekker, G.

Bekker, S.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. H.

De Bruyn, D. A. S.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Goldberg, A.

Grobler, J. H.

Hugo, P. J.

Jackson, D.

Kentridge, M.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Le Roux, S. P.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Naudé, S. W.

Olivier, P. J.

Oost, H.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Pirow, O.

Rood, K.

Schoeman, B. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Steyn, G. P.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, A. P.

Theron, P.

Van den Berg, C. J. V. d.

Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wentzel, J. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: F. C. Erasmus and P. O. Sauer.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendments proposed by Mr. Geldenhuys and Mr. Jackson dropped.

Amendments in Clause 3 up to line 34, on page 4, put and agreed to.

Omission of paragraph (d) in Clause 3, put and agreed to.

New paragraph (d) in Clause 3 proposed by the Committee of the Whole House, put,

I move as an amendment to this amendment—

seconded.

Agreed to.

New paragraph (d), as amended, put and agreed to.

Remaining amendments in Clause 3 put and agreed to.

I move—

1. (g) any accountant who is entitled to use any designation provided for by Act No. 13 of 1927, on or before the twenty-first day of February, 1941, on a signboard or nameplate exhibited on the premises in which he carries on business, or on his stationery made known by a simple statement to that effect that his business includes any such work.

I feel that there should be no reasonable objection to it. I think this particular amendment should have found its way into the Bill, and I can only say that the reason why it has not found its way into the Bill is that attention was not drawn to it in Select Committee. It was assumed, apparently, that the persons to whom my amendment refers, would be included, whereas as a matter of fact on the wording of the Bill as it now stands, they are not included. I carefully looked through the proceedings of the Select Committee, and although there was an accountant who gave evidence, no question was directed to him on the point I am now putting before the House. The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) has always been very strong on safeguarding the rights of anybody who, for a number of years, has done a thing without any hindrance from the law, and when a new law comes, to see that his existing rights are not taken away, and that is all I am asking for here. Hon. members will be surprised to hear that on the wording of the Bill as it now stands, a leading firm of chartered accountants in Cape Town like Close and Company, would no longer be able to put on their notepaper “Administrators of estates.” They have had that on their notepaper for nearly 50 years, during which time they have been administering estates. Accountants are preeminently people who look after the administration of estates, and this particular firm, like any other, may be handling estates under 40 or 50 wills, and this is a thing which has been going on for years. Owing to the wording of this Bill they will no longer be entitled to put on their notepaper any such words. There are exemptions in this clause, but they leave out accountants. I see one of the exceptions is any person who holds a broker’s licence or an agent’s licence on the 21st February, 1941. Such a person is exempted from the penal provision of this section, and I think it was assumed that every accountant would be under this exemption. As a matter of fact enquiries show they cannot take out an agent’s licence, because the Licensing Act of 1925 makes particular provision that such a licence need not be taken out by a number of persons, including accountants. Carefully looking through this section. I have come to the conclusion that what these people have done for 50 years, without any particular exception having been taken to it, they are no longer able to do, and I am sure that was not the intention of the Bill. This amendment of mine is moved without any hostility to the Bill itself. I have taken out advertising, they won’t be able to advertise, which they could do up till now, so that accountants who come under my amendment will have less given to them than those who come under (f), less given to them than are given to boards of executors and trust companies. I am doing that so as to remove any possible objection. I am confining this to those who exercised the right on or before 21st February, 1941. I have here some of the stationery that is used, and I see on all the letter paper and forms “Administrators of estates and trusts.” I say while it is quite right to give the attorneys the protection they are asking for in this law, it surely was never intended to interfere with the rights of people who have been carrying out a legitimate course of action for more than a third of a century. I hope, therefore, the House will have no objection to this amendment, which deals with a matter which I think has been overlooked by the Select Committee. It was never rejected by the Select Committee, because it was never brought to the attention of the committee. I quite agree that it should have been brought forward, and those who gave evidence should have brought it forward. I am now trying to supply that omission by putting it in the Bill.

I second.

I am sorry I cannot accept this amendment, which has only just been put before me. This Bill has now been considered for four years, and there are only one or two people involved. I cannot consider everybody, but I have tried to exempt people who will be affected by this Bill. It seems to me that if I accept all these amendments, I will eventually have no Bill at all, and the measure will be quite ineffective. I want the House to understand that the profession is asked to supply £250,000 for the protection of the public, and I think they are entitled to a little consideration. I hope the House will not accept the amendment.

Amendment put, and the House divided:

Ayes—22:

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Baines, A. C. V.

Blackwell, L.

Bowie, J. A.

Christopher, R. M.

Davis, A.

Dolley, G.

Henderson, R. H.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hooper, E. C Madeley, W. B.

Miles-Cadman. C. F

Oost, H.

Pocock, P. V.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Shearer, V. L.

Sutter, G. J.

Wares, A. P. J.

Tellers: J. G. Derbyshire and J. G. N. Strauss.

Noes—77:

Acutt, F. H.

Badenhorst, C. C. E.

Bekker, G.

Bekker, S.

Bell, R. E.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bosman, P. J.

Bowker, T. B.

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. H.

Conradie, J. M.

Deane, W. A.

De Wet, H. C.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Du Toit, R. J.

Friedlander, A.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Grobler, J. H.

Hare, W. D.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Howarth, F. T.

Hugo, P. J.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Lawrence, H. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Loubser, S. M

Louw, E. H.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Naudé, S. W.

Neate, C.

Nel, O. R.

Olivier, P. J.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Pirow, O.

Rood, K.

Schoeman, N. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Steyn, C. F.

Steyn, G. P.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, A. P.

Swart, C. R.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, C. J.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Merwe, H. V. d.

Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Vosloo, L. J.

Wallach, I.

Warren, S. E.

Wentzel, J. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: J. J. Haywood and P. O. Sauer.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

In clause 4,

Amendments in clause 4 up to line 31, page 6, put and agreed to.

On the motion of Mr. Trollip, seconded by Mr. Jackson, certain amendments were made in the Afrikaans version of clause 4 which did not occur in the English version.

I move—

I do not want to go into the whole question, because we discussed it here on a previous occasion. Unfortunately, distinction is again made in this Bill between chartered accountants and accounts belonging to the Institute of South Africa. When the hon. member for Pretoria, Central (Mr. Pocock), some time ago brought in a Bill, he failed to get it passed because the unfairness of the proposals was pointed out. Now we have a Bill before us which we should like to see on our Statute Book, but the hon. member is again drawing a dividing line between chartered accountants and accountants of the Institute. If the hon. member is prepared to accept the amendment, I shall not go into it any further, but if he does not I shall be obliged to put forward my arguments in support of my amendment.

I am unable to accept it.

I shall then be compelled to show the unfairness of this Bill in order to justify my amendment. I believe it was the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle (Mr. Alexander), who recently used the words that certain people had for fifty years enjoyed certain rights to compile certain documents, and that there was a movement afoot now to deprive them of those rights. We are going a great deal further now. We are now trying to cut out accountants who for many years have been doing certain types of work. The hon. member now wants to divide the accountants into two groups, and he wants to favour the one group over the other group. I think this is an unfair clause, and that being so we have to insist on accountants belonging to the Institute also having the right to do this work, and to insist that not only chartered accountants who have formed a group or a ring where they are not prepared to allow others to enter, will be allowed to do the work. I do not want to mention any accountants by name, but we are now going to cut out a group of people from the provisions of this Bill who for years have been doing this work, and who can be trusted. It is unfair to do that. We suspect that it is only the thin end of the wedge, in order later to come back again to the Bill which the hon. member for Pretoria, Central, introduced some time ago. Then they will probably rely on this Bill and say that a distinction is already made here between accountants of the Institute and others. I had hoped that the hon. member would accept my amendment. If he did so, we would be able to help him with his Bill, but if he does not do so he will have a lot of trouble in getting this clause passed. This Bill will have the result that a certain section of Afrikaans accountants will be cut out. The Institute of Accountants comprises a large number of Afrikaners who have tried over and over again to pass the examination, and if they fail to pass they never know why they have failed. Peculiarly enough, one gets more or less the same percentage of people passing every year, but if one asks why certain people have failed, one does not get a reply. That is the position, and that is particularly so in the Free State and the Transvaal. They do not even know what mistakes they have made, and why they have failed. Some of those people have had a great deal of experience. I want to make an appeal to the House to pass this amendment. I do not want to repeat all the arguments, but I make an appeal to the House,

I second the amendment.

I will deal shortly with the amendment of the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) because I think the House might be brought under a wrong impression as regards this question of qualified and unqualified accountants. I am sure when the hon. member for Mossel Bay realises what the true position is he will not proceed with his amendment. First of all, I want to point out that the section leaves the door open to persons who may hereafter become registered accountants and aduitors in terms of any Act. So that any person in future, who now belongs to any of these institutes, if he qualifies as an accountant, will come within the purview of this section.

They cannot qualify.

Oh, yes, they can. The second point I want to make is this, that this question of qualified and unqualified accountants is confined to a very narrow compass, if I might put it that way. Here we say that only accountants who are designated as such under the Act of 1927, can prepare memoranda and articles of association. It is not a question of taking away the livelihood of these so-called accountants who are affected by the amendment. All we say is that an exception should be made in the case of properly qualified accountants in that they should be permitted to draw memoranda and articles of association. For the hon. member to say that certain vested rights are being taken away is quite wrong.

Why the difference?

I shall explain it to the hon. member. I wish to explain briefly why there is this difference. The accountancy profession is controlled by four societies—the Transvaal, Free State, Natal and Cape Societies, of Chartered Accountants. These societies are all affiliated and their members are entitled to use the designation of chartered accountant. From time to time certain overseas bodies have opened branches in South Africa. Among them are (1) the Corporation of Accountants, Limited; (2) the London Society of Certified Accountants, Limited; and (3) the International Accountants Corporation. These are all foreign bodies and they have opened branches in South Africa. The South African societies have refused to recognise these bodies, being of opinion that their rules of admission to membership were not such as to ensure that their members had the necessary qualifications. In 1927 when the Accountant Designation Act was passed the promoters agreed to meet the case of certain hardships. I refer to the case of persons who did not belong to the societies and who were bona fide practising as accountants at that date, who were permitted to qualify themselves to become members of these chartered societies. That agreement became known as the “Pearce Agreement” and it allowed certain applicants to become members of the societies if they fulfilled certain conditions. One of the requirements was the passing of a set test to show that they possessed the adequate practical knowledge of accountancy and of auditing. Certain persons could not pass this test. What did they do? They registered an Institute which they called the Institute of Accountants of S.A., Ltd. That is perhaps the society with which the hon. member is most concerned. As I say, that society came into being as the result of certain people not being able to pass the test prescribed by the Chartered Society. So they formed their own society and the legitimate accountancy profession refused to recognise them and the Overseas Societies which I have mentioned. There is consequently no South African Society of Accountants other than the four I have referred to which has the same rigid standards entitling it to recognition on an equal footing with these four societies. I think it is contrary to the interests of the public and of the accountancy profession that this right contained in the clause under discussion should be extended in any way to unqualified persons. You have these overseas societies. It will open the door to these bodies over whose membership there is no control. We cannot say whether they are qualified or not. I suggest the hon. member should not press this amendment.

Are you not recognising certain others from overseas.

If they are chartered accountants and they qualify here. They must qualify here in order to become members of these societies in South Africa.

What if they have passed overseas examinations?

Here we have an Attorneys Bill in which we lay down certain things for the protection of the legal profession, and in this Bill we now seek, or rather the hon. member who moved this amendment, seeks to give rights to unqualified people. I submit that that would be quite incongruous in a Bill of this sort. The Bill seeks to protect a professional class and for us to relax and allow unqualified persons to share in certain benefits is quite wrong and would be a step in the wrong direction. I suggest the hon. member should not press his amendment.

The hon. member who has just sat down spoke of unqualified accountants, but the hon. member knows perfectly well that his reference was misplaced and that the accountants who belong to the South African Institute are just as well qualified as any other accountants. If the hon. member will take the trouble to enquire he will find that that is so, and that accountants of the Institute are employed by firms with a good reputation to do the same kind of work as is done by members of the Society of Chartered Accountants. There is no doubt that they are just as competent to do the work. Some time ago the hon. member for Pretoria, Central (Mr. Pocock) made an attempt to get a Bill passed which differentiated between the two classes of accountants in our country. He was unable to get that Bill passed because he met with opposition from all sides of the House. It was felt generally that it was not desirable to distinguish between the two classes. Now the chartered accountants want to reserve everything for themselves. They try by means of legislation to keep certain work for themselves, and a distinction is made here again between those two societies. I want to ask the hon. member who is responsible for the Bill to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop). If he does not accept it he must expect opposition from this side of the House. It is ridiculous to come and contend that the one class of accountants is not qualified. I have a letter here which I do not want to quote because I do not want to take up too much of the time of the House, but this letter was sent by the Department of Defence, and in this letter the South African Institute is recognised as an Institute of Accountants of repute. They are doing the work in connection with that department. Would they engage people who are not qualified? Does the hon. member want to contend that the Minister of Defence engages unqualified accountants to do the work of the Defence Department? No, it seems to me that the hon. member has been told what to say here, and I am making an appeal to him to accept this amendment. We want to support the Bill, but we ask the hon. member not to make this unjust distinction between the two societies. If he accepts the amendment we shall be satisfied and we shall be able to support the Bill.

I support the amendment of the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop). The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Trollip) tried to explain the position, and I do not object to what he said, but he only took the matter halfway. If there is anyone who should know something about the Accountancy Act of 1927 it is I, because I introduced that Bill. But that Bill dealt with accountancy work and not with lawyer’s work, it did not deal with the drafting of deeds and the work of companies. That Bill contemplated granting certain accountants the title of chartered accountants on account of the fact that in those days we did not have such people in South Africa as chartered accountants, and certain foreign companies and business firms had inserted a condition in their articles of association that their books could only be checked and audited by chartered accountants. Consequently the accountants of South Africa could not do that work, and it was almost impossible for anyone in South Africa to obtain the title of chartered accountant. As a result the South African accountants lost that work owing to their not being chartered accountants, although they were just as competent as any imported accountant. It was because of that that we introduced a Bill to be able to grant our people here in South Africa the title of chartered accountants, so that they could practice as chartered accountants and would be able to compete on an equal basis with the accountants from overseas, but it was by no means the intention to, in future, place those chartered accountants in a favoured position in respect of certain work which is not the work of accountants. We have a Bill here which deals with the work of accountants, not with the auditing of books, not with the ordinary work which a chartered accountant or a bookkeeper has to do, but a Bill which almost exclusively is concerned with attorneys’ work. Now the hon. member comes along and he wants part of the attorneys’ work to be reserved also for a certain section of accountants. What is the work? According to (c) it is this, to draft or to prepare any memorandum or statute of agreement or prospectus of a company. That work is now kept out. It can only be done by attorneys and nobdy else, with the exception of certain people, namely, chartered accountants. They will also now be able to do that particular work on payment of fees. Now I ask the hon. member’ whether it is accountancy work. Not at all. It is attorneys work, and if that work is taken away from the attorneys and other people are allowed to do it, why then just select one class of accountants for the work, accountants who bear the title of “chartered”. There are other people who can do the work just as well. It is not accountants work, it is not the specialised work of accountants, and it is not only the chartered accountants who can do that work well. As a matter of fact it is the type of work which anyone with a little experience can do perfectly well. Now he wants to cut out other accountants who have had many years of experience. Let us for the sake of argument assume for a moment that the accountants who are not chartered are not as good accountants as those who are chartered, and that the title “chartered” is proof of special ability, ability in accountancy and auditing work and not in attorneys work. The hon. member has to agree that this type of work is special attorneys’ work, and then everybody should be excluded, and he will have to say that it is the type of work which accountants should do, but if he says that then I seriously object to his wanting to confine it to certain accountants. I fail to see why the hon. member wants to delay the passage of this Bill, why he wants to make it difficult and to hinder it by coming here with this provision. There is a long list of various kinds of work which can only be done by attorneys, but now he makes certain exceptions and those exceptions are mentioned in clause 4, and they include—

Such a document he is allowed to draft. I have not yet heard any argument by hon. members opposite to tell us why the exception should be confined to one class of accountants. The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Trollip) said that there were four, but those four are only one. There are four societies in the different provinces, but all of them come under the same rules and the same Act. I want to make an appeal to the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) and I ask him in the interest of this Bill to agree to the amendment being inserted. By refusing to accept it he is not rendering any service to the legal profession. They will suffer if this Bill is wrecked and we do not see our way clear to pass it if the hon. member does not agree to this amendment. The whole starting point of this Bill is that this class of work and also the class of work mentioned under paragraph (c), namely, memoranda or deeds of agreement, or company prospectuses … the starting point is that that is work which should be done by qualified attorneys. It is a reasonable argument, but when the hon. member comes along with exceptions then we say that he has to be careful. If we once give in on the principle of exceptions we must ask ourselves why this particular class should be excepted and not other classes as well. If the hon. member admits, as he does here, that agreements, Statutes, and company prospectuses may also be drafted by other people who have experience of these matters, then we say that this work should not be confined to a particular class as this Bill is doing, but that the right should also be given to others. I again ask the hon. member to accept the amendment. It will remove an injustice which is now being committed in the Bill as it stands.

I also want to ask the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) to give this matter his serious attention. I listened to the remarks of the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Trollip) and I do not agree with what he said, that certain people who have not got the necessary qualifications can now be included. He mentioned certain objections and, inter alia, he said that people coming from overseas were in such a position that we had no control over their qualifications. I pertinently asked what control we have in this country to be sure that people who qualify overseas will have the necessary qualifications. We have no control. We insist on protection being given to people who are employed in practice, and to cover cases where certain people are allowed to slip in we ask the hon. member to accept this amendment.

In consequence of what the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) has said, and the difficulties which he anticipates, I shall accept the amendment. I hope that is enough.

Now your Bill will go through.

I am very sorry indeed to hear this announcement from the hon. member behind me (Mr. Nel). I consider, sir, that this is a breach of faith, a breach of the arrangement that has been made, and under which this Bill came through. We know perfectly well that pressure has been brought to bear in order to allow certain unqualified people to get certain privileges out of this Bill. The hon. member has now accepted an amendment which, if it had been submitted before this Bill got to this stage, it would never have got to the stage it has to-day. He has accepted this now at the last minute under pressure from the other side of the House. There has been a controversy for very many years on the question of allowing certain persons to continue to practise as accountants. We know perfectly well that during the last year or two we have encountered certain opposition in efforts which have been made to put the accountants’ profession on a proper basis, from a very small coterie of accountants in this particular province. It has not affected the rest of the Union, but it particularly affects a section down here, and now the hon. member, in deference to this section, has accepted this amendment, and by doing that he is going back on an arrangement which was made with those of us who agreed to support this Bill.

What right have chartered accountants to claim this?

The chartered accountants don’t claim any more than certain attorneys have any right to claim this particular work. The hon. member has asked, in this Bill, for certain privileges for attorneys, which in the ordinary way they have no more claim to than any other section of the community. They are claiming to be put into a privileged position. The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle (Mr. Alexander), was designed to protect qualified accountants and to allow them to put on their notepaper the statement that they were doing this work. Hon. members opposite voted against that amendment, and now they propose to give the right to people to do things which they really have no particular claim or right to do.

They have been doing that all the while.

If you are consistent, why did you vote against the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle, which was designed to preserve the right which qualified accountants have got? The accountants which his amendment aimed to protect have become qualified by membership of the Chartered Society. These other people can do the same. Hon. members opposite talk as if they are kept out of the profession, but nothing of the sort. They can become qualified by passing the necessary examination and becoming members of the Chartered Society. There is no more jealous preserve in this country than the legal profession, and that profession is taking steps to preserve for itself certain work, which has been done by other sections of this country. I can tell this House now that had it not been for Part 2 of this Bill, which gives an infinitely greater measure of protection to the public, this Bill would never have seen daylight. It is because we felt that the people of this country were entitled to a greater measure of protection because of certain things that have happened in the profession, that we supported this Bill, and allowed it to get as far as it has. The second portion of the Bill provides security for the public, and had it not been for that the Bill would never have been supported. You are now wanting to admit under this Bill people who are practising in another profession, without having the full qualifications and giving them the same rights as persons who are properly qualified. I say that is unfair. These people will not be able to carry this on in the Transvaal and Natal because they are not qualified, they cannot practise in the Transvaal or in Natal, but now you are introducing another hybrid section into this Bill, and allowing unqualified people to do this work. I hope the majority of the House will vote against this amendment, because it is unfair to those of us who supported the Bill.

I must say that after my temporary absence from the House I was astonished to hear about the acceptance of this amendment. I wonder when the hon. member (Mr. Nel) made up his mind to accept this amendment? Had he an arrangement to accept it before he came into the House, because if he did I cannot understand his opposition to the amendment which I moved. It puts this Bill into a most illogical position now. Chartered accountants who have had their status recognised in this House are forbidden to put on the paper which they use the fact that they administer estates, a title which they have had without any intermission for some 50 years. They are qualified men who have been protected by Act of Parliament, but the hon. member did not see his way to accept any protection for these men. Now he accepts an amendment on a clause very much more important, which entitles people to draw up documents similar to those drawn up by attorneys, and he accepts these very vague words “practising accountant”. What is a practising accountant? It does not say a qualified accountant. A barrister has to be admitted by the Supreme Court. A practising accountant need not be admitted by anybody, he can put a notice outside his door that he is an accountant, and on these words the hon. member accepts the amendment, and these people will be allowed to draw up documents the same as any attorney. Was there ever any such gross inconsistency shown by any member in charge of a Bill? I am astounded, absolutely astounded. He refused to protect a body of men recognised by their qualifications, and others who have not got the qualifications conferred upon them get protection under this amendment. I say that is gross inconsistency. The hon. member has been known as the protector of existing rights, and here he is blotting out existing rights, and conferring privileges on people who have no existing rights. I shall be surprised if the House does not reject this amendment, in spite of his acceptance.

Question put: That the words, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Bill.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—56:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Baines, A. C. V.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Blackwell, L.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Collins, W. R.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Faure, P. A. B.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hayward, G. N.

Henderson, R. H.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Klopper, L. B.

Madeley, W. B.

Molteno, D. B.

Neate, C.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pocock, P. V.

Reitz, D.

Rood, K.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Sutter, G. J.

Trollip, A. E.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van d. Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Tellers: J. G. Derbyshire and J. W. Higgerty.

Noes—36:

Bekker, G.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bosman, P. J.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

De Bruyn, D. A. S.

Du Toit, C. W. M.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Grobler, J. H.

Hugo, P. J.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Nel, O. R.

Olivier, P. J.

Oost, H.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Schoeman, B. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, A. P.

Swart, C. R.

V. d. Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Nierop, P J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Vosloo, L. J.

Wentzel, J. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: J. J. Haywood and P. O. Sauer.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment proposed by Dr. Van Nierop dropped.

In Clause 5,

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

In Clause 6,

I move:

seconded.

Agreed to

In Clause 9,

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

In Clause 10,

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Amendment in line 49 of Clause 10 put and negatived.

In Clause 12,

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Amendments in Clauses 18 and 19 put and agreed to.

In Clause 21,

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

In Clause 22,

Amendment in Clause 22, line 67, put and agreed to.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Remaining amendments in Clause 22 and the amendments in Clause 23 put and agreed to.

In Clause 26,

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Amendments in Clauses 26 and 27 put and agreed to.

In Clause 30,

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

I move the amendment standing in my name—

This clause deals with the position which arises if the funds are insufficient to adjust certain claims in which case the balance can be charged against future contributions. I want to ask this House to be reasonable here. We are now establishing a fund which may amount to £250,000, and I do not think it is right and fair in the event of there being no money in the fund that we should charge future amounts which will be paid into the fund. I do not think the principle is sound. I do not think it is sound to place a burden on funds which may be established in future. If there is a debt or a judgment of the court the right thing to do is to pay pro rata out of the available funds in the same way as is done in an insolvent estate; but to encumber any future fund, or in other words to place a burden on a man who is going to be an attorney in days to come, and who joins the fund, and to make him bear debts which have been incurred in the past, or to pay for judgments given in the past, is unsound. I do not think it is fair. By establishing this fund the attorneys are proving their bona fides to the public. The attorneys want to guarantee the public against losses, but if there are no funds how in all fairness can we charge the fund in respect of amounts to be paid in in days to come? I hope the hon. member will accept my amendment.

I second.

I am sorry I cannot accept this amendment. It emasculates the whole fabric of the Bill. You pretend to give the public security and yet if this amendment is accepted you are not giving the public what you pretend to give. The object is to protect the public, and if there are not sufficient funds to meet any defalcations then in future that remains a debt which provision is made to meet.

Amendment put and negatived.

Amendment in Clause 32 put and agreed to.

In Clause 33,

I move my amendment—

I want to explain again that what is contained in this clause is not fair. The clause provides that in certain cases contributions may be refunded to attorneys, notaries or conveyancers. If an attorney has paid in and he dies, or if he resigns from the society, the money he has paid in, provided there is money in the fund, may be refunded to him. A clear distinction is made because it states that the money may be paid out, but it leaves an opening for differentiation and not every attorney is going to be treated on the same basis. I do not think it is fair to differentiate and to favour one attorney over the next. The one man will be favoured and the next one will not be treated in the same way. One may get an attorney whose estate may be quite strong financially, and the Law Society may say: “We are not going to pay out because we do not think it necessary,” but in the case of another attorney whose estate is weak they may pay out. In that way there will be a differentiation between one member of the profession and another. I hope the hon. member will accept my amendment. The hon. member will say: “How can we pay out if there are no funds?” I have made provision for that in my amendment. The Board of Control will pay out provided there are funds, but under my amendment they will not be allowed to differentiate between the one attorney and the other. I feel that this is a reasonable amendment, but if the House is not prepared to accept it I will withdraw it.

I am sorry, but I am unable to accept the amendment. I think it is unnecessary and there is no need for me to say any more about it.

With leave of the House, the amendment was withdrawn.

Amendment in Clause 38 put and agreed to.

In Clause 40,

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.

Amendments in Clause 41 put and agreed to, and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

Bill read a third time.

When business was suspended yesterday I was engaged on refreshing the Minister’s memory on the subject of what actually took place in regard to the Minister’s conversation with the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman). The hon. the Minister tried to tell the House that it was a private conversation, but I made it clear that this conversation took place in a tearoom in the presence of five or six people who heard what took place. There was nothing private about it, and I feel that the Minister’s objection is unreasonable. Now I also want to make an appeal to the Minister to give his serious attention to our amendment. We are anxious to have the best possible legislation we can get, and the Minister realises as well as I do that once this Bill is passed we are not going to have another opportunity in the near future to make any improvements. That being so I feel it is essential to refer this matter to a Select Committee. We are anxious to help the Minister and I think it would be better if he were to accept our amendment. He may perhaps want to refer it to a Select Committee after the second reading, but if that is done he will be unable to make any important amendments without first bringing the matter before this House. For these reasons I ask him in all seriousness to consider the question. (Extension of time granted.) There is just one other matter which I wish to place before the House, and I shall be brief. The Law itself provides for any individual who wants to have a factory registered to have this done by an inspector. In this Bill there is no provision for a Registrar of Factories. In view of the fact that there are already such a large number of factories and that their numbers are continually being added to, it is essential that we should have a registrar of factories so that there may be an office to undertake this work and to look after registration. It will then be easy for one to obtain the necessary certificates and it will lead to uniformity throughout the country. I also feel this, and with these remarks I shall conclude, that while great expansion of industry is taking place, and in view of the fact that I have objections to the inspectors being burdened with so many duties imposed on them by this Bill, in those circumstances there should be a body to control the inspectors, and the best way of arranging these matters is to establish a body, whether it be an Industrial Board or a Factory Board or whatever it may be. Such a body should control the inspectors and it could also advise the Minister, and furthermore, it could deal with appeals. The Minister will agree that when such large powers are entrusted to the inspectors in connection with the construction of factories, health measures and all the rest of it, it is desirable that we should have such an impartial body. I do not want to say any more except again to ask the Minister to give his serious consideration to our proposal to refer this Bill to a Select Committee before the second reading.

Before the Minister gets up to reply to this debate I should like to state that my party is going to support him. We are going to vote against the amendment. The simple reason for that is that we want this Bill to go through and we know full well that if this amendment is adopted the Bill will not go through this year, and it may never go through. That is the reason. We want the Minister to get the Bill through this year. Provided, however, that the Minister in the reply he is going to give us, will give an undertaking that the controller of labour will not exercise his dictatorial powers to such a degree and extent that the Bill will be a dead letter for the duration of the war …. if that is the case we might as well vote for the amendment. Of course, the Minister will understand that we do not agree with all the details of the Bill. The hon. member for Vrededorp (Mrs. C. C. E. Badenhorst) has pointed out and the hon. member for Germiston, North (Mr. Quinlan) has also pointed out that we want certain amendments, and I myself received a wire a few seconds ago from an industry I am interested in—the Marble industry—to this effect—

That is a point which can be arranged in Committee, and I hope the Minister will give us full opportunity of putting these matters right. The main thing is that we would like a definite statement from the Minister about the controller of labour in connection with this Bill, so far as war time is concerned. I hope with these few words I have made the position perfectly clear.

I am in a very peculiar position to-day. I look back over my life and I remember that I have been a voice crying in the wilderness—a very lone one, generally the object of condemnation, and often the object of derision. During the last few days I have been blushingly receiving the plaudits of members all over— members on this side of the House have been most enthusiastic, and even the ranks of Tuscany could scarce forbear to cheer, although they also did their best to hurt. And I want to thank my hon. friend over there for giving me his promise of support on behalf of his party, which promise is in turn an endorsement of the promise already given by the hon. member for Germiston, North (Mr. Quinlan)—with the same proviso attached—namely, that I have to give an undertaking that the Controller of Labour will not be allowed to vitiate this Bill and make it a dead letter for the period of the war. That undertaking can be given. There will be occasions—I do not want to be too sweeping—when, owing to war conditions, some modifications will have to be made. I think the hon. member will appreciate that, and I think the whole of his party will, but the gentleman who is Controller of Labour is also Secretary for Labour, and when I inform the House, and particularly my friend over there, that in effect this is the Secretary for Labour’s baby, he will realise that there will have to be tremendous pressure brought to bear on him.

I hope he will not overlie the baby.

No, he is more likely to suckle it. Now I at once want to get to the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw). I am interested to notice the concern which the hon. member for Beaufort West has suddenly evidenced for the standard of morality for Ministers, the elevation of their outlook, or the retention of their outlook upon their responsibilities. It is unusual for the hon. member for Beaufort West to take up that attitude. He now seeks to impose upon us a code. I am delighted to hear it.

A “Louw” code.

No, he accuses me of bringing the high code low, and now “Louw” is going to be high. I appreciate it. The whole of the House will fall down and worship him for having at this time of day read me a homily, and, incidentally, through me he has read all other Ministers a homily as to what their conduct should be in relation to the rest of the House. We are delighted. And what has he built it on? He made an accusation. I think these are his words, that I had misled the House. It is a thing which ill becomes a Minister. That I had misled the House.

Deliberately.

No, he did not say that, but the insinuation was that I had consciously and deliberately misled the House. I did not mislead the House, either deliberately or unconsciously. I did not mislead the House at all. What was the position? Hon. members can bear me out. I asked the permission of the House as an unopposed motion to withdraw the original Bill. In a casual sort of way the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) said something—he wanted to know why it was being withdrawn.

He asked whether any principles were affected.

Whether any principles were being changed.

I do not think he said that.

Look at Hansard.

Well, be that as it may, what I am referring to is the assurance I am supposed to have given. The hon. member casually asked me something.

I stood up.

Well, it was very casual. And to show how I regarded it, I made a jocular reference; I said I had applied my expert knowledge of Afrikaans to that Bill, and I had discovered numerous discrepancies in the translation. Is that not so?

And for that reason you wanted a new Bill.

But the hon. member said that I gave an assurance that there was nothing else. Does any hon. member remember me giving that assurance?

No.

Certainly not. As usual, the case built up on a very flimsy foundation falls to the ground. The case built up is the result of the hon. member’s own invention. I gave no such assurance.

You did.

And in point of fact I had not even thought of such amendments as were subsequently introduced in the Bill at the time I withdrew the old one, and, what is more, I strained every nerve, I used every argument to prevent the withdrawal of the Bill. I did not want that Bill withdrawn for the simple reason that I did not want the Bill to be delayed, but when it was pointed out to me that these amendments were so numerous—those mistakes—

I thought it was your expert knowledge.

Does not the hon. member understand a jocular remark? Does he not understand humour? Humour is humour in any language.

Yes, but you do not understand Afrikaans.

You put up a smokescreen.

My friend is an adept at that, and it is peculiar how hon. members on the other side always examine another man’s conduct from their own particular point of view—from the line they themselves would pursue. And, sir, I want to assure the hon. member, as I assure the House, although no such assurance is necessary. I by no means align myself with the conduct of the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw). I listened very attentively to the hon. member, I allowed him to lay his charges, baseless charges, without one word of interjection, and what is he afraid of now? I hope he will subside now and permit me to reply to the charges he made against me.

I will reply to you in the Committee stage.

You can do that if you like, but don’t keep on interrupting now. These are the facts, sir. The hon. member rung in the Prime Minister; he said the Prime Minister had intervened an had brought pressure to bear upon me as a result of certain interviews, that he had brought pressure upon me to make these amendments, and the insinuation was that the necessity for making those amendments caused the withdrawal of the Bill. Well, sir, the right hon. the Prime Minister has not said one single word to me since the introduction of the Bill until this afternoon.

He was away.

Most of the time he was away, but there were opportunities for the right hon. gentleman to have spoken to me. It only shows you how carelessly these people handle situations, I won’t say handle the truth, in order to score.

What about the assurance you gave me?

I had intended, Mr. Speaker, to ignore entirely—

I thought so.

To ignore entirely the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman). I have had three experiences of the hon. gentleman’s peculiar code, and may I suggest to the hon. member for Beaufort West that he should turn his pellucid, crystal gaze to a nearer prospect, the one behind him; he has only got to turn his head, and endeavour to induce hon. members there to accept the guidance of his code of conduct.

[Inaudible.]

Once again you are saying that; that is a caddish thing to say.

Order!

He says I am saying something untruthful, and so I am wrong and he is right. Sir, I cannot sit down under that, but I am prepared, in view of the fact that others have taken up that same claim; they say that they were there, and I accept their word. The hon. member, the last speaker, is one who was present. In the first place, sir, what did I object to? I objected to lobby conversations being brought into this House, not private individual conversations, but lobby conversations. It is an unwritten law in this House that you do not bring your lobby conversation, or anything built up upon lobby conversation, into this House. Not that I am afraid of anything I may have said, because I will deal with the actual facts in a moment. Whether there were four, five or twenty present, the principle is precisely the same, and you do not pursue any conversation of that character right to its logical conclusion. In this House you do, sir; you pursue it to its logical conclusion in so far as you yourself are able to obtain logicality. That is the main reason, the other is that oftentimes an incorrect or loose expression slips out. There was no incorrect expression on this particular occasion. What happened was this. As I was passing a table where there were, I won’t say how many, probably half a dozen present, of whom the hon. member for Fordsburg was one, the hon. member for Fordsburg said: “I hear that you are withdrawing the segregation clause,” and I said, in passing, “I am not.” Then I felt that what I said might be capable of misrepresentation, so I turned back to him and I said: “I am withdrawing that clause, but I am inserting it in another form in another part of the Bill.”

That is not so.

That is so. I came back deliberately to the hon. member.

It is not so.

The hon. member must accept the Minister’s explanation.

I don’t accept the hon. Minister’s explanation.

The hon. member must accept it.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is all very well that an hon. member must accept somebody else’s word if he was not present himself, but if he was present himself he has the same knowledge.

It is the settled practice of the House that whatever a member says in explanation must be taken as true.

If the Minister’s word is to be accepted then the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) also has the right to claim that his word be accepted by the Minister.

I have stated the practice of the House.

On a point of order, must not the Minister accept the word of the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) ?

It is the word of the hon. the Minister which is doubted.

Pardon me, may I put it in this way. The Minister said that he did not accept the word of the hon. member for Fordsburg. Is not the Minister compelled to accept the word of the hon. member for Fordsburg?

I have already given my ruling.

That is as it happened. I will deal with my attitude on the question of segregation presently. That is precisely what happened, and on both counts I claim from the House that I did precisely what I ought to do. I now propose to deal with some of the objections to this Bill. As I say, there was a chorus of approval from this side of the House, and the extraordinary part about it was that hon. members on that side of the House were doing their utmost to outbid this side of the House, to outbid them in what respect? In their touting for the votes of the workers.

You are doing the same thing.

No, that shows the carelessness with which these people handle situations, when the hon. member is prepared to interject a thing like that. I am prepared to face the workers, I am prepared to face the workers on this Bill in its entirety, and I have done so. Not only am I prepared to face them, but I have been in the closest consultation with representative men of the trades union movement on this question, and as I informed this House when I introduced the Bill, they have accepted it with all its provisions. Some of them are capable of amendment, and that will probably be done. But in the main, sir, the provisions of this Bill are what I may call the greatest common denominator, and I am not going to wreck the Bill because of the efforts on the part of hon. members on that side of the House to outbid it. I take leave to suspect that they are not so much concerned with improving the condition of the workers beyond what we are providing for in this Bill, as they are concerned in actually wrecking the Bill, and the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Warren) wound up their attack, by indicating in no uncertain way that that underlay their criticism of the Bill, and the attitude they are adopting.

Did he actually say that?

No, he did not say so, but he gave the game away.

In what way?

The hon. member started off by moving an amendment to the Bill, to send it to a Select Committee before the second reading. What was the intention behind that?

To get decent legislation.

The hon. member is determined, and he is sure of the unanimous support of his party in the process, to send the Bill to a Select Committee before the second reading, when the Bill could be licked into any shape you liked. The hon. member knows quite well, because he has had sufficient parliamentary experience, and hon. members generally on that side have had that experience, they know that the reference to a Select Committee at this stage means the death of the Bill. And, sir, knowing that justifies me in charging them with the intention of wrecking the Bill. Within the framework of this Bill, if they are sincere in their desire to improve it, they have every opportunity in the Committee stage to do so, and I shall view with the utmost interest, sir, their efforts in the direction of improving this Bill in the interests of the workers. One other reason for referring this to a Select Committee was given by the hon. member, and that was that it is a badly drafted Bill. Now, is he speaking as a lawyer or as a man? I notice, much to my pleasure, that hon. members on this side of the House whom the Opposition have been sneering at all through this debate, legal men and employers have taken up the stand that this is an excellently framed Bill. There is a great difference of opinion between the two sides of the House, and on this side the opinion is genuine. That is all I shall say with regard to that. Sir, I do not propose to send the Bill to a Select Committee before the second reading on the vague charge that it is a badly framed Bill. I want to assure the hon. gentlemen opposite that it is one of the best-framed Bills that has ever been brought into this House. You may disagree with that.

Who framed it?

We have spoilt your frame-up, and are countering your bad frame-up by refusing to send it to Select Committee. Now let me get down to the main bone of contention. They claim that I have abandoned the segregation clause.

So you have.

What is meant by segregation? They interpret it one way and I another. I ventured, in a diffident sort of way, to interrupt an hon. member over there who accused me of supporting segregation at one time. I corrected him and said that what I wanted was separation, and then hon. members over there asked what is the difference. Well, there is one big difference, quite apart from any meaning we may read into it, and that is the psychological effect upon those whom it may affect. I took a line of policy, and amongst other things I consulted natives’ representatives on that particular point, when I evolved the policy, or my party evolved the policy, and it was put to me most emphatically that the word “segregation” in the minds of the natives connoted barbed-wire entanglements. [Interruptions.] I am merely giving you the history, and you may gird at it as much as you like. That was sufficient for me, whether it is for hon. members over there or not, to prefer the word separation to segregation. What hon. members over there mean by segregation as applied to this Bill is complete shutting out from industry of coloured and natives, leaving them nowhere to go and giving them no consideration as to their future, letting them go where they can and die of starvation so they are not allowed in industry. The hon. members opposite are as much responsible for the advent into industry of natives and coloured as anybody else in South Africa, and they have got equally to shoulder the responsibility for it. The coloured and the natives are with us, you encouraged them into industry, and they have every right to expect that they shall be maintained in industry. Are you prepared to lay down a standard rate of pay? That is the real test. Are you prepared to pay the standard rate of pay for work done, irrespective of the individual who is doing it?

No cheers from over there.

I am challenging you. You have no right in trying to deliver a knock-down blow to this, that and the other person, including myself, to take one part of a policy and wrap your language around that when it might be considerably modified and explained by the rest of the policy. I never had the intention in this Bill of instituting complete segregation of the natives and the coloured from industry.

Nobody ever accused you of that.

I am trying to show my hon. friends opposite the operations of my mind in relation to this clause.

It is so involved we could never follow it.

I know my hon. friend has not reached that standard yet. When they have finished interrupting I will proceed. The fact is that their idea of segregation is wiping the native and the coloured out of industry, and my idea is entirely different.

It is not our idea. We made that quite plain.

Over and over again all through their speeches they have wrung our withers with harrowing tales of European girls sitting side by side, cheek by jowl was the expression used by one hon. member, with natives, eating out of the same basket. Now it is just precisely that that I want to prevent, that is what we want to prevent.

They want exclusion.

Well, if they don’t want exclusion they were not at great pains to explain that to us. If they want separation the fact remains that I can do exactly that; if that is all you want I can do exactly that with the amendments I have got.

You just try it and see.

I can do it, sir, without hurting any feelings.

Tell that to the marines.

I can do that, and it is precisely the object I have in view, and in order to meet the situation that might result from the wording of that clause, namely, hurt feelings, I have withdrawn that clause and inserted in the regulations the power to do it. So if that is what they want they will get it. If they are not satisfied with this I have every right to suspect that that is not all they want.

Give us a definite assurance.

I gave the assurance that that was my object. That is what I wanted to attain, and I am assured that the present clause in the Bill secures to me the power to bring about such a state of affairs, and I propose to do it. I am as averse as any other hon. member in this House to placing European girls and native men in contiguity in factories.

And coloured?

I am very glad the hon. member has interjected “coloured” because I think it was the hon. member for Namaqualand (Lt.-Col. Booysen) who was very much concerned about the girls he saw sitting around Botha’s statue out here eating their grub. I am very pleased to notice the intense interest taken by the hon. member for Namaqualand in the coloured people. It is indicative of the march of time when hon. members on that side are beginning to see some glimmerings of the necessity for some consideration being given for their fellowpeople in South Africa, even though they may be coloured or black. Now that has been exercising the minds of hon. members over there, and a good many on this side, is the tremendous power of exemption given to the Minister in the final clause. [Interruptions.]

I must ask hon. members not to continue these interruptions.

The hon. member for Jeppe (Mrs. Bertha Solomon) forthrightly said that these tremendous powers of exemption are unprecedented. Well, these powers of exemption are already in the present Act, although I must confess they are not so wide. Let me explain this to the House. We are now taking under the purview of the Factories Bill tremendously wide manufacturing ramifications. We are taking in organised institutions and small manufacturing concerns which were not touched by the Factories Act before, and quite honestly I want to throw myself on the mercy of the House when I say we don’t know all the implications of it. It is therefore only reasonable that the Minister should have powers of exemption, at all events in the initial stages of legislation of this description, in order to temper the wind to the shorn lamp. I do admit that I have had a tremendous amount of uneasiness myself at some of these things, and I propose to ease my unease by asking the Committee, when we get to the Committee stage, to agree to one or two deletions. For instance, I don’t intend, with the consent of the Committee, of course, to allow the question of hours to be at the tender mercy of any Minister who may be in power. I am quite prepared to shoulder that responsibility myself because I know how it will be administered, but I do not know how it will be administered in the vague possibility of hon. members on that side coming into power. Certainly I do think that the power to vary the 46 hours should not lie in the hands of any Minister, and I am going to propose to delete that exemption. I am also asked to delete this power of exemption with reference to holidays. I don’t propose to make a promise on that point, but the matter is under consideration, and I hope to be able to make an announcement in the Committee stage. I want to refer just for a moment to this colour bar. Hon. members opposite claim that when they were in power they introduced a Colour Bar Bill, which became law.

Along with you.

Yes, along with me, but that was not a Colour Bar Bill at all. It was the Mines and Works Act, and natives and coloured people were deprived of the right to have a blasting certificate, and I think an engine driver’s certificate. They were debarred by regulation, and not by the Act itself. That operated for years, and then suddenly it was contested; a Mr. Hildick Smith, I think, took action against the Government on the point and won the case, and this Bill that you are talking about as being a Colour Bar Bill was introduced to regularise the old regulation. And they lightened it, they did not make it a colour bar, because they allowed coloured people, Creoles and Mauritians, and therefore there was no colour bar about it. Whatever gratification you may derive from having passed the Colour Bar Bill seems to have fallen to the ground on an examination of the facts. Now I am criticised, not criticised as much as appealed to from there, on the fact that there is no minimum wage laid down in this Factory Bill—nor is there in any Factory Bill. It is not the place for a minimum wage. I wish it were. I take second place to no one in my desire to have a minimum wage and that on a standard which will provide a happy life, but you cannot introduce it in a Factory Act.

Why not?

Because you don’t. I shall deal with that. And the same applies to sick leave. If the House will remember, when the Shops and Offices Bill was before Parliament we, the Labour Party, on our part sought to introduce sick leave provisions in that Bill and we found we could not do it, not because there was no desire on the part of the Government of the day to do it but because it could not be done. Sick leave is part of what was rightly put up by one hon. member—it is part of a general Health Insurance Act and these matters will be considered by this Government, and in due course, will be laid before this House.

Why cannot you introduce a minimum wage?

This is another form of criticism which demonstrates the complete failure of members on that side of the House to understand the Labour movement. They think that by yelling these things they are going to capture the workers. I am a trade unionist; I cannot forget it to-day, and I am jealous not only of the rights but also of the responsibilities of trade unionism, and I am satisfied that it is a dangerous thing from a trade union point of view to wet-nurse too much the trade unions and give them too much by legislation. I would rather see strong trade unions built up which can negotiate with their employers on an equal basis. And that is demonstrated by the tremendous success which has attended our Industrial Council Legislation. And that brings me to another point. Why does not this Bill supercede at once all Industrial Council agreements where those Industrial Council agreements are not as good as the provisions of the Act? I have to say in reply to that that no industrial agreement is designed to last longer than twelve months. All of them are current, and in a short space of time they will have expired and no industrial agreement subsequent to those expiring, no new Industrial Agreement will be allowed by me to be gazetted unless it incorporates basically the provisions laid down in this Act. So why fash yourself about it? I am sorry to hold up the House, but I shall not be very long now. That particular portion of the Bill which applies it to the Crown has met with universal approval on this side of the House. I have received very few representations from that side. I assume when there is anything to approve of they are not very vocal. But I have been criticised for it not applying to the Railways. I thought I dealt fully with it. It was to apply to the Railways, but owing to the many complexities of that organism we found it impossible to apply it at once without further consideration, and a committee has been appointed and is already in being, going into the whole question—not with a view whether it should be applied; it is accepted as a principle that it shall be applied, but how far and in what manner it shall be applied. Even if it is not applied as it should be I shall come back to it and see what can be done. Now I have very little more to say with regard to this Bill because I think I have answered most criticisms which have been directed to it. I want to thank the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop); singular as it may seem to be, but he was the only one on that side to put forward any constructive criticism on this matter, and I wish to express my gratitude. I thank the hon. members here who threw away their opportunities for speaking, especially those hon. members who represent industrial districts. In their case silence is also service, and I want to express my gratitude to them for having restrained themselves and for giving me the opportunity to reply. I also want to thank hon. members over there who spoke in English, especially the pellucid member for Beaufort West (Mr. E. Louw). I am reminded that I have not dealt with these maternity matters. I was told that I would be held responsible for all maternity cases by one hon. member. That was rather a suggestive remark which I do not accept at all. The increase in maternity benefits will be welcome, and I was very grateful to hear the chorus of welcome which was extended to that provision. In this connection I want to thank the hon. member for Vrededorp (Mrs. C. C. E. Badenhorst) for her kindly support. She has earned the execration of her erstwhile friends because of her representation to me, and her gratitude. I am very pleased she has done so. The hon. member for Jeppe (Mrs. Bertha Solomon) was very much concerned with the maternity benefits. Other members have urged that the 25/- maximum is not sufficient. Well, I propose to go into that matter very carefully and to see whether it is possible to remove that as a maximum. I quite agree that that is the time when a woman wants as much money as she can get. Even when she is working, and getting full pay she is getting little enough. In view of the fact and in view of her added financial responsibilities when she is ill from having had a child we have to do our best to give her as much as we can. That matter will be under consideration though I cannot make any definite promises now. I think I have dealt pretty well with all the criticisms which have been raised, and I now move the second reading.

Question put: That all the words after “That”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—73:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Badenhorst, C. C. E.

Baines, A. C. V.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Blackwell, L.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Collins, W. R.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

De Kock, A. S.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Faure, P. A. B.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henderson, R. H.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Moll, A. M.

Neate, C.

Nel, O. R.

Oost, H.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pocock, P. V.

Reitz, D.

Rood, K.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steyn, C. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Sutter, G. J.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van d. Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Tellers: J. W. Higgerty and W. B. Humphreys.

Noes—39:

Bekker, G.

Bekker, S.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer, K.

Conradie, J. H.

De Bruyn, D. A. S.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Du Toit, C. W. M.

Erasmus, F. C.

Grobler, J. H.

Hugo, P. J.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Le Roux, S. P.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Naudé, S. W.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Schoeman, B. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Steyn, G. P.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, A. P.

Swart, C. R.

Theron, P.

Van den Berg, C. J.

V. d. Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wentzel, J. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: J. J. Haywood and P. O. Sauer.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment dropped.

Original motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on the Bill on 13th March.

I move—

This Bill is not a stranger to this House. A similar Bill was introduced in 1939. It was then read a first time, but as there was a good deal of more pressing business it was not proceeded with during that session. The enactment of such legislation has, however, become increasingly urgent, and we have therefore felt it essential to proceed with this Bill, despite our many other preoccupations at the present time. This Bill will have the effect of creating a South African Mint which will take the place of the present Pretoria branch of the Royal Mint. This will not be the first time that there will be a South African Mint. The history of Mints in South Africa, indeed, goes back quite a long way. The first actual South African Mint was established under the auspices of the South African Republic in 1892. That was a State Mint, although actually it was established by the National Bank of the South African Republic. It was then transferred by that bank to the Government of the Republic, and then leased by the Government to the bank. That Mint existed until 1900 during the war, when its operation ceased. During those eight years of its existence it minted gold coin, Kruger sovereigns, to the amount of £2,363,000, and silver coin to the amount of £320,000. It also minted a certain amount of copper coin. That was the first South African Mint. The second South African Mint was possibly even more interesting. It was established also by the South African Republic, and was in existence during the Anglo-Boer War. It was the so-called “Staatsmunt te Velde”. The object of that Mint was to coin gold coins for the service of the commandoes in the field. It existed not at Pretoria, of course, but at Pilgrims Rest.

That was “Tevelde”.

It produced “Veld Ponde”, I believe a matter of 986 of these veld ponde in all, and it may be interesting to recall the fact that the chairman of the Mint Commission responsible for that Staatsmunt te Velde was a gentleman who has only recently concluded a distinguished career in our Public Service, Mr. A. G. E. Pienaar, who, after being chairman of the Public Service Commission, was chairman of the Tender Board, and recently retired from that post. He was chairman of the Commission responsible for the Staatsmunt te Velde. One coinage press used in connection with that Mint is, I understand, still in existence at Pilgrims Rest, and is actually being used in mining operations. We do not propose, if this Bill is enacted, to transfer that press to Pretoria for use there. The Mint which will be established under this Bill will therefore be our third South African Mint. It is to take the place of the Pretoria branch of the Royal Mint, which came into existence in terms of the Pretoria Mint Act of 1919. The events which led up to the establishment of that Mint were also of considerable interest, but I will not delay the House by dealing with them. I do, however, recall the fact that one of the chief advocates of the re-establishment of the Mint in South Africa was the late Mr. Samuel Evans, managing director of the Crown Mines, who played a very big part in other big financial and economic advances in South Africa, and I do not feel that his name should be allowed to be forgotten. That Mint came into existence in 1923, and has therefore been in existence for over 18 years, and it has been administered by a Deputy Master who is subject to general directions of the Master of the Mint in London. It is a branch of the Royal Mint in London, and the people who are engaged in Mint activities are employees of the Royal Mint and of the United Kingdom Government. It was erected by us, paid for by us, the capital cost amounting to just over a quarter of a million pounds. Provision has been made in terms of the Pretoria Mint Act that the cost of administration is met out of an annuity voted by this Parliament which is not to exceed £40,000 in any one year. On the other hand, all the proceeds are paid into revenue. And I may say that this quarter of a million capital investment in the establishment of that Mint has proved to be a very handsome investment from our point of view, and that we have received amounts from that Mint which are of a seven-figure order. But, apart from the financial justification, the step taken in the establishment of the Mint in 1923, from the point of view of currency policy, has been abundantly justified. I do not propose to delay the House by dealing with these points. I am only concerned with the further step it is proposed that we should now take. The negotiations which have led to the submission of this Bill started in 1937, possibly earlier. They were initiated by my predecessor in office. In 1931 the Mint in Canada, which had been established in 1907 as the Ottawa branch of the Royal Mint, became an independent institution under the title of the Royal Canadian Mint. That, of course, happened with the full concurrence of the British Government, which had been responsible for it as a branch of the Royal Mint, and when it was proposed in 1937 that South Africa should follow suit and also establish its own Mint, the British Government showed a similar spirit of willingness to co-operate and to concur in that proposal. No difficulty was experienced in arriving at an agreement in regard to the matter; the only point on which emphasis was laid being the necessity of protecting the rights of the employees in the Mint who were officers of the United Kingdom Government. I know my predecessor was most appreciative of the attitude of the United Kingdom Government in this matter, and I feel that it is appropriate that that appreciation should now be voiced. After a settlement had been arrived at on the question of the transfer, the Master of the Royal Mint in London wrote and expressed the hope that the new arrangement would come into force on the 1st January, 1939. That was then contemplated. That would have meant legislation in 1938. But 1938 was a somewhat difficult year in our Parliamentary history, because of the general election, and there was little time then for normal legislation. The Bill was therefore introduced in 1939. Then the Government had a heavy legislative programme, and the Bill did not get beyond the first reading. The task has therefore fallen on me to proceed with the matter. It was impossible to do so last year because of our heavy preoccupations, but it is important that there should be no further delay in dealing with this matter. It is important in the first place from our own point of view, quite apart from the wider considerations in regard to this matter which I need not emphasise; I would remind the House that there has been considerable expansion in the activities of the Mint. Even before the war began an ammunition factory for the manufacture of small arms—a small arms ammunition factory—was established in conjunction with the Mint. And, under war conditions, that ammunition factory has grown considerably. Of course, that ammunition factory is entirely our own concern as a Government, but it has to be controlled through officials who to-day are not our officials. It is obviously desirable that that matter should be regularised and finality should be reached in regard to the question. But it is also important from the point of view of the officials concerned. Their position is in many ways rendered unsatisfactory owing to the uncertainty which at present arises; especially in the case of death or retirement, there is a possibility of their interests being detrimentally affected. And to that extent the British Government is also interested, because these officials are also their officials. The British Government has again recently indicated that it would welcome the simplification that would be achieved by the enactment of legislation. I can sum up the position by saying that the enactment of this legislation is overdue, and is becoming increasingly urgent. With regard to the details of the Bill, I would only say that it has the effect firstly of replacing the Pretoria branch of the Royal Mint by the South African Mint, which carries on the existing Mint as a going concern; and, secondly, it makes provision for the safeguarding of the rights and privileges of those officials whom we shall be taking over from the British Government, and who have been responsible for the building up of what has become a great national institution.

I believe that the principle contained in this Bill will have the support of all sides of the House. I must honestly say that I fail to understand why we have not had our own Mint from the very start, why we have always been a branch of the Royal Mint of England. It has been incomprehensible to me, especially taking into account the fact that we claim to be a sovereign independent country. From an economic point of view, and from a financial point of view, I have never been able to appreciate the position. I am therefore pleased that the Minister has introduced this Bill, so that this conflicting position will be terminated, and we will really have our own Mint in South Africa. Before I say anything on questions of general principle, I just want to express my regret at the fact that the Minister has not gone a little more fully into the actual work of the Mint. In clause 5 of this Bill there is an indication of what the work is, and, according to that clause, the principal work appears to be to mint coins, because that is all that is mentioned here.

Business suspended at 6 p.m., and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

Just before 6 o’clock I was drawing the attention of the House to the fact that according to clause 5 of the Bill the main object of the Bill is to mint coins. I have an idea that the principal work of the Mint at the moment is the manufacture of ammunition. That being so I shall be pleased if the Minister, when replying to the second reading debate, will give us a little more information on that aspect of the matter. So much in passing. Apart from the principle of the Bill which we approve of, there are two provisions in the Bill which I wish to object to strongly. The first is in regard to clause 9 (3)—

1. (a) of his remuneration as it existed immediately before the said commencement; or
2. (b) of the scale according to which he was remunerated immediately before the said commencement as regards the maximum or the minimum of the scale or the rate of progression up the scale.

In terms of the Bill the staff of the existing Mint is taken over by the Union Government. This clause now affords special protection to that staff, not merely in regard to the salaries they receive but also in regard to the scale of their salaries, so that the salaries received by the staff taken over cannot be changed in future, nor can the scale of those salaries be changed unless it is done by an Act of this Parliament. Those people who now become officials of our Public Service are placed in a much safer position than all the other thousands of officials in our Public Service, because nobody in our Public Service has an assurance that his pay will remain as it is now, and that the scale cannot be changed except by an Act of this Parliament. These people are now becoming ordinary Union officials, so why should they be given protection and benefits which the ordinary officials do not get? If they are made public servants of the Union it is no more than fair that they should be treated on exactly the same basis as the other Union officials.

But they have been imported.

That of course is so. Now I come to another objection, where the same principle applies. In clause 10 it is provided that the officials who are taken over by the Union will have a choice in regard to the conditions of their pensions, the date when they leave the service, etc. They can choose whether they want to accept the conditions of our Public Service, and whether they want to remain in the Service but under the provisions of the English Act, under which they are now serving. This is an anomaly which I fail to understand. If these people become members of the Union Public Service why should they be treated differently from our own public servants. There should be no question of a choice. If those officials prefer to join the Union Service it is logical and reasonable to put it to them that they should be subject to all the provisions in regard to pensions, age, leave, and all the rest of it prescribed by the Union Public Service Act. These are two provisions which I strongly object to. I can find no fair and logical justification for what is being proposed here. Those people are given a choice. At the moment they are officials of the English Public Service, and if, instead of returning to England they prefer to be taken into our Public Service, then they have to come under the same conditions as those applying to other public servants of the Union. There is no obligation on them to join our Public Service. They can go back to England and the English Government is compelled under the law to give them an equivalent position. They are now given the choice to join our Public Service, and I can see no justification for these provisions under which they are to be given the choice as to whether they want to fall under our Public Service Act or under that of another country. I further want to express the hope that with the establishment of our own Mint the Government will proceed to establish our own monetary system. Mr. Havenga very seriously considered this matter before 1931. I do not at this stage want to go into it in detail, I only want to say that as we are an independent country we should have our own coinage system and we should not be saddled with the awkward English system which in that regard is the only one of its kind in the world. There is nothing in the world to be compared with it. It is essential for the sake of the ordinary calculation, and for the sake of other reasonable considerations that we should have our own coinage system which should be worked out on a reasonable basis, but apart from that, apart from the convenience of the metric system which other countries in the world have, there are other reasons as well why we should have our own monetary system. In the years of depression of the past we experienced the tremendous confusion which was created as a result of our system of payment having the same nomenclature as the English, namely, pounds, shillings, half crowns, etc. After this war we may possibly have a worse condition of depression, and we may experience the same difficulty. What will probably happen in England is that they will indulge in inflation in order to be able to finance the war, and it is very probable that the English pound will fly up considerably, and the question then will be whether we will have to keep pace with the inflation going on in England. I always expected the Minister—and he was a protagonist of the maintenance of the Gold Standard—not to keep South Africa linked to sterling in all circumstances. If that is so, and a radical change comes about, we shall be exposed to many dangers if our coins have the same nomenclature as those of England. If that happens the people who are interested will damage us very considerably by causing deception and confusion on an extensive scale. There is only one way of saving the position in such circumstances, and that is by not only realising our money from sterling, but by having our own coinage system in South Africa, so that we may have different coins in South Africa, coins of which the value will not only be different from the English coinage system, but of which the value will also be different, apart from the fact that we want to have the metric system and not this awkward system which is unique to England, and which is the only one of its kind in the world.

I do not intend discussing the last point raised by the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom). This is not really the occasion for us to consider the question of our own coinage system in South Africa or the question of the stability and the linking of our monetary system to sterling. There will be another occasion for us to go into that. We are only dealing here with the Bill for the establishment of a South African Mint, and not with the question of our monetary system. In regard to the actual point raised in connection with this Bill itself the hon. member only touched on two points which I already referred to, although I did so very briefly in my introductory remarks. The hon. member first of all asked what the position was in regard to the ammunition factory. I referred to that in my speech. Even before the war and before this Government came into power it was decided to establish an ammunition factory alongside the Mint on account of the fact that the processes to be followed in connection with the manufacture of certain types of ammunition are largely the same as the processes to be followed in connection with the minting of coins, and on account of the fact that we had connected with the Mint people who possessed the necessary technical knowledge to do that work. A separate establishment has been erected, and so far it has been entirely separate, also in regard to its finances. It is financed on a totally different basis, and it employs Union officials. At the moment the Mint itself is a South African branch of the Royal Mint in London. The ammunition factory is our own concern. When this Bill is passed the Mint will also become a South African institution, and it will therefore be easier at any rate so far as staff questions are concerned, to integrate the two institutions together. First of all the Mint is a permanent institution for the minting of coins. The ammunition factory to a certain extent is a temporary thing, and I want to express the hope that after the war it will again become the less important aspect of the work, but at the moment so far as staff is concerned it is a great deal more important than the Mint itself. A great many more people are employed there. The other question put by the hon. member for Water-berg relates to the staff which we are taking over from the Royal Mint, and he asks why those people should not get the choice of resigning from the service or of accepting the conditions of the South African Public Service. Rightly or wrongly the Government eighteen years ago entered into an agreement with the Government of the United Kingdom to establish a branch of the Royal Mint here. They assisted us in doing so, and they sent out the people to do that work. We did not have the necessary people with the necessary technical knowledge at our disposal here. It is true that they also recruited people here, not all of those people were imported as the hon. member opposite stated. A large number of them are Union nationals.

Then there is even less reason for giving them a choice.

It does not apply to all of them. Those people were recruited here under certain conditions. They have been employed in an institution of a different Government. My predecessor also had to negotiate with that Government in connection with the taking over of the institution and naturally that Government said “Very well, one of the conditions we have to make is that adequate provision shall be made for the interests of our officials.” Those people have certain rights in our service, and if you are now taking over the Institution, you have to see to it that the interests of those people are not detrimentally affected. I think that that is quite reasonable. My predecessor conducted his negotiations on that basis. I regard these conditions as being fair, and if the House looks at it and remembers that the negotiations were conducted on that basis, and if the House further bears in mind the fact that these are people who have been responsible for the development of what to-day is a large and important South African institution and will continue to be so, the House will agree with me that the provisions we are making here are reasonable.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on the Bill on 13th March.

I move—

I second.

The Select Committee on Public Accounts has recommended the legalising by this House of unauthorised expenditure, but I would just like to say this, that that does not mean that we were satisfied. On the contrary, I may say here that many members of the Select Committee on Public Accounts considered very seriously whether it was not our duty in the public interest to refuse one item of that expenditure. We only finally agreed to that when it appeared that the committee, as a whole, agreed with us in being dissatisfied, and that they were prepared to express that disapproval in the report, and I am glad that the Minister of Finance is giving us an opportunity, in conjunction with the consideration of the first report, to deal with the second report as well. There are two items, particularly, to which we have very serious objection. One, for instance, is the unauthorised expenditure which we find in No. 2. It is an amount of £315 which was spent by the Department of Irrigation during the year 1940. It is desirable that I should briefly give the House the history of that matter. South-West Africa instituted a meteorological department, and the work was done under the Administration of South-West Africa. Suddenly, on the 1st December, 1939, the Union Government decided to take it over. The expenditure which we incurred from the 1st December up to the end of the financial year, that is to the 31st March, 1940, amounts to £315. For the whole of the financial year the additional burdens on the population of the Union amount to £1,000 or £1,200. The aspect of the matter to which I would like to draw the attention of the House is this. In the first place, the Constitution of South-West Africa Act prescribes what procedure must be followed when a part of the civil service of the South-West is taken over. It is done in the constitution of South-West Africa. It is clearly stated there what the procedure is which has to be followed. I will go into the matter again later. In this case that fixed procedure was not followed, with the result that the Union Government committed an act which is still illegal to-day. The Union Government will be obliged to carry out the directions of the Act to legalise that act. That is the first thing. We are dealing here with an act which is absolutely illegal. The second is that the impression has been very strongly made on us that the Union Government never had the least intention of reporting this matter to Parliament, did not have the least intention of obtaining the approval of Parliament for this step. The act was committed during the financial year 1939-’40, namely, on the 1st December, 1939. The right procedure would have been to get authority from the Governor-General during that year, and to include it in the supplementary estimates for the year, in order in that way to report it to Parliament and to obtain the approval of Parliament for it. That was not done. It was not included in the supplementary estimates for the year 1939-’40. The most serious thing is that the following year, 1940-’41, there was not a word mentioned about it either when the estimates were submitted to this House, and the impression made on us is that it never would have been reported to this House if the Auditor-General had not discovered it. I want to say here, in passing, that the Treasury, at the moment, still takes up the attitude that it is not unauthorised expenditure. The Secretary for Finance took up that attitude in the Select Committee. If the Secretary for Finance had been right in that, then Parliament up to to-day would have heard nothing about it, and then it would have happened that we were here taking over a part of the public service of South-West Africa without the matter being reported to Parliament. No one would know anything about it, and the Government could go on in that way, step by step, taking over parts of the public service of South-West, without Parliament knowing anything about it. There are two aspects of the matter that I want to deal with. The first is the legal procedure which is laid down in such a case has not been followed, with the result that the act is illegal, and the second is that it appears from all the evidence before the committee that neither the Government nor the Minister intended reporting this matter to Parliament. If the Auditor-General had not mentioned it in his report, then we should not have known anything in the world about the fact, right up to the present, that we had taken over the meteorological department of the South-West Africa Administration. It appeared from the evidence that this department had already existed for years in South-West Africa. South-West Africa instituted it for their own purposes, because they felt the need of it. They paid for it themselves for all those years. That is the first point. In the second place, South-West Africa has never yet in the past complained about having to pay for that meteorological department. I put those questions to the officials who apeared before us. I asked why it was taken over, and then the reply was given that they required the data. I then asked whether the Administration of South-West had ever refused to place the data at the disposal of the Union Government, and it will be seen from the evidence that they had never refused to place the data at the Union’s disposal. Subsequently, I asked whether the department was not large enough, or whether they had since that time extended the service or the department. It appears from the evidence that the Director of Irrigation said that so far as he knew the department was still the same. We were given no reason why it was taken over. South-West instituted the service for its own requirements, and paid for it year after year, and they never complained about having to pay for it, they never asked the Union Government to take it over, never asked the Union Government to bear a penny of the expense. The data were always at the disposal of the Union Government, and since that time the department has not been extended—apparently it is regarded as adequate for the existing needs. I ask you: In God’s name, why then was it taken over? When we tried to get the information in the Select Committee, the Secretary for Finance gave certain reasons and the Director of Irrigation gave different reasons, and up to the present one does not know what the right reason was why it was done. We would like to know from the Minister. My personal opinion is, and this also appears to be correct from the evidence of the Director of Irrigation, that it was done as a war measure.

Yes, and is that a crime?

No. But now I want to ask the Minister kindly to explain what the understanding was with the Administration of South-West. Was it a war measure, a temporary measure, and are you going to return this department again to South-West the moment the war is over? I think we are entitled to a clear answer to the question. If it is a war measure, then it is a temporary one, and then the Minister must tell us that the understanding is that the meteorological department will be returned again immediately after the war to the administration which established it, and which has paid for it for all those years. In the second place, I want again to point out that the action of the Government was an illegal act.

The Government is an illegal government.

And the Opposition also is illegal.

We are much more legal than the acts of the Government are. I need not go into the matter. The Auditor-General has obtained legal advice from the law advisers of the Government, and it is to the effect that it was an illegal act.

We accept that position.

Then I think that the best thing would be for the Government to legalise it as quickly as possible by issuing a proclamation in terms of the provisions of the South-West Africa Act. And then I want to ask the Minister whether it is not their intention at all to report the whole matter to Parliament? They had an opportunity of doing this by putting the amount on the additional estimates for 1939. They did not do so. They had an opportunity of reporting it to Parliament by way of reference in the estimates of 1940-’41. That was not done. We understand that it will now be done in the 1941-’42 estimates, but apparently it is only being done now because it would otherwise in any case, by way of the report of the Auditor-General, be brought to the notice of Parliament. But inasmuch as they did not do it in 1939 and in 1940, we are justified in thinking that they would not have raised the matter. This raises a very important principle. If the Government assumes to itself the right to take over a part of the public service of South-West Africa without reporting to Parliament what guarantee have we that to-morrow the whole of the Department of Justice of South-West will not be taken over, or the Department of Native Affairs? What guarantee have we that we shall not wake up to-morrow to find that other departments have been taken over? There is a very important principle at stake here, and the attitude which the Government and the Minister of Finance took up before the Select Committee was that they were quite entitled to do so.

Not on the first point.

Yes, ultimately they admitted that it was an illegal action, but only after the matter had been brought to the notice of the Secretary of Finance in the Select Committee, and after the Auditor-General had said that it was an illegal act. If the matter had not come before the Select Committee by way of the report of the Auditor-General, then it would not have been reported to Parliament, and we would have heard nothing about it. That is the important principle which is at stake. The Government is not entitled to take over a part of the public service of South-West Africa, and then actually to wait until the Auditor-General reports it to Parliament before the Government comes and asks the approval of Parliament for its action. We would like the Minister to give us a clear answer to these questions. Then there is another item, to wit, No. 3, to which I want to call attention.

That is a trifling matter.

It embraces an important principle. The actual amount involved in it is £308. Now I would like to tell the House clearly what the history of the matter is. It affects the Department of Public Works. In 1938 the House gave its approval on the loan estimates to the establishment of a gymnasium at Voortrekkerhoogte, and in that year an amount of £7,000 was put on the estimates. The total cost of the building was to be £8,750, but during that first year only £7,000 was put on the estimates because all the money was not to be expended during that year. Accordingly, provision had to be made the following year on the estimates for a further amount of £1,750. But that amount appeared to be inadequate, and the real amount which they spent that year was something over £3,000. Because there was no provision for such an amount, they had to go to the Treasury to get approval from the Treasury for the increase in the amount. And now we come to the root of the matter. Just when they started to build the hall the Department of Finance found out that there would very probably be an amount of about £500 over. The tender which they got for the building of the hall was such that there would probably be an amount of £500 not required. The Defence Department then wrote to the Department of Public Works to ask whether they were going to tar the area surrounding the hall, and put up a fence. The tarring would run into an amount of £1,700 in all. Without referring the matter to the Minister of Finance, the Department of Public Works replied “Yes” to the Department of Defence. There would be £500 over, and the Department of Public Works then gave their permission to undertake a job which would cost £1,700. There would be £500 over, but the Department of Public Works gave the Department of Defence permission to spend £1,700, without referring the matter to the Treasury. Even that is not the most serious thing. They are beginning to build now, but they do not wait until the hall is completed to see whether there will be any money over to start the tarring. When they started to build the hall they also started putting the grounds in order.

What did the building actually cost?

We know from experience with the Department of Public Works that they practically never complete a building for the original contract price. There is always accessory expenditure. At that time, because there was a possibility of saving £500, the Department of Public Works said to the Department of Defence, “Just go on with the tarring.” It was ultimately to cost £1,700. When they had made a little progress, it appeared that the total amount that was available for the building would not be enough for the building and the tarring. They were therefore at their wits end. They then had to go to the Treasury and ask whether their amount on the estimates could be increased. What did they do then, i.e. the Department of Public Works—and this is what we so strongly object to. The Department of Public Works had to report the matter to the Treasury and to explain why the amount provided had been exceeded. What happened? They mentioned all kinds of little things to the Treasury, but the big reason—namely, that they had begun with the tarring which was to cost £1,700—they did not say a single word about.

A lot of blackguards.

That is almost the inference that you are forced to draw. The Minister of Public Works must kindly tell us why they acted in that way. They reported all the small items, but the chief reason, namely, that they had given consent to do a work which was not at all in the original estimates, and which was ultimately to cost £1,700, they did not report. They reported only the little items, amounting in all to a sum of £202. They reported them as the causes why the original amount was exceeded, but the big thing for which the department had given permission they did not mention. We tried to get the reasons for that from the Secretary for Public Works. He simply could not give reasons. He said that it never occurred to him to mention the matter. That did not occur to him, but he mentioned the small things, things which in all amounted only to £202, but forgot to mention the big thing which was eventually to cost £1,700. The Select Committee did not regard the matter very seriously. Here you have an official who should report things to the Treasury, but he conceals certain things. That is not honest. Our point is that we should never again have a repetition of these things by the Department of Public Works. I am therefore glad to say that the whole of the Select Committee felt that we ought to express our disapproval of it. That is not the only aspect of the matter. Here you have an official of the department who is hiding something from the Treasury.

They have been sufficiently hauled over the coals.

Yes, but we want that to happen to them in this Parliament. The second thing is, and this also is serious, that the Department of Public Works started from the point of view that when an amount is made available for a building, they then think it must be spent, even if it is not done in a permissible way. The amount must be spent. If they find that there is £500 left over, then they look for ways as to how to spend the £500. If that is the assumption on which the Department of Public Works operates, then Parliament ought to take a serious view of the matter. I would like to ask the Minister of Public Works if it is also his view—it is apparently the view of his department. They come and ask for a Post Office in Cape Town costing £600,000 or £700,000. Parliament votes the amount, and then they consider that the amount must be spent, even if they have to look for reasons for doing so. And then when they have to report to the Treasury, they cover up things. If this matter does not deserve the serious attention of Parliament, then I would like to know what does deserve serious attention? Then it seems to me that thousands of pounds can be wasted in the country in that way, and that is why I am glad that the Select Committee expressed itself rather strongly on the matter—in my opinion not half strongly enough.

And you are a man who actually emphasises things.

I hope that the hon. member for Kensington, who stands for the careful control of the public purse, will agree …

Absolutely.

I hope that the hon. member also regards the matter seriously. The Select Committee said in connection with the South-West matter that the committee associated itself with the view of Auditor-General, and that it could not approve of the proceduree. It said further in connection with the same matter—,„

I would like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he intends to issue a proclamation in connection with the matter, and whether, in view of the war, it is not merely a temporary transfer, or whether it is a permanent burden which is here being thrown on to the Union population, which is being made responsible for a service which South-West Africa established, and for which they were always prepared to pay. South-West never asked for it to be taken over, and it is unfair to throw the burden on to our taxpayers. I thought that it was in the public interest that these things should be raised here.

I am quite prepared to accept the motion of the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) that this report be referred to the Government for consideration. I am also quite prepared to concede that so far as the first point to which the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) referred, a mistake has been made by the Treasury. The necessatry steps will be taken to correct the mistake, and also to prevent similar ones being made in the future. The grounds on which I admit that a mistake was made are that the necessary steps were not taken as required by the constitution of South-West Africa in connection with the taking over of certain administrative functions from that Administration, and inasmuch as a question of principle is involved in it, a question of a constitutional practice, I was quite prepared to give time for the debate of the report. While, however, I have admitted that the mistake was made by the Treasury, I still want to mention certain facts by way of excuse on behalf of the officials concerned. I think that there is something more which the House should know in connection with the matter beyond what has already been said here. This expenditure was incurred during the last part of the financial year 1939-’40. The taking over of the service was regarded as a purely temporary war measure. It is still regarded as such, and unless unexpected circumstances arise, it certainly is our intention for the service to go back to the South-West Africa administration. But it was during the last months of the financial year that the transfer took place, and only shortly after the end of the year, I think it was in March, did the Auditor-General make any comment on the matter to the Secretary for Finance. But, and this is an important point which I want to stress, the Auditor-General did not criticise the expenditure on the grounds which were mentioned by the hon. member for George, nor on the ground on which I admit that the expenditure was illegal. The Auditor-General raised a completely different ground, namely, that the Union Government did not have the right to spend money outside of the Union. The question did not come up before me, but was dealt with as an ordinary routine matter with the Secretary for Finance, and he quite rightly, in my opinion, replied to that that according to his view the Government did actually have the right of spending money outside the Union, that it had already been done frequently, and that for that reason the expenditure could not be regarded as illegal. That was the position when the financial year was closed. When subsequently an argument developed between the Secretary for Finance and the Auditor-General, the Auditor-General discovered another ground, and a better ground for his statement that this expenditure was not in order.

The hon. member for George discovered it.

Well, then, I will give the credit to that hon. member. But in any case the actual ground was only discovered at a later stage, why this expenditure should be declared illegal. That is the reason why the House was not asked during the year 1939-’40 to make provision for it. Only some time later was that ground raised, and I think it is a good point, which we can all accept, that wrong action was taken and that it was illegal. But as the Auditor-General himself did not detect it in the first instance, and as it was left to the subtlety of the hon. member for George to discover it, I hope that Parliament will not regard it as too great a mistake on the part of the Treasury.

The hon. member for George will make a good Auditor-General.

Then the hon. member mentioned another point, and so far as that is concerned I only hope that my colleague, the Minister of Public Works, and his Department, will take due notice of it. I am quite in agreement with the hon. member that what took place in this connection was undesirable, and I consider that the fact that attention was drawn to this matter by the Select Committee on Public Accounts is a thing which will contribute to make the control of the Treasury more effective.

The attitude of the Minister of Finance can possibly be best described by the English proverb, “Open confession is good for the soul”. As far as I am concerned, I think that his reply shows that he is treating the matter too lightly. “This is just a purely temporary war measure, and it will be put right again later on.” I do not now want to go into the question why South Africa is at war, but it is yet another of the things in connection with which the Government apparently takes up the attitude that we are at war now, and that the Government therefore can just do what it wants to, whether it is legal or illegal. I feel that the Minister of Finance has not replied satisfactorily to the question which was put to him by the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) why a previous report was not made to Parliament in connection with this expenditure. What was the reply that we received? He brushed the matter aside rather lightly. We are dealing here not only with an unauthorised item of expenditure, but with a dangerous precedent, and as the hon. member for George rightly indicated, we do not know what the next step is going to be, if the Government can simply come along with the excuse that these are temporary war measures which they are entitled to take without even reporting them to this House. With regard to the other matter, the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) said that it was only a small item. But it does not only concern an amount of £308. We are concerned with an extremely important matter, because it throws light, a very interesting light, on the methods which are followed by the Department of Public Works, on the careless manner in which they handle money. But what is of special importance in this case is the fact that there has been a suppression of the facts, that you have had here an instance of suppressio veri, not to speak even of suggestio falsi! Intentionally and deliberately the Department of Public Works neglected to bring certain facts to the notice of the Treasury. These things which are now being debated here emanate from the report of the Auditor-General, and with reference to that I just want to say, if you will allow me, that this is additional proof to us of how extremely important the report of the Auditor-General is to this House. If ever we have had a proof of that, then we have had it now. I say this because the impression has recently been created that we should not regard the report of the Auditor-General too seriously at the present time. This has constituted a certain amount of detraction upon the value of the report of the Auditor-General. Now we see what the value of that report is, and it also shows how necessary it is for this House to have the opportunity of debating the report of the Auditor-General, and the report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts. I must admit that the hon. member for Kensington also saw this point, and readily admitted it. Seeing that we took up the attitude on the Select Committee for Public Accounts that this matter should come before the House in the form of a special interim report, the hon. member agreed to it.

And the Minister of Finance also agreed.

We moved it because we had had the unfortunate experience in the past that important matters were debated in the Select Committee on Public Accounts; we meet three times a week; we give our time and energy to the work of the committee, and debate important matters; we issue our report, but that report comes up for discussion at the end of the session when the Government is in a hurry, and when hon. members are looking forward to their homes, with the result that we can actually get no opportunity for debating the report. We have the opportunity of discussing it here to-day owing to the attitude of the Minister of Finance, who has kindly furnished the opportunity of raising the matter in the House. I want to express the hope that in consequence of this experience, when the Minister himself has admitted that serious mistakes have been committed, he will in future co-operate with the Select Committee on Public Accounts, to see that a proper opportunity will be given for debating these reports. In conclusion, I want to say this. I am possibly going on to dangerous ground, but you know that the attitude has been taken up here that it was not correct or proper for hon. members, especially members of the Opposition, to make quotations from the report of the Auditor-General. But, particularly, inasmuch as these serious matters have actually been made public, and as in the course of these matters it has been proved that the attitude of the Auditor-General was correct, and as these matters have not been discussed in the course of previous sessions, it shows the correctness of the view of this side of the House that it cannot be regarded as in any way unseemly, wrong or unparliamentary to make quotations from the report of the Auditor-General during the course of the debate.

I find myself in entire agreement with much that the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) has said. For years we in the Public Accounts Committee have been bringing in reports which have seldom or never been considered on the floor of the House. That practice was almost stereotyped, whatever government you like to mention—none of them was better than another—and very often the feeling was entertained by members of the committee upstairs that they were, to a considerable extent, wasting their time. “What,” they said, “is the use of continuing these investigations, passing these criticisms and reporting to the House when the House never gets an opportunity of discussing them?” The reason, of course, is this—I want to be fair to the various governments—the reason is that our reports are put in at the end of the session, when time has at least double the value of time at the beginning. A government is very jealous of time at the end of a session; it wants to get its programme through; it wants to get every bit of its legislative programme on to the statute book; and it regards a discussion of the report on Public Accounts as to a large extent, academic. At any rate, it produces no legislative results, and that is why you cannot get the time. In this particular case the committee has departed from precedent by presenting an interim report on certain portions of the Auditor-General’s report, and I would like to say that the Minister of Finance, when I told him of this, when I told him that the feeling was that before we passed the Unauthorised Expenditure Bill an opportunity should be given for this discussion, at once agreed that that should be done. That is why these reports are put down to-night, and that is why my two hon. friends opposite have this opportunity of making their criticisms. In the course of our deliberations on the Auditor-General’s report, if any matters of urgency appear in future calling for an interim report, I would be perfectly willing to help to bring such a report before the House. I listened with considerable attention, as I always do, to my friend the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth). His plea to-night was a plea for maintaining in its entirety the authority of this Parliament, more particularly its authority in financial matters, and on such a principle, sir, he will always find me and the hon. Minister of Finance supporting him. I hope he will preach the doctrine of maintaining the authority of Parliament to some of his friends who sit on the front benches next to him. I seem to have read that one of his colleagues has recently gone round South Africa proclaiming that Parliament shall be subservient to the government in his new state, in the new order; and that the government should exist independent of:a parliamentary majority, that is to say, independent of Parliament. I hope, sir, that he and I will always vote together in opposing any undermining of the authority of parliament. To-night’s discussion is a valuable one, because we have, in an entirely non-party spirit, heard leading members of the Opposition uniting to uphold the authority of Parliament in matters financial. I may differ from my hon. friends in the degree of emphasis which they cast on their criticism of these two items. Perhaps I have become so case-hardened through many years service on the Public Accounts Committee that I refuse to allow my blood to curdle on these two particular items. I agree that they were rightly brought to the notice of the House by the committee, and that they are rightly discussed in this House to-night; but, as I have said, I utterly refuse to lose any sleep over the enormity of the so-called financial misdeeds mentioned. While my hon. friend the member for George was speaking, one or two of his more enthusiastic followers muttered that ever-present word “scandal.” Well, sir, even my hon. friend seemed to hang his head when that word was mentioned, because I would describe the first of these two as, shall I say, a petty administrative misdemeanour, and the second as a minor financial peccadillo. May I say this, that my sense of financial responsibility is, I believe, at least as keen as that of any other person in this House, but I really think that the criticism merited no stronger epithet, the criticisms of the Public Accounts Committee merited no stronger epithets than those I have given. If I thought that they did I would say so quite frankly, and I would not shrink from criticism either in this House or out of it if I thought it necessary. Let us get to the facts of these two matters. The trouble about the hon. member for George is first of all that he is comparatively new to this sort of work, and secondly he is apt to let himself go and talk in terms of exaggeration. Let us view these two matters in their proper perspective. In the first of these cases, as a matter of urgency in time of war, the Union Government decided to take over from the South-West territory the meteorological department which was transferred to the Department or Irrigation. Now, neither this House at the moment, nor the committee, was concerned with the wisdom or unwisdom of that as an administrative step. It was not for the hon. member to criticise this aspect, nor did he criticise. All that he criticised was the manner in which it was done, and he says that in two respects the manner in which that was done fell short of constitutional requirements. In the first place he said that Parliament voted the ordinary vote for meteorological service, and it did not contemplate this service of South-West Africa, and when we took over the service it should have been done by means of a Governor-General’s warrant. I agree with that, sir, but this sort of thing has happened time and time again in the past, and I am afraid it will happen in the future. We have done the right, and the Auditor-General has done right in drawing attention to the fact that that warrant was missing. Then the second point was so obscure that it escaped the notice, not only of the Treasury but of the Auditor-General himself. This fresh “horror” was discovered not by the Auditor-General but by my friend the hon. member for George, who as an ex-Administrator of South-West Africa, knows the law of that country. He drew the attention of the Committee to the fact that this taking over of the service from South-West Africa to the Union could only be done by proclamation of the Governor-General, and no such proclamation was issued. In doing this, the hon. member performed a useful service, and the matter will be put right. But do not let us lose our sense of proportion. In two respects the machinery of the State was defective in allowing this to take place; the matter has been drawn attention to and will be rectified. On the merits of the actual taking over there is no question that that is not within our province to discuss, and the hon. member admits that.

It took a long time to come to the notice of Parliament.

When my hon. friend has served as long as I have, perhaps his financial conscience will have grown less tender, or perhaps he will have got used to these things. I assure him he will get much worse than this, whether he serves under this Government or any other, before he is finished. Now let me deal with the second of these cases. The Public Works Department asked for a certain vote to build certain additions to a gymnasium at Voortrekkerhoogte. They made an estimate of what it would cost, and it must have been very unusual in their experience to find that the tenders, when they came in, were very much below the estimate, and they found they would have an estimated saving of £500. I quite agree that they might have known that sooner or later extras would crop up, and the saving would never materialise, but in any case they found they would have this saving, and the Department of Defence said to them: “Will you allow us to use that £500 for tar-macadamising the ground surrounding the gymnasium”. They said it would cost £1,700, but they wanted in the meantime to be allowed to use that £500 for that purpose Here I think my hon. friend rather misled the House; it is not as if we voted money for building A and spent it on building B or C, what we did was to spend this anticipated saving on tar-macadmising around the building. I fully agree with my hon. friend that that really is going beyond the ambit of the provision we made in this House. When we vote money for a building, we don’t vote money for a wide and elaborate scheme or tar-macadamising round the building, and to that extent the Public Works Department was wrong. We have said that they were wrong, and they know they were wrong, but don’t let us exaggerate the extent of their misdeeds. Then it is said they were guilty of a flagrant case of suppresio veri. My hon. friend the member for George went actually so far as to suggest that the conduct of the Public Works Department was not honourable, and I think that was a grave overstatement of the case. It really goes beyond what they did. They did not say “we have spent £300 on tar-macadamising”, and they should have done that. They have been well rapped over the knuckles for not doing it, but don’t let us lose our sense of proportion and use such terms as “dishonourable” in this connection. Their action calls for criticism, and it has received it. Now I come to the end of the story. Perhaps members will hardly believe this, because it must be unique in the Public Works history in this country. The estimate of what the building would cost was £8,750, and do you know what that building did cost, tar-macadam and all—£8,752 4s. 1d. So that actually, sir, the State is out of pocket to the extent of £2 4s. 1d., and it got its tar-macadamising all thrown in. So that I would suggest that my two hon. friends, in their very commendable zeal for financial purity, in regard to which I am always with them, have rather overstated their case, and lost some of their sense of proportion.

Motion put and agreed to.

Report referred to the Government for consideration.

I move:

This is the first of two Bills to be introduced this session dealing directly and indirectly with electoral matters. Now in order to understand the purpose of this legislation we should have well in mind their background. We must remember first of all that in April next there will be a biennial registration of voters in this country; in May next we are going to have a census of the European population of the Union. Next year, in 1942, there will be appointed a Delimitation Commission in terms of the South Africa Act, and the following year there is due to be a general election of parliamentary voters. Now all these events I have referred to will take place in abnormal circumstances. Thousands of Union nationals will be outside the borders of the Union, or away from the provinces in which they normally reside when these events take place. The present Bill, therefore, sir, is necessary to provide partially for this abnormal situation. I say to provide partially, because the second Bill of these two will deal exclusively with the question of voting, and the present Bill is necessary to provide partially for the situation which I have outlined, the situation created by the absence of large numbers of adult Union nationals from the homes or residences occupied by them when the Union became engaged in war, or when they had enlisted for service with the defence forces. If no action is taken along the lines of this Bill the position will be chaotic, because when the census is taken we shall fail to obtain a true reflection of the population of the Union as a whole. Without this Bill we will not get a true picture of the relative population figures as between province and province. If no legislative action is taken, no person who is absent from the Union will be able to be enumerated in that census, and the result will be that thousands of Union nationals normally resident in this country would be ignored for the purposes of the census. Another anomaly would also take place. We know that under war conditions large numbers of persons are at present, owing to military duties, absent from the province of their normal residence, and the dependants of persons performing military duties are, in some cases, also away. In the Transvaal in particular there are thousands of soldiers congregated in the various military camps, and many of those on active service have taken with them to the Transvaal their wives and children. In the absence of any special legislative provision, a census of the Union would have to enumerate those persons temporarily resident in another province, namely, in the province in which they are at the time of the census. That, again, would give us an incorrect reflection of the true distribution of population, at least as between province and province. Again, without any legislative provision, when an election takes place either for the Provincial Council or Parliament, no person absent from the Union would be able to take part in such election. It is the intention of the Government to provide that those persons who are absent from the Union on military service will be enabled to vote at a general election for the Provincial Councils or for Parliament.

You will bring in another Bill.

For that purpose I shall be introducing another Bill shortly; that is, the second of the two to which I have referred. This Bill, however, does not deal with voting, it deals with registration, and lays down the manner in which persons temporarily absent from the province of normal residence are to be registered for voting purposes. It does not actually deal with the machinery of voting; that will be provided in the second Bill. I have tried to show that if no action is taken the position will be chaotic, and I think hon. members on all sides of the House will agree that we cannot let the position rest where it is. I think, in trying to arrange for a true reflection of the disposition of our population and a true registration of voters, in order to ensure that persons shall be registered in the division in which they normally reside or resided at the outbreak of the war or when they enlisted, these objects should have the support of members of all sides of the House. In that respect I claim that this Bill transcends political considerations, it is outside the arena of politics, and is, in a sense, a non-contentious matter, away from the political ambit. I hope that hon. members opposite will raise no difficulties in regard to it. The main principles of this Bill are contained in sections 3 and 5. Those sections lay down that, for the purposes of the census to be taken in May of this year, and the biennial registration of voters next month, members of the Defence Force shall be enumerated or registered, as the case may be, in or for the area in which such members ordinarily reside or retain a home at service date. Service date is defined in the Act in section 1—

If any Union national was employed in military service of the Union at the outbreak of the war, he will have to be registered in the division in which he resided at that time.

Does that mean his wife?

The wife and members of his family, that is to say his dependants, will have to be registered in the division in which they were resident at the outbreak of the war. In the administrative machinery steps will be taken to have an actual registration in the field in order to ensure that no one is missed. Through the machinery of the electoral office, one can ensure that there will be no duplication. In Pretoria there is kept a central record, and there is no danger of duplication. Hon. members will see from the provisions of section 6, dealing with the keeping of separate registers for civilians and military voters, that this is an additional safeguard which will obviate the possibility of duplication and impersonation. The main features of the Bill are contained in sections 3 and 5, and it will be seen that persons who enlisted after the outbreak of war shall be registered in respect of the division in which they resided at the time they enlisted. In the case of those who were serving before the outbreak of war, they would be registered in the division in which they normally resided on the 6th September, 1939. The remaining features of the Bill, with two exceptions, are consequential. The two exceptions are contained in sections 2 and 13, but these two sections really have nothing to do with the main scheme of the Bill. But advantage was taken of the opportunity of incorporating these provisions in the Bill. In regard to section 2, hon. members will remember that in the South Africa Act provision is made for the taking of a census, and the Census Act of 1910 lays down the appropriate machinery. But in terms of section 19 of the Act of 1910, a proclamation must be issued every time a census takes place in order to create a link between that Act and the South Africa Act. It is an interesting point whether, if such a proclamation has not taken place, previous censuses which have been held are strictly legal.

Does it matter?

I don’t think it matters. But I am sure none of us are going to take this point.

That party might be there illegally.

In order to obviate any difficulty and trouble in future, this section has been included to make the machinery very much more artistic than under the 1910 Act. The clause lays down what the position will be, viz., that the census taken shall be the census so required to be taken. So we merely proceed with the machinery of the Census Act of 1910, and no other machinery is necessary. Section 3 is the one dealing with the enumeration at the next census. Section 4 goes on to contemplate what will take place next year when the Delimitation Commission sits. Hon. members will know that in determining a Union quota it is necessary for the Commission to determine the number of adults as determined by the last census. Under our South Africa Act, that census is a census of persons in the Union, but we shall now take a census of persons, some of whom are not in the Union, and section 4 ensures that the Delimitation Commission can take cognisance of that new position. Section 5 deals with the registration of voters. Section 6 provides for the keeping of separate lists. In the framing of lists for any divisions, the names of voters who are members of the Defence Force shall be included, but there will be two separate lists.

Why do you do that?

One of the objects is to prevent impersonation, and it will become more clear when members have before them the provisions of the second Bill which I propose introducing dealing with voting in the field.

There will be no field at the next election.

I know the hon. member is appreciative of the efforts of our forces and of their successes. I did not realise he is as optimistic as that, but I am delighted to see it. No doubt the recent visit of the Prime Minister to the North has given him fresh enthusiasm.

There might be only one party then.

Section 7 provides for bringing to the notice of soldier voters various matters such as disallowances of claims, and so on—a number of technical matters. A number of matters which may have to be brought to the notice of the applicants are provided for in our existing Electoral Act. It may be very difficult to provide the ordinary machinery in the case of persons who are absent from the Union, so now we have the procedure under which the registering officer can send these notices to the Secretary for Defence, who will furnish information relating to the persons concerned. Section 10 deals, inter alia, with the case of coloured applicants. It will be remembered that coloured persons in the Cape, in order to be registered, have to have certain qualifications; they have to be able to write their names and addresses; they have to have property or residential qualifications, and the section in question enables the registering officer to register those who may qualify by reason of salary or wages, wherever earned. Provision is made in clause 5 (1) for a claim to be made out on behalf of an absent voter, and under clause 9 the name, if registered, may not be removed from the voters’ list unless the revising officer is satisfied that the person concerned is not entitled to be registered. The only other section I wish to refer to is section 13, the other section which is outside the ambit of the Bill. Section 13 has nothing to do with the circumstances which gave rise to this Bill, but it is placed in the Bill in order to prevent an injustice due to an oversight in the Electoral Bill of last year. It will be remembered that in the Electoral Bill of 1940 provision was made for these persons who could appear on the Voters’ Roll for having diggers’ licences. The House spent a long time in discussing these clauses, which were primarily concerned with coloured voters. The section rules out natives. I am informed by the Department that there are about sixteen natives who are registered in respect of the separate native roll through having diggers’ qualifications, and these persons will be prevented from being re-registered. This clause therefore deals entirely with the separate roll, the native roll, in respect of native representatives. It has nothing to do with the rolls dealing with ordinary Parliamentary elections, and it is there merely for the purpose of removing a potential injustice. These are the main features of the Bill. I hope hon. members will realise that there are certain provisions in the Bill which are merely there for the purpose of removing anomalies, which, if not removed, would lead to chaotic conditions and would hit all the political parties. In the circumstances, I hope hon. members will allow the Bill to pass without opposition.

I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

Debate adjourned, to be resumed on 12th March.

I move—

As is customary at this stage of the session, I have to ask the House to grant certain additional funds for the operation of the Railways. I do not think I shall have any difficulty in persuading the House in regard to the granting of a sum of £1,404,000 under this head when I tell them that as a result of that expenditure we have an increased revenue bordering on £4,000,000. I think the House will agree that a relatively small expenditure of £1,404,000 if the return to the Railways is bordering on £4,000,000 is reasonable. I would just briefly for the information of the House run over the items included in the Bill. Under head 4 £129,000 is asked for. That is accounted for by the fact that we have over 4,000,000 additional engine mileage and consequently increases in running staff wages, fuel charges, etc. Road motor services have an additional under head 12 of £122,000 due to increased services to some extent, and due to the other extent to increased costs of petrol, oil, tyres and other accessories. Under head 15 we have a small amount increase, interest charges, owing to the fact that the balance of pension and superannuation fund is greater than the original estimate. Under head 17, miscellaneous charges, we have £45,000 for the payment of cost of living allowance to the staff in respect of the scheme inaugurated by the Government. In the case of a sum of £425,000, this represents the difference between the civil and military pay to members of the staff on active service. As you know, the Railways, like all large employers, are making up the difference between the military pay received by their staff on active service, and their civil emoluments, and that absorbed £425,000 for the year. We have £675 as our share of the cost of the civil re-employment board, owing to the fact that we are largely interested in the work of the board, and we are making a small contribution of £1,800 a year towards this cost. There is a further £130,000 due to our support of the Essential Service Protection Corps employed on the protection of railway works. At the outbreak of war it was considered necessary greatly to increase our normal forces which guard Railway property in the shape of railways, substations and harbours. Rather than increase our police force, because we always pay for the policing of these services ourselves— rather than increase the police force and have something of a complication later on, in the event of our not requiring these men any more, it was decided to employ members of the Essential Services Protection Corps and we decided to pay our pro rata share. Therefore, for the protection of railway property we have included the sum of £130,000. There will be a charge under the harbour headings of £120,000 to the same end. In regard to harbours we have an amount of £68,000 which is due to increased shipping requirements, and which includes a small item of £700 which is the pay of a director of shipping repairs, which the Railways considered it necessary to appoint in order to facilitate shipping repairs in these times when repairs are heavy and labour is scarce, and which meant a good deal of co-ordination. Under Harbours we have £136,000 made up as follows: Difference between civil and military emoluments for Harbour staff on active service, £12,000; payment of cost of living allowance, £4,000; contribution to Defence Department, £120,000; under heading 26, Steamships, we have an increase of £353,000, due mainly to the working costs of chartered and requisitioned vessels, but in this case, of course, the excess expenditure is well covered by the increased revenue. Under Airways we have a relatively small amount due to increased cost of living allowance, and we have a small amount of £100 in connection with the new Air Station at Vaalbank Dam. Under the heading of Capital and Betterment Works we ask for £5,000 which is due entirely to moving a power line belonging to the Victoria Falls Power Companies and to certain earth works necessary as a result of subsidence in the Simmer and Jack area. I think the House will agree to grant me the necessary funds.

I second.

I do not want to complain about the small amount which the Minister of Railways is asking for, but I just want to avail myself of the opportunity of calling attention to a few things which are of importance to the workers, and I hope that the Minister will go fully into them. A few days ago I put certain questions to the Minister in connection with the grant of funds for the building of houses for Railway men. The Minister will remember that last year, as a matter of fact, I made representations to him in connection with the matter, and that what I surmised appears to be true. I asked the Minister how many loans had been made to officials or workers who were receiving less than £120 a year.

Are these items which appear in these additional estimates?

I cannot say, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. members are only entitled to debate reasons for the increase in the votes, no other matters.

There is nothing in regard to housing in these estimates.

I take it that I am entitled to say something in connection with leave to the staff. There is an additional amount of £12,000 being asked for here for staff.

The hon. member can discuss it if it is a reason for the increase of the amount, but he cannot debate the general principle here.

I want to point out the differentiation that is being made in granting of leave to officials.

I fear that cannot be debated under these estimates.

Then I fear that I cannot say at this stage what I wanted to say. I thought that I was entitled to debate the matter here. May I, however, put a few questions to the Minister? On Vote No. 4 an extra amount of £190,000 is being asked for, and a part of that is concerned with train staff and salaries, and there is saving in connection with the first part. Now I would like to have an explanation from the Minister why there is a saving of £12,000 on the salaries of the steam engine staff, and a saving of something in excess of £4,000 on the electric engine staff. I would like to know where the savings come in.

I would like to say something in regard to Head No. 17, miscellaneous expenditure. Provision is being made here for an additional amount of £586,208, and, inter alia, this amount is intended to make provision for the payment of an allowance in connection with the cost of living of the staff. This is the first provision which is being made for the payment of a cost of living allowance to the staff, and therefore I think that we are entitled to debate the whole principle in regard to the payment of cost of living allowances under this head.

The hon. member is at liberty to do so.

I have already dealt with this matter in a previous speech and argued that the allowance is inadequate. I do not want to take up the time of the House for long, because the Minister already has all the details in his possession. When, however, on a previous occasion I referred to the inadequacy of the allowance to the staff, the Minister unfortunately did not reply to the point in his reply to the debate (Additional Railway Estimates). I therefore want again to mention the chief points in connection with it. As the House knows, the Government decided to pay the cost of living allowance to its officials. That was in conformity with the allowances that are being paid to public servants. A commission was appointed consisting of representatives of the Railway service and the public service. They fixed the scale of the allowances. These allowances, inter alia, make provision for the payment of a minimum amount of 10s. a month to the low-paid officials, that is to say married men who receive £200 a year and less. I pointed out in my previous speech that this allowance was absolutely inadequate. It was decided to pay 10s. a month to the low-paid workers, but better provision should have been made for the low-paid workers. What does this amount to? An official who receives 8s. or 8s. 3d. a day receives, as an unskilled European official, an additional 10s. a month. I say that the official ought to get more than 10s. a month, because the rise in the cost of living affects them much more, and is a far more serious matter to them than to the officials who receive £600 or £700 a year, and consequently the amount which the man receives is quite out of proportion to the amount which the higher-paid official receives. There is another discrimination which is being made. An official who is entitled to a rebate in rent does not receive the whole of the cost of living allowance. There is a provision that the official who is in receipt of a rent rebate shall not receive the full cost of living allowance. I think that I should say, in explanation of this, that the rent rebate is paid to certain officials who live in private houses and who pay more than one-fifth of their wages in rent—they receive an allowance from the Railways up to a maximum amount of £4 a month. In other words, if one-fifth of the man’s wages amount to £5 a month, and he pays £7 house rent, then the Railways pay the additional £2, which he has to pay as rent exceeding one-fifth of his wages. In the case of the man one-fifth of whose wages amounts to £5, and who pays £9 house rent, the Administration pays the additional £4 in respect of the house rent. There is a provision in the scheme of cost of living allowances that an official who receives a rebate of rent will not receive the full amount of the cost of living allowance. That is unjust in this respect: An official who lives in a Railway house pays a maximum of one-sixth of his wages in house rent. That is laid down under the regulations. Any official who lives in a Railway house pays a maximum of one-sixth of his salary in house rent. The man is entitled to the full cost of living allowance. No reduction is made, but the person who happens to live in a private house and pays one-fifth of his wages in rent, and who receives an amount from the Administration by way of house allowance, has his cost of living allowance reduced. I request the Minister, in the first place, to increase the scale of cost of living allowances so far as the low-paid officials are concerned, so that the white labourer will receive a larger amount in cost of living allowance. In addition, I ask the Minister not to make a discrimination in regard to the allowances between officials who live in Railway houses and officials who happen to be living in private houses and receive a rebate in rent. The discrimination is not fair.

In regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Bloemfontein, District (Mr. Haywood) I am afraid I cannot offhand give him the details required, because I think that probably that amount is made up out of a thousand and one different items. If he wishes me to investigate it I shall do so and let him know. I do not propose to enter into a general discussion on the policy of the cost of living allowance arrangement which the Government has entered into, at this stage. The points raised by the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) are more appropriate to the Budget debate rather than to this debate. This sum of money I am asking for is money which has been actually spent; there is no question of revising the policy here.

We want an assurance from the Minister.

Wait for my Budget for such an assurance. This money has been spent in accordance with the arrangement made by a joint staff Committee representing the Public Services and the Railways. That Committee put forward a report and made certain recommendations which were carried out in their entirety by the Government. That scheme starts with generous terms for the lower paid men and as the pay gets higher so the allowances paid are less. It was an excellent scheme. It was propounded by the staff and it was not touched by the Government. We made no amendment to it and we accepted it as it was brought forward. No Government could act more fairly than that. I would not suggest that we should make an alteration in the scheme until it had been working some time, and until we have seen how it works. Up to now it is only the lower paid staff who are getting anything at all, and my hon. friend indicates that it is the lower paid staff who are neglected. As long as the cost of living does not go up to 6 per cent. or 8 per cent. it is only the lower paid staff who get anything. So I do not think there is much in the argument that we have neglected the interests of the lower paid men.

Motion put and agreed to; House to go into Committee now.

House in Committee:

The Committee has to consider the Estimates of Additional Expenditure to be defrayed from Railways and Harbours Revenue Funds during the year ending 31st March, 1941, and the Estimates of Additional Expenditure to be defrayed from Loan Funds during the year ending 31st March, 1941.

Railways and Harbours Revenue Funds.

The Committee proceeded to consider the Estimates of Additional Expenditure to be defrayed from Railways and Harbours Revenue Funds.

Head No. 4.—“Running Expenses—Railways”, £129,086, put and agreed to.

Head No. 12.—“Road Motor Services—Railways”, £122,784, put and agreed to.

Head No. 15.—“Interest on Superannuation and Other Funds—Railways”, £7,776, put and agreed to.

On head No. 17.—“Miscellaneous Expenditure—Railways”, £586,208,

I want to come back to the matter raised a few minutes ago. The hon. Minister appears to dismiss the matter very airily. I made the request that this whole matter be investigated, and in reply he stated that it was a recommendation of the staff organisation, or the Joint Committee on which the staff were represented, and being an unanimous recommendation the Administration is perfectly satisfied in carrying it out, and he has no intention of altering any of the provisions. Surely that is no answer. Even if the Joint Committee did unanimously recommend it, and I accept the Minister’s assurance that that is so, that is no ground for any unfair discrimination, and I think I have shown in my previous speech that there is a measure of unfair discrimination. I am going to repeat what I said, because the Minister evidently did not understand, or the interpreter did not interpret that part of my speech. I said that it is now provided that any member of the staff who is in receipt of a rent rebate allowance, does not receive the full amount of the cost of living allowance, and I showed that to be unfair discrimination in this way. The railway servant who resides in a railway house pays, as a maximum, one-sixth of his salary or wage, as house rent. That is the maximum laid down by the regulation. The servant residing in a private house and pays one-fifth of his salary in rent, receives a rent rebate up to a maximum of £4 per month. The fact remains that any servant who resides in a private house and pays more than one-fifth of his wage or salary in house rent, receives up to a maximum of £4 a month as rent rebate. Now the provisions in regard to payment of cost of living allowance is that the servant who receives a rent rebate does not receive the full amount of the cost of living allowance. I say that in spite of the recommendation of the Joint Committee, that is an unfair discrimination, and I ask the Minister, in spite of the fact that he says he cannot alter the conditions, to at least give me the assurance that this aspect of the question will be investigated, and where there is unfair discrimination he will endeavour to see that removed. In regard to the other matter, the hon. Minister said that he will give the necessary assurance in his budget speech. Surely, sir, it is quite an appropriate time now to give this assurance before he actually commits himself by laying down a definite policy in his budget speech. That is why I ask, at this stage, before he makes his budget speech, that he should consider this question carefully and fully, so that he may be in a position to deal with this question of cost of living allowance. Now the allowance paid to the lowest paid servant of the Railways is 10/- a month, and that, I submit, is very little benefit to the low paid servant, who should be treated more generously than the higher paid servant of the Railways. I don’t want to delay the House by going fully into this question of the cost of living allowance, but I submit that the whole scheme that has been submitted is based on the barest minimum that the staff organisation or the Joint Committee felt it was possible to submit. They were probably in this position. By submitting the barest minimum, they thought they would be in a position to receive something, whereas if they submitted a scheme for a more generous provision, it might be turned down. In spite of any recommendation, I submit again it is the duty of the administration and the Minister to see that an adequate allowance is paid, especially to the lower paid servants, and in addition that any unfair discrimination between different classes of servants should be removed.

Cannot the Minister, on behalf of the low-paid Railway officials, take the following point into consideration? Inasmuch as he says that those people cannot be given an increase of pay, cannot they be assisted in an indirect way by their clothes and boots being supplied to them more cheaply, for instance, by means of a State concern which will supply them with those articles on the Railways? They must all have at least a warm overcoat, a waterproof, watertight boots. It will actually increase these people’s salaries if they can buy their clothes more cheaply. It will not cost the administration very much, but it will be of very great value to those workers. I think that if the Minister will consider this matter, it may possibly assist in increasing the wages of the low paid men indirectly.

I will explain for the benefit of my friend, the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) that I got his point about the difference between those paying one-fifth of their salary in rent, and those occupying official houses. But I have already made it quite clear to the hon. member that I am not prepared to tinker with the arrangement made. Let us see how it works. I did not give any undertaking to give any assurance in my budget speech. I said that the hon. member, if he wants to ask for such assurance, that is the time to ask for these things, and not now. I do not propose, in my budget speech, to make any alterations in the cost of living allowance arrangements that we have already got.

Tell us some more about your budget speech.

I should be delighted, and the hon. member might listen to it more attentively than he usually does.

That is a reflection upon you, not upon me.

To get back to the point in regard to the question of cost of living allowance, the hon. member for Fordsburg said that the staff committee had only given as a recommendation the barest minimum for no other reason than that they thought that was all they could get from the Government. The hon. member is talking nonsense, and he knows it. The lower paid workers are getting the whole increased cost of living, as stated by the Census Department, and yet the hon. member comes forward, knowing nothing about the subject, and says we are giving the lowest paid servant the barest minimum, whatever that may mean. I challenge the hon. member to say whether that is so or not, whether the lowest paid workers are not getting the whole increase as assessed by the Census Department. What more can the Government do? This is a cost of living allowance, and not an increase in wages, so don’t let us enter into a question whether these men are adequately paid or not. The fact is they are getting the whole allowance as assessed by the Census Department.

May I say that I purposely spoke in English because the hon. Minister evidently did not understand me when I spoke in my own language. Apparently he also does not understand me when I speak English.

Try Scotch.

If I could speak Scotch I would. I never made the definite statement that the staff, or Joint Committee, submitted the barest minimum in regard to these proposals. I said it was probable that they did. I said probably they submitted the barest minimum

If you know the facts, why say “probably”?

I don’t know the facts in regard to that. I said that the Joint Staff Committee probably submitted proposals that they considered to be the barest minimum, and they probably felt that by submitting any other proposals, asking for a bigger allowance, they might not have been adopted by the Administration. The hon. Minister has said that the lower-paid servants receive the full benefit of the allowance. I have never contested that for a moment. I know they receive the full allowance as recommended by the Joint Committee, but my whole complaint is that that allowance is absolutely inadequate. I don’t care whether the Joint Committee or a dozen committees recommended that allowance. My contention is that it is inadequate. I said that for the lowest-paid servant, the European labourer in receipt of 8s. per day, 10s. extra per month is totally inadequate as a cost of living allowance. I repeat that charge, sir. It is no use for the Minister to say that the Joint Staff Committee recommended it, I make the charge that it is inadequate, and ask the Minister to investigate the matter with a view to increasing the allowance.

I want to support the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman). It is true that these allowances were recommended, but I think that the Minister will agree that 5s. a month for unmarried people and 10s. a month for married people practically amounts to nothing. In view of the big profits which the Railways are making, the Minister ought to double that. Even that will not help very much, but it will at any rate be better than an allowance of 5s. a month for unmarried persons and 10s. a month for married persons.

Head put and agreed to.

Head No. 19.—“Operating Expenses—Harbours”, £68,944, put and agreed to.

Head No. 25.—“Miscellaneous Expenditure —Harbours”, £136,016, put and agreed to.

On head No. 26.—“Working and Maintenance—Steamships”, £353,357,

I see that the Minister, under Item 754, is asking for an amount of £8,025 which has already been spent on the work of repairing ships. I would like to know from the Minister whether that amount also includes an amount of £5,000 which was spent on the German ship Hagen, which he presented to the British Government. I put a question before to the Minister in connection with this matter. I asked him whether such a ship had been awarded to the Minister of Railways by the Admiralty Court. The Minister answered in the affirmative. I then asked him if any repairs were being effected to the ship, and his answer was that £5,299 had been spent on her. The Minister’s answer does not agree with the statement of the Auditor-General in his report. He says that the work of repair cost £15,818.

What item does this fall under?

Item 754—work on repairs.

That was done during the previous year.

It was during the last financial year.

No.

I take it that the additional cost arose because the Minister had spent £15,000 on repairs to the Hagen. The result is that he has to submit an additional estimate to the House. When at the beginning of this year, that is of this financial year, he introduced his budget, he did not know that he would have to spend £15,000 on the Hagen. The Hagen carried a cargo of coal to Aden, and there the ship was handed over to the British Government. In reply to my question whether this money has been paid back to the Government the Minister replied that it has not been paid back. Now I would like to know from the Minister what he is going to do in order to get the £15,000 back, and if he intends to claim it when we are going to get it. In time of war the position is always dangerous. One does not know who is going to win. It is not at all impossible that the British Government may lose the war, and then we shall lose our £15,000.

Then we shall lose very much more.

I want the Minister to tell us what he is going to do in connection with the £15,000. We need not worry about the ship.

These are merely items in connection with the running repair during this financial year, and therefore the hon. member is out of order, strictly speaking, in referring to the Hagen, the expenditure on which fell to be paid in the previous year.

Head put and agreed to.

Head No. 30.—“Miscellaneous Expenditure—Air Services”, £100, put and agreed to.

Capital and Betterment Works.

The Committee proceeded to consider the Estimates of Additional Expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works.

Head No. 1.—“Construction of Railways”, £5,000, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Estimates of Additional Exepnditure to be defrayed from Railways and Harbours Revenue Funds and the Estimates of Additional Expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works, without amendment.

Report considered, and the Estimates of Additional Expenditure from Railways and Harbours Revenue Funds and on Capital and Betterment Works adopted.

Mr. SPEAKER appointed the Minister of Railways and Harbours and the Chairman of Committees a Committee to bring up the necessary Bill in accordance with the Estimates of Additional Expenditure as adopted by the House.

The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND HARBOURS brought up the Report of the Committee just appointed, submitting a Bill in accordance with the Estimates of Additional Expenditure from Railways and Harbours Revenue Funds and on Capital and Betterment Works adopted by the House.

I move—

The House is in such a good mood that I think it will accept this Bill, in regard to which I wish to move the second reading. I will explain it quite briefly. The Bill contains amendments of an administrative character in the Government Service Pensions Act of 1936. In that Act powers were taken to place on a new basis the provisions in regard to the pension privileges of Government servants. We have now had five years’ experience of the working of that Act, and this Bill is designed to remove certain administrative difficulties which have come to light. There is no outstanding principle raised in the Bill, and the amendments which it contains are mostly of a minor character, and the proposals contained in the Bill can therefore best be discussed when the House is in Committee. I have had a memorandum circulated which gives the necessary information in regard to each clause. As I said, I think the Bill can best be discussed in Committee, but perhaps I might just refer to some of the chief clauses. I do not intend to do so at great length. Clause 5 purports to amend Clause 21 of the principal Act. That clause deals with an officer who is called upon to resign in order to avoid discharge, and who has had 20 years’ service. In the present Act the Treasury may grant such an officer a gratuity. This clause in the new Bill makes it perfectly clear that that officer cannot get any other benefits as well as this annuity, and secondly, it gives him the power to convert a portion of his annuity benefit into a lump sum. Clause 7 amends Clause 26. That clause in the principal Act deals with the transfer of officers from the teaching service to the public service. There is a good deal of diversity in the pension laws of the various provinces in regard to the people who fall within the scope of this provision, and it has therefore been thought necessary to have more elasticity in our law in regard to such cases. This clause amends the existing law in three ways. As far as paragraphs A and C are concerned, they are really matters of simplification. B is more important in so far as it relieves the officer of the onus which at present lies on him to make an election as to how he is to be dealt with. To that extent then a concession is made to the officer. Then Clause 11 is an amendment of Clause 30 of the Act of 1936. That clause in the present law deals with the benefits that are payable to dependants of officers on their death from injury or ill-health resulting from the discharge of their duties. The only important amendment in this clause covers the case of a widow of an officer who has died in that way. Under the present law that widow loses her annuity when she marries again. In this Bill we propose to make a concession to such a widow by providing for a gratuity to her on her marriage. That is a provision which is taken over from the War Pensions Act. In that Act we do provide for such a re-marriage gratuity, and we propose to make the same provision in regard to the public service. Then Clause 16 amends Clause 42 of the principal Act, which covers the case of the transfer of officers from and to the service of other governments. The present clause does not cover the position in the case of retirement of those who go to the service of another government where the payment of pension contributions is not required. Because of that difficulty some of these officers who have been transferred to other services have lost the benefit of service here. Clause 17 again makes a concession. The clause which it proposes to amend in the present Act deals with the treatment of officers for disablement which is consequent on injury sustained in the discharge of their duties. We make provision here that in such cases compensation will be paid for the loss of earnings sustained by them during their treatment, in addition, of course, to the other compensation which they secure. This again is in the nature of a concession which is based on the provisions of the War Pensions Act, where a similar provision is made. The only other clause on which I need comment is Clause 19, which amends a clause in the present Act dealing with the Union Widows Pension Fund. In certain circumstances to-day members are allowed to continue to contribute to that fund after their retirement. This amendment will clarify the position in that regard in certain respects. It will also make the option to withdraw from the fund exercisable by those officers not only at the time of retirement, but also after retirement, and it will also make a necessary provision which is not made to-day, to allow a member to terminate his membership of the fund in the event of his wife predeceasing him. I think I have now dealt with all the important points. There are one or two points in regard to which certain concessions are made to officers which appear to be necessary and desirable, and which I think will be approved of. The other amendments are purely amendments removing difficulties which have been found, and the clauses which I have not detailed are clauses containing amendments which are of even less significance.

We received a memorandum this afternoon about this Bill. It contains eleven printed pages, and if we include the Afrikaans, then it is over twenty. I do not, of course, suggest that we should read both. In any case, this is a very involved Bill, which deals with the amendment of many other Acts which we have already passed, and I hope that the Minister will give us a little more opportunity to study this memorandum which he has laid before us. I also hope that he will be willing to accept the adjournment of the debate at this stage. The Minister said that this Bill could be better debated during the Committee stage than at the second reading, but, nevertheless, he spoke for almost twenty minutes on it, eighteen minutes of which approximately were spent in discussing widows. It seems to me that this Bill should rather be entitled “Widows Relief Act”, than a Bill in connection with pensions. In any case, I hope that the Minister will give us a little more opportunity of considering the memorandum which has only just been put into our hands. I therefore move—

Mr. C. R. SWART seconded.

Agreed to.

Debate adjourned; to be resumed on 12th March.