I move as an unopposed motion—

I second.

Agreed to.

The Minister has been good enough to grant us a comparatively lengthy time to study this Bill. There is really no principle contained in this amending Bill, except that it appears to me that since 1941 when the Bill was adopted many difficulties have cropped up in connection with the operation of the Act, and that the Minister is now obliged to come before this House to ask that amendments should be introduced into the law. But there are one or two points that I wish specially to emphasise. The first is that the Bill makes provision for a higher payment. That is in Clause 19, which contains provision for an increased payment to workers and their dependants. The percentage has been increased from 55 per cent. to 66 per cent. in the one case, and from 27½ per cent. to 37½ per cent. in the other. We on this side of the House would like to see justice done to the working man, and whenever a worker meets with an accident in the course of his work he ought to be compensated. But the Minister has not explained to us how he is going to meet these increased payments, whether there will be higher premiums, and if there should be higher premiums what the effect will be on industrial development in general. From this side we should like to have seen an actuarial report from the Minister’s department in reference to these new modifications. Provision is made here for increased payments, and we would like to see in how far this will happen without an increase of premiums, and if there is an increase of premiums what this increase will imply. It is a very important matter and I consider that the Minister should give attention to it. Then there is another case, and this is in connection with Clause 2. As hon. members know. Agriculture is excluded from this Bill. The workers in agriculture are excluded—

Now we have an amendment proposed by the Minister. The Act as it was was too broad. The experience in agriculture is that it was on too broad a basis and everyone who was employed in connection with vehicles or machines driven by mechanical power were included. I want to give this illustration to the Minister. There is a machine on the threshing floor. Various people work in connection with that machine, the man who drives the machine, the man who feeds the machine and the man who cuts up the sheaves to supply the feeder. We understand that these people must be safeguarded against damage if they meet with an accident. But then you find that even the man who stands on a stack and the man who carries away the sacks, in fact the whole operation in connection with a machine while it is threshing falls under the Act, and the farmers considered it very unjustifiable, that the interpretation of the Iaw was so wide. What we envisaged when the law was adopted in 1941 was that those who were actually in control of the machine should be protected. Now the Minister has met us in this respect and we appreciate it. He has put in his amendment that it will only—

Now I want to say to the Minister that although I realise this is an effort to narrow down the operation of the law in this respect, and not to extend the responsibility in respect of a greater number of workers, I am not so certain that this amendment will accomplish its purpose. We must proceed from the standpoint that the original idea was that the person or persons in charge of the machine should be included. Although there are hon. members who say that I know nothing about farming I want to say that I grew up on a farm and 1 am also farming, and I know that when persons work with a tractor you have the man who is in charge of the tractor. He is included, but then you have the man who is perhaps working behind the plough, and if he has an accident he is excluded. I consider that that man ought to be included. But there are other misgivings on this side of the House which will be mentioned later. When the law is given practical effect the farmers find that the Commissioner is inclined to place too wide an interpretation on the Act, and they find that they cannot single out one or two of their workers to do special work, because it may happen that one or two of the workers who are actually insured may be off ill on a particular day, and it may be another person who is equally capable who has been chosen by the farmer to do the work, and if this person operates the machine what should the farmer do?

The law does not require names; the one can take the place of the other.

But the number of persons is limited.

The one can take the place of the other who is sick.

The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet) will hear what the difficulties are. They will be mentioned by people who have experience in the operation of the Act. Then I come to Section 4 of the original Act which is being amended by Clause 3. After the words “widow is not” the words are added—

We know that the Minister has gone a little too far in including a person who is not really the workman’s widow, but if the Minister can give us the assurance, as he has done in the White Paper, that this will prevent some hard cases, we shall accept it with pleasure. But we should like to see the finding of the Commissioner submitted in every case, and we feel too that the workman’s children should be taken into consideration in every case. If he has lived with someone who was not his legal wife but he has dependants by his legal wife they must receive first consideration, and I hope the Minister in this respect will strengthen this position. Then there is the amendment in connection with the action a workman has against a third party, that he no longer can make an arrangement with a third party in connection with compensation. It is of course true that cases occur, where a third party has been negligent and where the man has been injured during his work, when he should not be allowed to make any arrangement he himself thinks fit. I think this a very good principle that the Commissioner should be notified when such a claim is made by a third party, and that the commissioner shall decide how far the workman can withdraw his action against the third party. I think this is a very good amendment in the Bill, because as the Minister states in his White Paper there have been decisions in the court that indicate that the dependants of a worker who can demand compensation can make an arrangement, and then Section 8 is entirely nullified. I consider this a sound principle, because otherwise you can get a compromise which eventually is not to the benefit of the dependants. There may be a momentary desire to arrange the matter in order that a little ready cash may be obtained, though if regard is had to the future those interested will suffer thereby. I consider that we should see to it that in such a case the workmen should not readily forfeit their rights. A very welcome amendment in this Bill is that there will be medical assessors. This is a matter that I felt necessary in 1941, because it must be determined to what degree the health or capacity of the worker has been reduced. I have always felt that you can only get this when you have the advice of the medical assessor. I should like to see the law going a little further in this connection. The Minister should know that the assessors will be comprised of a person representing the employers and a person representing the employees. The medical assessor is only there in an advisory capacity; but there can be a difference of opinion, and I consider that you can then take into consideration the advice of the medical assessor and that must be a deciding factor, it must not be merely advisory. I am glad about the following amendment in that the Minister has accepted good advice from our side. It is advice that I and other members on this side of the House gave him some years ago. The Minister then did not want to know anything about the court, nothing about an appeal to the court. At that time the Minister’s decision was final. Now the Minister has found considerable difficulty in connection with decisions, and he has felt that the responsibility resting on him is tremendous, and after the experience he has acquired he has now decided that his decision will be subject to an appeal to the court.

You are sometimes right.

That is something we felt strongly about, and we are glad that the Minister is proposing the amendment. Then there is another point in connection with Clause 26 which has to do with the assessment of the employers. I should like to have a little more information in connection with this amendment. It appears that the manner of assessment has now been amended. We should like to know precisely in what way it has been amended. For instance, it has been stated here in the white paper—

I cannot understand that—“according to the machines and vehicles they use”. It will be a very difficult standard to apply Will it happen in connection with a vehicle, say a tractor, that there will be an assessment in one wav and that in connection with a threshing machine there will be another form of assessment. Suppose the men are working in a cellar with an alectric pump, or are working in connection with a motor lorrv how will they be assessed? This is a matter that should engage serious attention, and I do not know what the Minister really means by this clause. But for the rest we have no objection to offer on this side of the House, and we are perfectly satisfied with the amendments that are being introduced. We should also like to see that our workmen receive proper compensation should they meet with an accident or become incapacitated in the industrial life of the country. But in our zéal for that we must always put this question and enquire into it: What is going to be the effect of such measures on our industries, and to what extent are they going to be obstructive? I want to make this final point. If increased burdens are imposed on industrialists and employers, we should like to learn from the Minister what they are going to be and what effect they will have on industrialists and employers in general. On the whole, with these few reservations in connection with agriculture over which there are misgivings, and I think also in connection with the alluvial diggings, which have been mentioned by this side of the House, we have nothing against this amendment that is being introduced.

I do not intend speaking on all the various amendments in this Bill. I wish to confine my remarks to one clause, namely Clause 2, which introduces quite a new feature. I refer to the voluntary insurance scheme set out in this particular clause. I would mention that the Select Committee of 1940 reporting on the Workmen’s Compensation Bill recommended—

This particular clause introduces quite a new feature in that, where it is not compulsory for an employer to insure certain workmen, he may now do so on what is termed a voluntary basis. As the amendment reads, I cannot really see that it can be classed as a voluntary basis, in view of the fact that an employer having once volunteered to insure his employees who are outside the scope of the Act, cannot withdraw or depart therefrom until he obtains the commissioner’s agreement to do so. Therefore the voluntary side of the Act becomes a compulsory feature. As the Act reads today and as it will continue to read if this amending Bill goes through certain employees fall outside the scope and, as I have said, will continue to fall outside the Act. I refer to the following employees: Persons earning more than £750 per annum, domestic servants in small boarding houses or institutions ordinarily employing not more than five servants, farm workers not employed with vehicles or machinery, certain airmen and seamen, and persons employed on alluvial diamonds, gold, or corundum diggings, not working with machinery or power. The hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) has stated this morning how difficult it is to ascertain whether a man falls within the scopé of the Act when he is engaged on a farm, for he may be working with an electric pump in a wine cellar one minute, and, if it is ruled that he is working with machinery, I take it he would receive compensation under the Act. But, if on walking out of the wine cellar, he is kicked by a horse, he would receive no compensation in view of the fact that the accident did not arise whilst he was working with machinery. The amendment proposed by Clause 2 enables an employer to insure with the State on a voluntary basis such workmen who fall outside the Act, but it is not compulsory for him to do so, and he can, if he so elects, insure them with insurance companies. This is a complete departure from the recommendations of the Select Committee on which the existing Act was drawn up, and I maintain it is also against the declared policy of the Government namely that the State has no intention of interfering with private enterprise.

Is your objection that the Government cannot undertake it?

My feeling is that it should be compulsory to insure all the persons I have named; those getting over £750, farm labourers who are not working with machinery, and the other types of employees I have mentioned. It should be compulsory to insure them. I feel that I am expressing the Minister’s declared policy, that he is always out to help the lower income groups. Why should he therefore bring in an amending Bill which still excludes these lower income people? Why, for instance, should a domestic servant, who is in the employ of an employer who has not more than five domestic servants, be excluded from the benefits under the Act? You may get a boarding house which in the ordinary course of events during the season employs four employees, and later oh in the busy part of the season nine employees.

Then they fall under the Act.

That is just the point. If the employer has nine domestic servants in his employ then the unfortunate person who meets with an accident would receive compensation. But if, on the other hand, the employer at that particular time has only four employees and a servant, say, scalded herself or was totally disabled, she would receive no compensation whatsoever. Therefore I say, to my mind, the correct procedure would be for all these persons now excluded under the Act, and who will continue to be excluded if this amending Bill is passed, to be brought in under the Act; I think that private enterprise would have no corpplaint whatsoever if that were, done and the Bill would still be in accordance with the recommendation of the Select Committee. I would also like to refer to another aspect of Clause 2 which I think is very important as it will seriously affect the compensation which an employee would receive if as at the present time, he is an excluded employee. The Bill provides that if an employee is receiving over £750 a year he can be included under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, and will therefore be classed as a workman. The insurance is on a voluntary basis, but, Mr. Speaker, the compensation is only based on a maximum wage of £400. Let us take, as an example, a man who is in receipt of £1,200 a year. Under the Act if the employer elects to insure him with the State, he would receive approximately £18 5s. a month during the time he is totally disabled. The insurance companies have hitherto, and ever since workmen’s compensation was introduced into this country, provided insurance to take up those employees that fall outside the Act. Under the insurance companies’ policies those particular employees instead of receiving approximately £18 a month during the time they are disabled, would receive £75 a month. I feel that many employers will say: I am doing my duty to my employees by insuring on a voluntary basis with the State and they will naturally give up their policies with the insurance companies resulting in this class of employee receiving reduced compensation. Again there is another undesirable feature contained in this clause, and it is very unsatisfactory indeed, in that if an employer decides, instead of insuring with an insurance company, to insure with the State on a voluntary basis, he immediately takes away the common law right of all his employees. Now it is bad enough for the State to take away a man’s common law rights, but when an individual employer can take away a man’s common law rights, then that appears to me very bad legislation. There is, true enough—I think it is in Clause 43 of the existing Act—limited common law rights for an employee, but very limited indeed; and if hon. members will refer to that clause they will see how limited the common law rights of the employee are once he is classed as a workman under the Act. I would like to put forward the suggestion that either the Minister withdraws this particular voluntary clause, or failing that he makes it compulsory for all those employees who are outside the Act at the present time, to be insured. I feel that in the interests of the worker, the employer and private enterprise the Minister would be well advised to adopt this suggestion. I see he is smiling, but I have seen him smiling before.

I have never yet given satisfaction.

Here is a chance for the Minister to give satisfaction to all concerned. I will admit there is something in the fact that the amount of £750 is perhaps somewhat small in these days owing to the general increase in wages, the £ being worth less than it was, and it might be advisable to increase the limit in the Act from £750 to £850. I think if that were done it would include the majority of employees engaged in manual work, and thereby the Minister would get over the difficulty with which he has been faced. If the Minister cannot agree to this I would beg him, particularly in view of the loss to the workmen, to have this particular clause referred to a Select Committee.

Criticisms have been levelled against the Minister from various quarters in regard to his introduction of the Bill. One is that the principal Act was only put on the Statute Book four years ago, and that it should not have required all the amendments proposed today. The other is that what is actually required is a much more extensively amended Bill than the Minister has been prepared to put before the House at the moment. I do not subscribe to either of these criticisms. I think the Minister made it quite clear when he introduced the Bill four years ago that it was recognised that so comprehensive a measure could only finally be perfected on the basis of trial and error, and that he contemplated having to bring in an amended measure in the near future. As for the criticism that the Bill does not go far enough to warrant its being introduced, I feel that that criticism is not justified in this sense that this Bill does a considerable number of useful things. It certainly does not do all that everybody wants, but if it were all we could get, I think it would be worth having at the present time. It evens out some of the inequalities in the original Bill. It removes some of the anomalies which only the application of the Act could reveal, and it does appreciably improve the position of the individual worker when he becomes dependent upon compensation. I think myself, for instance, that, although the request of the trade unions for an increased level of payments has not been conceded, the establishment of an improved level of compensation in respect of 100 per cent. disability is a very useful concession. Further I welcome very sincerely the proposal that the provision which allowed the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner to raise periodic payments to £6 10s., or the level of a man’s earning, is to be applied now in respect of pensions as well; that should be a very great gain indeed to a great many of the people who fall under the Bill. I welcome also the provision which abolishes the reduced rate of periodic payments after 12 months. There are extended provisions for the dependants and children which I think should be welcomed by everybody. The increased level of costs, the increased range and the extended period of medical aid are, I think very great gains indeed; and in particular—it may be a smaller point—I welcome the deletions from Clause 27 of the original Bill which provided for a waiting period in all cases of disability arising from accident and lasting for less than four weeks.

I would have liked to remove all waiting periods.

I should like to have seen that too. The waiting period does not square with the purpose and the intention of a Workmen’s Compensation Act. The whole purpose of a Workmen’s Compensation Act is to maintain the standard of living of the worker, recognising that it can never be an extravagant one in the conditions of our present society. This waiting period means that we are depriving a man of compensation during a period when he is not earning anything, and when he is suffering in addition. I hope that sooner or later the waiting period will be removed altogether. There are special reasons for my wishing to see this feature removed. This provision, as the Minister is aware, and as the House is aware, applies in a special way to natives. The conditions affecting natives are governed by a different section of the original Act. Under that section no compensation is payable if the disablement lasts for less than seven days, while if it lasts no less than 14 davs it is not payable if the native is receiving food and quarters at the expense of his employer. I have always felt that was a most iniquitous provision in our Workmen’s Compensation Act. It covers the case of people who are not receiving wages on a living standard and of people whose existence depends on the continuance of the man’s earnings. Even when this class of worker is receiving earnings at his full capacity his family is never on a proper living standard; and to place that family in the position that if the man is provided with food and quarters by the employer, there is nothing to hand over to them, they have no income is to aggravate enormously the economic pressure our system imposes on a large part of our population. Finally. I think the provision under the amended Bill whereby the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner is given much wider powers than he has had in the past to adjust the schedule is a most desirable amendment in this Bill. Here again I think that the special circumstances of South Africa give added importance to a provision of this kind. The schedule of the Workmen’s Compensation Act was drawn up in the past, I believe, mainly on the experience of other countries, but that experience does not always square with our conditions. Here we have an abnormally large proportion our our Popuiation which consists of manual workers for whom there is no alternative occupation even under a system of rehabilitation; physical injury in this case has far greater economic consequences than in a community where a man can be trained to use his mind for something else when he loses the use of his hands, and I have always felt that we ought to have the maximum amount or elasticity in order to balance the burden of economic pressure in the case of disablement under our schedule. I welcomed all this, and if the Bill did nothing more I feel it would be worth while on account of these concessions. And I feel that even in respect of the native worker for whom I am particularly concerned and I say “am particularly” because I think the Minister knows my interests do not lie exclusively in that direction. I have an acute interest in the conditions of all the workers. But we have a special obligation to present the case of the native worker. Now under the principal Act there are certain discriminations against the African worker which we opposed at the time, and which we had hoped might be removed within this period of time, but even in regard to those workers I shall be prepared to welcome this Bill. It does improve their position very materially: Not all the provisions apply to them but most of them do apply. Under this Bill they are having the advantage of the abolition of the reduced rate of period payments after twelve months. They are having the advantage of the wider range and the longer duration and the higher cost of medical services, and they have various other improvements. Above all, they have got one new thing. The Minister has introduced one provision we must accept with the greatest gratitude; that is the provision that in the case of African workers also the workmen’s compensation commissioner shall have the power to raise the period payments of the injured workmen to £6 10s. per month, or as the proposed amendment puts it, to 75 per cent. of his full earnings. That is going to be a very great advantage, at least I hope it is, to the African worker. But having said all that, I must add that on certain points I am not so happy about this Bill, and I hope that before it emerges from this House certain changes will be made to bring it more into line with our hopes and desires. In that connection let me begin by saying I support strongly, the proposition put forward by the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. Abbott) that the inclusion of domestic workers in smaller boarding houses, and of agricultural workers, should be made compulsory.

What about the £750 a year man?

I am not particularly concerned about him. I feel what the hon. member himself felt, that it is the most insecure persons we want to cover first. I am prepared to consider any other proposition; the extension of the benefits of the Act to other groups but if I am given a choice of burdening the fund with additional responsibility I should give it to the lower paid worker rather than the higher paid worker whose interests are going to be safeguarded by other types of legislation under our social security schemes. Now on the purely native side we had hoped of course that the major discrimination would be removed, that is the discrimination under which the native worker never attains the right of a pension even where he suffers 100 per cent. disablement. That, Sir, is a discrimination which we have always felt is without moral justification and without any economic foundation. We all know, from our own experiences the hopeless inadequacy of lump-sum payments. Now the whole aim, as I said before, of a measure of this kind is to prevent people falling into the ditch of poverty and distress and becoming dependent on charity as distinct from maintaining themselves and their self-respect as a matter of right. A man who has suffered a disabling accident has earned his maintenance by the State and should not be forced back on charity. Now, the lump-sum payment needs a highly developed responsible person to apply it in such a way that it may in the end work out to the economic security of the person to whom it has been given, and in fact the whole principle of the lump-sum payment for 100 per cent. disablement presupposes possibilities of investment which will enable a man to use his intelligence to get security for himself. But a native can neither get a sufficiently large lump-sum payment nor the opportunity for investment which could make it a valuable privilege in his case. Well, the hon. the Minister has heard all this before and I know that in his heart he subscribes to it. The only difficulty is the question of time. I think that the time has come and that the change should be made now. We are only piling up misery and insecurity and distress under this type of provision which will have to be relieved under some other Act and in some other way. What we do not do for the unfortunate workers, the native worker, under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, we have to do under some other Act, now that at last we are awake to the fact that circumstances of poverty and distress are an obligation and an economic responsibility upon the community. If we do not give a man the assistance he has earned under this Act we shall have to give him some other assistance; In this case probaly an invalidity grant. But that is not a desirable alternative. There are three things against it; it is not likely to be as good a grant as he should get in compensation; in the present circumstances of our society, it is in the nature of a charitable relief whereas the man has earned his compensation; and—Sir forgotten for the moment what the third thing against it in my opinion was—but that’s enough to go on with. But I must not forget to welcome such improvement in the position as the new Bill does concede, that is that the dependants of an injured native workman who dies of his injuries shall get the full amount of the lump sum due to him instead of the 80 per cent. that the principal Act provided. But, Sir, although we are grateful for what has been done, I do sincerely trust that the hon. the Minister will not only be able, but I hope he will, establish pensions for all workers, irrespective of race, and that he will give us the assurance that he and the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner will introduce this amendment in the very near future. In regard to the other aspects of the Bill affecting the native, I wonder why it was not possible to eliminate some more of the financial discriminations which do not seem to have much point in them, and for which there did not seem to be any justification in the Bill. For instance, the level of the cost of medical aid has been revised and the right is now being placed in the hands of the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner to go on paying out or demanding from the responsible employer the medical costs that are necessary to restore the injured man to health and efficiency. That is a general provision which applies in respect of all workmen. Now, since that is the case, why make a differentiation between the amount that may be claimed in the first six months and finally in respect of natives and the amount that may be claimed in respect of other workers. You see, the Bill is amending the whole provision in this regard to reserve the limit of £200 which any worker other than a native can now claim from the fund or from the employer liable, and although it retains the limitation of the period of two years from the date of the accident, the commission can increase the amount and he can extend that period. Now, the provision in regard to natives, which is also set out in the principal Act, is being amended so as to lay down that the commissioner may extend the period and the amount subject to the limitation of the period to a maximum of two years which again he may change, if he feels justified in doing so. The amount that the native worker may claim in the first six months is increased from £25 to £50, as against an increase from £50 to £100 which the European worker can claim. The actual point I wish to make here is that the cost of medical services is not laid down on a racial basis in this country. Bills are rendered on the basis of services performed. Certainly where the person attended is not the person who pays for but, a friend, it is a matter of indifference to the doctor or to the hospital whether the man is a European, a coloured, an Asiatic or a native. The Bill is submitted to the fund for payment and it is paid irrespective of for whom it was incurred. In all the circumstances there does not seem to be any point in that type of differentiation, and it seems to me that we are better off without that type of differentiation which seems to have no point. Now there are two other direc tions in which I should like to see a further amendment. One of them I have already mentioned. It is not touched in this Bill. I should like to see the application of this provision in regard to the three days waiting period, under the amendment to Clause 38 applied to native workers as well as to all others. It is an amendment that should apply all round. I know where the opposition comes from to such a proposition and I am not very hopeful of getting it. I know that the Chamber of Mines does not like it. In the original Workmens’ Compensation Act, the waiting period for natives was six weeks. It was a great gain to get it down to 14 days but it is still a very bad provision, and since this Act was passed in 1941 ….

Why is it a bad provision?

Because it leaves the man’s family for 14 days without any income to live on, which seems to me an extremely bad provision. We have had the report of the Mine Native Wage Commission which has made abundantly clear the extent of the dependence of the mine worker on the wages he earns. The Commission states in its report that the ordinary mine worker cannot earn enough, as a mine worker, to keep his family fed, on the lowest level of economic consumption, for the combined period of his contract on the mines and his period at home. Of course, this provision applies to all employees and not only to the mines. I am merely facing the fact that the main opposition to revision along the lines of the provision made for all other workers comes mainly from that direction, and I think it should not be allowed to stand in the way of more reasonable amendment in this regard.

You do not think the mines had any influence on my decision?

I do not think that, but every member who sits in this House knows that the ultimate fate of any Bill, in the last resort, is a balance between contending points of view. I do not think the hon. Minister will deny that himself, that each one tries to get as much as he can. And I am sure that the hon. Minister agrees with me about this waiting period for natives.

I have come to that conclusion already.

If that is so it might have been in the Bill. Now I have expressed an appreciation of the provision that is being included in this Bill, to enable the Workmens’ Compensation Commissioner to raise the periodic payments to injured native workmen to £6 10s. or some other level. It is this “some other level” that I want to discuss. It is proposed that he is to be empowered to raise the level of these periodic payments to £6 10s. or 75 per cent. of the full earnings of the workman. Now, I am wondering why the Commissioner decided on 75 per cent. of the full earnings of the worker as against the provision of the original Act, the principal Act, upon which this is built. In the section of the Act dealing with peridoic payments, the provision appears which allows the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner to revise upwards the periodic payments to injured persons earning £6 10s. per month or less to £5 10s. or the man’s full wage where he feels or is led to believe that the workman would be unable to maintain himself and his dependants on periodic payments of less than £6 10s. per month. That is now to be extended to pensions also. Now I wonder what were the grounds of the differentiation introduced into this provision now that it is to be applied to natives in respect of periodic payments. In this case, where a man is earning less than £6 10s. per month, he is to get 75 per cent. of his wage only. I cannot see any point in this limitation. In any case this will be a very small concession to very many people. My impression of this whole provision in the principal Act and its extension in the Amending Bill is that the Department feels, from its own experience, that no-one can really live in this country on less than £6 10s. a month, and 1 fully agree with that. As a matter of fact, I wonder how many Europeans are brought under the terms of this provision. I do not know how any European can live on £6 10s. when he is not injured or sick, let alone when he is. But I am only dealing now with the application of established principles to the native worker, and all I am asking is that the Minister should consider amending and giving the Commissioner exactly the same powers in regard to periodic payments in respect of native workers as he now has in regard to all other workers, that is that he should be empowered to give them £6 10s. or their full wage, whichever is the lesser. That is the provision of the Act. I believe that anyone getting less than £6 10s. is going to be in a very bad way if he is limited to even 75 per cent. of his wages; and I think the Minister will agree with that. There are many cases where natives are probably earning only £4 a month when they have got involved in an accident. I see that the Commissioner himself has quoted as an example in Clause 21 of the Bill the position of the workman earning only £3 a month when injured. It would suggest that in the experience of the Commissioner himself the range of wages for most workers is considerably less than £6 10s. In the circumstances I trust that the Minister, who, I trust, will be supported by the advice of the Commissioner in this regard, will consent to amend the Bill and give the same powers in respect of native workers that the Commissioner already has in respect of other workers. When he has gone so far I feel that he might well go the whole way. Having said all that, I just finally want to express the hope that these lesser amendments will be made before the Bill passes the House. I know that we will not get the major amendment which we want in this Bill, but in expressing our gratification for the amendments which were introduced, I wish to express my hope that the Minister will make these further altogether justifiable concessions.

As one of the members who opposed the scheme being brought under State control in 1934, when the first original Bill was introduced, I took this occasion to say that we would not be able to get efficiency under a State scheme, the same efficiency which we were receiving from private enterprise. I also mentioned that the premiums would not be any smaller under a State scheme as under private enterprise. However, that is all past history. The House in its wisdom or otherwise decided on a State scheme, which I still think was unfortunate in that it was introduced in war time whilst there was a shortage of officials and a lack of premises and the lack of the personnel required for a vast undertaking such as this must be in due course when it is extended. I think it was folly to introduce it at this time. However, I am not here to condemn it. It is the law of the land and we have to do whatever we can to make it work. One should really congratulate the Minister on undertaking such a vast revolutionary scheme when he knew what difficulties he would meet. I think the Minister, will admit that some justification exists for the remarks I made then, and I say today that the scheme certainly has been lacking in the settlement of claims, and I very much doubt whether the workers have benefited.

Would you not rather that the Government benefits than other private people?

I doubt very much whether anyone will benefit from this scheme, but I hope that in due course all these difficulties will be removed and that we will deal with the undertaking with some success. Before there was this scheme the matter was left to the employer. What happened? It was left to the employer and things were done quite efficiently. If the Minister convinces me that anyone is better off under this scheme than they would have been under private enterprise, I say so far definitely not.

What is the proof?

The proof is the way in which the men who are injured are kept waiting for their money, and the inconvenience caused while the application is being dealt with. The Minister had very little ground to work on other than the experience of other countries. He could not get the staff to deal with it and I admit that they are working under tremendous difficulties. I am not blindly prejudiced and saying that it is impossible for a State undertaking to be efficient as private enterprise is. My experience is that State enterprise has not been so efficient up to now but I hope we will get a Government department now which will be as efficient as private enterprise. That applies also to the Nationalist Government when they were in power. It was exactly the same then. I have always maintained that you cannot get efficiency to the same degree under Government enterprise as you get under private enterprise. I am sure that anyone in the country who knows anything about it must agree. Unless the Government have a complete monopoly there is very little hope of their being successful in an enterprise. I do not want to delay the passing of this Bill. I want to help it, as I have always been prepared to do. But I want to say that employers of labour are finding difficulty now while the insurance companies were running this scheme the employees had little trouble, and the employers less. You only rang up on the telephone to tell the company that a workman had been injured and they completed the forms without any trouble. I want co appeal to the Minister to help us to arrive at that happy position again because I am prefectly certain, and can prove that the majority of employers today under the State scheme will have nothing to do with small claims of £5 to £15. They think it is not worth the trouble. They would rather pay it themselves. This position will be remedied in time but it is a fact today they consider that the loss of time and inconvenience in regard to small claims is not worth While-Hundreds of claims will not be put forward due to that delay which causes considerable inconvenience to employees, because an employer is not compelled to pay compensation until he receives it from the State. If a man is off work for a week his employer can argue that he has paid the premium and the State now has to pay, and will not worry about the inconvenience caused to the employee. There is too much delay and it must be remedied. First you have to ring up the hospital and get a first, second and final report, which have to go to Pretoria where they are considered and then they come back to the town of origin. All this takes time. Let me say this, that the Minister has some officials who are amongst the finest men in the country. I know one in Durban, whose name, I think, is Strauss, who is a very fine man, but is being overworked and is almost going grey. It is up to the Minister to give him assistance and staff. There is no difficulty in filling jobs today. I do not know why schemes like this were not left over until the men came back from the front. Then these difficulties would have been obviated. I just want to ask whether it is not possible for the Minister to get some of the staff which worked for the insurance companies. Of course they will have to be paid and the State cannot pay the remuneration that private enterprise pays, but I say to the Minister that he cannot underpay and get good men. Let him make his Department sufficiently attractive to attract these men and they will come to him instead of going to the insurance companies where they get high salaries, because this is a highly technical business. If we can only have the efficiency that is exercised in private enterprise and instil that into Government departments, we will be only too happy if the Government embarks upon more State schemes. As it is, there is almost too much delay in Government schemes, and claims do not receive attention promptly. I think it is right that I should bring that to the notice of the Minister. I must say that I have never met the employer of labour yet who has been able to say to me: “Thank Heavens you have introduced a State scheme to take over Workmen’s Compensation.”

You must be keeping bad company.

Possibly, but I have discussed the Act with a large number of employers and I have never met one who was highly satisfied with it and who said that we made a good job of work of it. Having said that, I do appeal to the Minister to try to speed up these things and to endeavour to get the assistance which is required so that the employer can just ring up the local office and say that a man has had an accident and ask for the forms to be passed on. Try to simplify the initial stages of the scheme. Today employers ask why they should employ special men or staff to do nothing but fill in Government forms and send statistics to the Government. That is an everyday complaint, common to all departments, not only in regard to this particular department. I know when I was running my own business we had even to submit a return of the number of buttons we had. If we can simplify I think we ought to do so, because there is a limit to which you can go with returns. I believe it was Mr. Churchill who said the other day in the House of Commons that no one wants England to become a nation of formfillers. I would like to support the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger), particularly in so far as concerns her argument that natives falling under this legislation, when they suffer a serious injury or are totally disabled, should be given a pension instead of a lump sum payment. Why should they be treated differently to anybody else? In a matter like this the employer has to pay, and if he has to pay a little more to enable his native staff to get pensions in the event of total disablement there are, I am sure, few employers who would object. There must be provision for every human being whatever his colour. I do not see any reason why there should be any distinction between black and white in this matter. They are all workers. It is being paid for, and it should be possible to give exactly the same treatment. [Interruption.] No, it has been said that our Party is a racial Party, but that is only Press publicity for which there is no justification whatever. We have no colour bar in that respect. Everyone, no matter the colour of his skin, should be treated as a human being. If it is right that the white man’s dependants should be looked after in the event of his death or total disability what earthly objection can there be to seeing that the dependants of a coloured man or a black man are placed in the same position? The employers have to pay; this is not a matter for which the whole of the community has to pay. It is a question of the employers of labour, and I have yet to find any decent employer of coloured labour who would not be prepared to pay a little extra so that provision could be made for his staff in the case of total disability. I would like to support the hon. member for Cape Eastern on that and on most of the other views she has put forward this morning. We know how sympathetic the Minister is to the workers of this country, he has always been that personally, and it is said this may be one of his last big efforts ….

Would you like me to go out?

It does not mean that, it may be a case of the Minister attaining Groote Schuur status, when it would not be necessary for him to be troubled about workmen’s compensation.

Are you claiming to be a prophet?

Well, the office has been filled by much worse individuals.

There I agree with you.

I do know that the Minister is sympathetic, and if there are interests who are endeavouring to restrain him from doing what he conscientiously believes to be right, I am convinced the Minister is capable of looking after himself; and when it is suggested that the Chamber of Mines or anyone else has any influence on the Minister I say the member responsible for saying that does not know him. Having said that, I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to one aspect of the matter which does affect everyone who pays for workmen’s compensation; we would like to expedite these matters, we do not like unnecessary delay, and I hope we will be able to have a start and have efficiency as we have under private enterprise.

I am approaching this matter only from the viewpoint of agriculture. The hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) opened the debate this morning and alluded to the uncertainty that exists in agriculture in connection with the application of this Act. I, of course, cannot support the hon. member for Green Point (Mr. Bowen) and the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) when they come with a general compulsory scheme for the platteland. The platteland is in a difficult position. In our experience you have, farms where absolutely no mechanical power is used, where the employees perform purely and simply the normal daily farm routine. If under these circumstances you want to place a burden on the farmers that they should in ordinary circumstances insure their people against any accidents that may occur, later on you will have to go further. You are creating a precedent and later you will have to insure the people outside their hours of duty as well. But I am prepared to agree that where machinery is used of such a nature that it is a danger to those who work with it, then the people should be insured against accidents which may incapacitate them for the rest of their lives. There must be a certain measure of compulsion as far as this is concerned, which the farmers are accepting. But then you should evolve a scheme that is not so complicated. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet) who unfortunately is not here at present, stated by way of interjection, if I understood him aright, that it is not necessary to give the names of employees for insurance purposes. If this is the case we should be satisfied. If it is only necessary to give the names of three or four or five natives for all the workers on your farm to be automatically insured, then I shall naturally not have any objection. But my experience is different. In the past few weeks I had to pay an assessment, and my experience is that I have to give the names of my workmen.

What must you pay?

It is the assessment for insurance. 1.10 per cent. per £100. I regard the matter from a different viewpoint entirely. You will be organising your workpeople so that you will no longer be able to say: “This is a boy I shall pick out for the machine and not this one.” We are training them; later on you will have a large number able to drive the tractor.

Then you are covered by the Act.

Wait a moment. ‘ If instead of this scheme we can have a scheme in which the farmer accepts as a farmer the responsibility for his workmen and pays a yearly premium based on the number of workmen that he has in service, it will make for considerable satisfaction. Then it will not matter whether he selects the workmen for the machine or for mechanical work, and you will eliminate this difficulty, and the farmers will be covered against any accident that may occur. In this way you will meet the difficulty that you have for instance if you have a large number of workmen on a threshing machine or a tractor or a cultivator. Sometimes it is impossible for the farmers to make an absolute distinction.

That is being borne in mind.

It is impossible for a farmer to make provision if he has 30 or 40 people on the farm, and then to say: “This one is involved in that and not the other one.” I can of course say who the driver of the machine is and who will drive the lorry, but if you have a large number of labourers concentrated at one point you cannot exactly distinguish between them, though I feel that as a farmer you want to have them covered. I think the hon. Minister should take this into consideration whether he cannot evolve a scheme for the platteland which is not compulsory but which is a voluntary scheme, and under which you can voluntarily become liable to the provisions of this Bill on the basis that I have just suggested to the House. Then the farmer will be covered against damage and accidents.

I want to follow the last speaker and speak entirely about agriculture in order to show the Minister the difficulties. As the last speaker has stated, there is a section of farmers who do not use machinery, and naturally they must be cut out, but generally speaking all our farmers who farm on a big scale do have machinery, and the trouble is that at some time or other they have to use different workers on different works. For instance, the boy working with a tractor may be ill. You cannot say you are only going to insure this one man because he is your tractor driver; you have to have some other man to drive the tractor on occasion. Then when you have a mower with the tractor, the man on the mower runs a greater risk than the man on the tractor.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

When the debate was adjourped we were speaking about farm labour and the difficulties we had with farm labour. One difficulty I see is how to gauge the price the native is getting and on what basis one can issure him. I suggest that as regards your farm labourer working a tractor or machinery like that, he is receiving about £100 a year, and ordinary natives about £50 a year. That is according to the Native Commission’s report. That is his actual earnings per annum. Now, if one takes the wage as something in between the two, £75 to £80 per annum; it will mean that the farmer is paying £1 per annum per native. That is the same as employing eight boys at £1 or 10 or 12 boys at 15s. I want to come back to the remarks made by some of the hon. members like the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) about farm wages. The farmer is fair to the native. We do not suggest that he should not get paid if he suffers injury in his work. We want to get away from the idea that because he is a black man we want to oppress him. That is not so. I heard some pertinent remarks from one hon. member about the colour bar. On the farm, I assure you, we have nothing of the kind. We want to compensate the native for his worth. I want to say that the farmer recognises the worth of the native on the farm. We are his protectors and we wish him well. It is the farmer who has always taught him how to work and we do not want to oppress him. If we can protect him we shall do so.

With a few reservations I should like to support this amending Bill of the Minister’s very cordially. According to the latest census figures—I believe that the latest census figures are those for 1940 —we find that 560,000 European workers were profitably employed in the Union compared with 4,500,000 non-Euporeans. Only 150,000 of the European workers are covered by industrial agreements. That was in 1940. Then in 1941 the Minister came with his Workmen’s Compensation Bill, and I can inform the Minister that that Bill represented a big leap forward in connection with our labour legislation in South Africa. From Section 38 of that Act it is very clear that compensation is paid to workers on the basis of the incapacity and earnings of the workers. I should like again to bring to the notice of the Minister that even as far as this Bill is concerned the big objection is that there is no uniformity in connection with our labour legislation in South Africa. From the 1940 census it appears that there are 60 industrial councils in South Africa. These councils have each their respective wage determinations, with the result that even under this Workmen’s Compensation Act as well as under the amending. Bill that the Minister is introducing, workers who are doing the same work but who are not being paid the same wage find that they will not receive the same compensation. I mention this incidentally to bring this to the notice of the Minister with an eye to future labour legislation, that is should be so revised that we should have uniformity throughout. I differ from the Minister in reference to a few of the amendments. The first is in regard to Clause 3. I cannot entirely agree with him. Clause 3 of the Bill amends Clause 4 of the principal Act. Now we find the following in the Minister’s explanatory memorandum—

The Minister bases his amendment on the case of a woman who lived for 20 years with another man. It is obviously the attitude that the blame attached to the woman, but we cannot accept this in every case. When difficulties arise in that respect we cannot always expect that the woman is the guilty person. My approach to it is this, that especially with the first marriage the husband and wife should begin to build up their future together. You find cases where the wife has stood by her husband through thick and thin, and has helped him to build up his future. We have cases where perhaps it is the conduct of the man that has been responsible for a woman leaving the house, and such a woman may perhaps later on live with another man. Now the Minister says that compensation in respect of that workman can be paid to a woman with whom he is living, although his legal widow is still alive. I am not in favour of that. Where we find that the legal wife is no longer living with a man and he is living with another woman, we should rather determine that the compensation should go to his dependants. I am not going to propose an amendment. I only want to express the hope that the Minister and the Commissioner will take this hint of mine into consideration in such cases. If the legal widow may not receive compensation it can then go to the dependants. Clause 10 introduces an amendment to Section 27 of the principal Act, which reads—

1. (i) For the first three days of disablement which lasts for less than two weeks;
2. (ii) for the first two days of disablement which lasts two weeks or more, but for less than three weeks;
3. (iii) for the first day of disablement which lasts for three weeks or more, but for less than four weeks.

The Minister is now deleting (ii) and (iii). I would rather that the Minister had deleted (i), (ii) and (iii). I cannot see why compensation should not be paid for the first three days of actual disablement if the man is disabled for less than two weeks. I want to congratulate the Minister on having discarded (ii) and (iii), but I would express the hope that he will see his way clear to let (i) drop also, so that the workman will be paid compensation for the full period of his disablement. These are the few points that I want to bring to the notice of the Minister today. I welcome the Bill heartily in respect of the opening it gives to employees who previously were not covered by the Act. There are several groups of workers who were not covered under the old Act and who will under the amending Bill participate in the benefits of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. I also welcome the increased payments to workers and their dependants. It has always been my policy to try to get as much for the workers as possible, but here I want to identify myself with the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) when he says that if there are improved payments, higher premiums will have to be paid. How much more is it going to be and to what degree will it affect industry? I shall be glad if the Minister can give us the information. Finally, I want to congratulate the Minister in that he has realised that his decision in such a big matter cannot be final. I had hoped that if the Minister saw that he was wrong and that he was not cut out to be a dictator, that he would effect an alteration and now he has allowed an appeal to the court; I welcome that.

I should like, at the outset, to deal with Clause 2 of the new Bill, and to ask the Minister to consider seriously making some change in the amendment he is introducing. Where a person falls within the classification of a workman—a person earning less than £750 a year—whether employed in commerce or farming it is right that the compulsory provisions of the Act should be applied to that person and he should be the recipient of all the benefits the Act confers on a person in that position. It would be highly desirable to apply the existing Act not in a voluntary but in a compulsory manner to the various classes the Minister has outlined in his White Paper on the Bill, to the farm workers and others. He would, I believe, find a great deal of support for that. During this debate there has been some support from the farmers. It is very difficult when an employee falls under the Act when employed on one task and the employer is subject to criminal sanctions while, when he is engaged on another task, he does not come under the Act. In the case of farm labour when the worker is engaged on power-driven machinery he becomes a workman for the purpose of the Act, and when he is no longer occupied on that work he is not a workman. The difficulty is obvious, and it applies generally throughout workmen’s compensation. I would urge the Minister to consider seriously making the Bill apply compulsorily to all these different classes, so that any members of these classes earning less than £750 a year may fall within the ambit of the Bill, and be in receipt of compensation payable under the Bill. That would be a step forward in this movement for workmen’s compensation. I want the Minister to pay particular attention. I draw a distinction between them and those, who as a result of earning over £750 a year do not fall under the category of workmen in the present Bill. I have separated them because they are usually separated, and for two very good reasons. Firstly the present Act, although defining a workman as a person earning less than £750 a year, limits the compensation payable to a maximum income of £400. I submit it is unfair to tell a man earning over £750 a year: You are a workman compulsorily subject to the provisions of this Bill, but your compensation is confined to a maximum income of £400. A distinction should be drawn between those within the £750 class and those above it. There is another reason apart from that, and it is this. This Bill takes away from a workman his ordinary common law rights. Admittedly those rights are to a degree restored under Section 43, but nevertheless it does debar the injured party from making a claim under the common law. In terms of Clause 2 of this Bill it will be competent for any employer to insure his employees under the Workmen’s Compansation Act, and he can insure a worker whose salary or wages are far in excess of £750; he can do that voluntarily, but the employees’ compensation will be limited to a percentage of the maximum of £400, and his common law right will be taken away. Therefore it is fair to divide the four classes enumerated in the Minister’s. White Paper into two separate categories, and to deal with them as such. Those below £750, whether working on farms or whether they are domestic servants or employed in other capacities on the alluvial diggings, or gold or corundum diggings, should be brought within the ambit of this. Act, and it should be compulsory to provide them with the benefits. That would get over a difficulty inherent in this amending clause. When the original Bill was brought in the fundamental underlying principle was it should apply to compulsory insurance and not voluntary insurance, and we find in the new clause as drafted that there is a mixing of the two principles; we are introducing into what is a compulsory measure a voluntary basis, and as one examines that one finds it a little more complicated than appears at first sight.

Do not make it too complicated.

I am trying to simplify it. I think that would be fair under this clause and would get over the difficulty. I think it a pity to introduce into this Bill, which essentially covers compulsory insurance, which in every aspect is designed to cover compulsory insurance, a voluntary insurance system. That will lead to further difficulties. On that point I wish to say no more at this stage, but I want to deal with this £400 maximum on which compensation is payable. The Minister would be well advised to consider increasing the figure of £400; I am not suggesting any particular amount, but it does seem grossly inequitable to pay workmen who are in receipt of £600 or £700 a year compensation limited to a £400 basis. Consideration also might be given to increasing the figure of £750 to a higher figure; might I suggest a figure of £850, so that this particular wage-earning class may be embraced in a wider manner? If the income limit is increased from £750 to £850, and if the figure on which compensation is payable is increased from £400, a balance will be maintained and many of the present difficulties will be overcome in a way which harmonises with the principle of compulsory insurance enshrined in this Bill. I put this forward for the Minister’s serious consideration There is one other aspect of Clause 2 which I wish to raise. In Clause 2 it is provided that if an employer wishes to insure those who do not fall within the definition of a workman, those who are today eligible for voluntary insurance, an employer may do so with the workmen’s compensation commissioner, but once having done so he may not withdraw unless the commissioner consents. That is not in the interests of the fund, because it is liable to act as a deterrent; an employer knowing that once in the fund he cannot get out will think twice before coming in. That is one reason I object to this clause. Another is that I do not think the commissioner should be granted powers of this nature. It would be better to provide for the employer voluntarily insuring in the fund a condition enabling him to withdraw on terms laid down by Parliament, such as giving reasonable notice to the commissioner of his intention to withdraw. Provision can be made in this clause at the Committee stage which will enable the employer to withdraw subject to giving reasonable notice to the commissioner, which I should suggest as three months. As workmen’s compensation is operated in annual compartments it would be reasonable to provide that notice should be given before the end of the calendar year. That would meet this problem. I want now to deal with Clause 8 of the Bill, which is introducing a new feature. An additional provision is to be introduced in terms of Clause 8 enabling the commissioner to borrow money, and I want to draw the attention of the House to the terms of that clause—

There is no qualification as to the extent to which money can be borrowed. That brings in an interesting argument in this matter. When the original Act was introduced the commissioner was given very wide powers, and many aspects of the Bill were left entirely to his discretion. In connection with the financial operations of the scheme the Act provided, in simple language, that all receipts should go to the credit of the fund from which the commissioner would make payments for claims and otherwise. It went on to provide that the commissioner has the right to decide how to use any surplus in the fund for reducing the rates charged for insurance. This is entirely in the discretion of the commissioner. The next section provides for a reserve fund which evidently this amending Bill is to make good for the time being. Apart from the accident fund into which all moneys received go and from which all moneys going out are disbursed, the commissioner has the power to establish a reserve fund.

It is from that central fund, it is not extraneous.

There is no provision in this Bill that a certain percentage of the fund shall be set aside for that reserve fund. It will be built up entirely at the discretion of the commissioner. I do not want the Minister to misunderstand me. I do not object to the provision of the reserve fund. The point I am raising is that the commissioner has discretion as to whether he puts money into the fund or not. That fund is to make provision for unforeseen demands on the fund, and for the further purpose of stabilising from year to year, as far as practical, the rates of compensation or the premium rates charged. The original Bill made no provision for borrowing powers. I do not know why it is necessary now to ask the House to give the commissioner borrowing powers. In the White Paper it is explained to the House that no special necessity is anticipated, but it is advisable to have borrowing powers until the reserve fund can be built up, as delays might otherwise occur if compensation had to be paid out in the case of a number of payments being involved as the result of a major disaster. I can understand it intially, but at this stage I feel a little difficulty in understanding why it should be brought forward.

I shall explain it.

I will appreciate that. When one examines the first accounts of the Workmen’s Compensation Fund, which are contained in the Auditor-General’s report now before Parliament, we find in the first year of operations the total amount of assessments, in other words the premium income, amounted to £922,000, the preliminary and formation expenses amounted to £20,555; that strikes one as being a substantial sum, but I am not concerned with the aspect of its size, all I am concerned with is that in the first year it has been seen fit and correct to write that amount off in one year, and after having done so the commissioner shows a reserve fund of £280,000. If one adds the £20,000 for preliminary expenses it would appear that the surplus for the first year amounted to £300,000, which is approximately a third of the total income. There is the further fact that these accounts were for the calendar year 1943, and with another year we have progressed somewhat. I do not know whether I am justified in assuming the surplus in the second year will be the same as in the first year. It may not be, and that is why I am not going to be dogmatic. But I can guess it will not be far off. If it is not far off the previous surplus, the commissioner has in the fund at this stage a reserve of about £500,000.

Call it £400,000.

We should like to know the figure at some time. The fund now stands at between £400,000 and £500,000 and surely that should be sufficient in view of the present scale of operations, and it should not be necessary to ask the House +o give the commissioner power to borrow money. It is doubtful whether we are justified in giving the commissioner those powers. Mr. Speaker, I come now to the final point, having regard to what I have said concerning the establishment of the Accident Fund and the Reserve Fund. It is obvious that if a large amount of money is put in the Reserve Fund the immediate effect of that is going to be a higher charge for assessments or charging higher premium rates, and we have no means of knowing how things are going, how the commissioner is dealing with this aspect. I do not think it is desirable that a reserve fund should be built up with undue haste. I want to make that clear. I agree entirely with the necessity for a reserve fund. The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Dr. V. L. Shearer) is smiling. He has memories of the same argument. I hope the commissioner will not set out to build a reserve fund with undue haste. I agree the surplus is going to be used in the future to decrease premium charges, and that is a sound policy. When the Minister replies I for one will appreciate his taking the House into his confidence and giving the House some indication as to how the commissioner is applying these powers which are vested in him in this Act. It would be useful if we had some information on that point. We appreciate the figures the Minister gave us on the second reading. They were interesting and illuminating too. I hope the Minister will consider the points I made in regard to the second clause in this Bill and that he will furnish us with the desired information regarding the reserve fund.

I do not think there is anybody in this House who will dêny that the hon. Minister has always been a staunch friend and champion of the working classes. Perhaps his own party do not appreciate that very fully. We know his followers often have fights with him, and that is just because they do not appreciate him. I feel that I should be failing in my duty if I should not pay that tribute to the Minister. One must accept this amended Bill as introduced by the Minister in that spirit of friendship and goodwill towards the working classes. We heard recently that it was the Minister’s own last race. In spite of the Labour Party I think there are many workers in this country who hope it may not be his last race. There is one quality the Minister possesses that I for one would like to possess, that is he understands the feelings and the desires of the workers, and that being so he will concede that the working man has one commodity for sale, and one only—his labour. That is all he has to sell. If he is deprived of that commodity he is left helpless. He is left relatively speaking bankrupt. We also know as the years go by, or as he meets with accidents and is rendered incapacitated, the value of that commodity must be decreased. It is extremely difficult to assess the value Of that asset of the working man. When you pick up a piece of cloth or any other commercial article you can attach a value to it; but you cannot do that in respect of the asset the working man possesses. That is a very important, factor in a Bill of this nature. [Interruption.] The hon. member surely believes that the United Party have good feelings towards this Bill. I do not think that the Labour Party or the Nationalist Party can claim a monopoly of labour interests in this country. This morning I was listening to the views of representatives of the farming community; I was listening to hon. members representing wealthy industrial interests; I was very interested in their arguments. But let us remember the workman has his labour to sell, and he is in a very different position to the industrialist or the commercial man. The bottlestore keeper, if he sees any danger of losing his licence does his best to defend that licence; he will throw into the fight all the capital at his disposal, and he will employ the best legal advice in the country. The workman cannot do that. If he loses that commodity as a result of an accident he cannot take any similar course. He has never had an opportunity of accumulating that capital and he has not the security. His commodity cannot be assessed in money or security; to that extent he is at a disadvantage. Those are considerations in labour matters that one must bear in mind. In discussing labour questions I think we must appreciate we are dealing with human values and not with £.s.d. or with voters— which incidentally seem to have become the only currency for all political parties in democratic countries today. We cannot deny the fact that we often know the working man only when we want his vote. All parties in all democratic countries do that and it is wrong. It is in that spirit that I would like to approach the Bill. The Bill is an improvement on the old one, undoubtedly, but it is my honest submission that it does not go far enough. It should have gone much further. Let us hope that in time to come it will go further. Labour legislation in this country is still young and as the years pass work and the value of work will be more appreciated, as it is now beginning to be appreciated overseas. At the outset one finds certain sections of workers excluded from the Bill. I think that should not happen. To the workman his labour is his wealth, and whether he is employed in agriculture or in industry or in commerce or in the domestic sphere, it is still his wealth. The loss of a limb in any of these spheres is a heavy blow to him. It means decreased earning capacity. It is in the absence of realising that important feature that we find in our society disabled poverty. I wonder how many of these cripples and invalids and blind people who stand at the street corners might not once have been strong workmen selling their labour, but because it was not appreciated in the State and their loss was not appreciated, we have to carry them today as State burdens. They would have liked to be independent people, but by force of circumstances they have to live on charity. I think we must appreciate these facts as we approach the new era we are always talking about. One hon. member referred to a threshing machine in this connection and wanted the man who supervised the machine only to be insured.

You did not listen.

Wherever one works one is exposed to accidents. Another aspect of the Bill which demands attention is the maximum compensation paid. That, I think, should not be put on a lower level than the man’s full earning capacity. His full earning capacity should serve as the basis. Many members dealt with the temporary withholding of wages, so it is not necessary to deal with it again, except to say that it can lead to the dislocation of a man’s whole life. But I want to come to one of the most modern ideas in workmen’s compensation, namely the assessing of compensation. I would not like to do that job. It is a very important function and therefore the best safeguards we can possibly have should be taken to see that a man gets proper compensation if he loses his earning capacity. There are certain safeguards provided for in this Bill. It is my submission that the assessment of that loss should not be left to one or two persons. It is my submission that it would be much better if the commissioner were assisted by a board of council with the commissioner as chairman consisting of a nominee by the Medical Council, a medical man, and two medical nominees by the workmen. I have seen many of these disputes between doctors. I have the greatest respect for the medical profession and other professions, but we know there is often a difference of opinion amongst professional men about a small matter, especially in the medical profession. I think the workman should have his own representative. Furthermore, that board should consist of one member nominated by the Trades Union which covers the particular field where this man worked. The commissioner cannot be a walking encyclopaedia about all spheres of labour. He can only theorise. The medical men sitting on the board cannot know the whole of the industrial field. I feel that the Trades Union representative, who himself should be a worker or an ex-worker in that particular field, will be in the very good position to advise the board. Many members have commented on the right to appeal to the law courts. It is a basic right, but we know that legal procedure in this country is very expensive indeed. We know that a man can be offered a sum of money in lieu of compensation, and if he is not satisfied he can appeal to the court, but if the court grants him less than that he has lost his case and must pay costs, and very often he spends more in legal proceedings than he gets in compensation. Some provision should be made whereby that procedure should be provided free, free legal advice and free court procedure. We must always bear in mind that we are dealing with people who have very little opportunity of accumulating capital and putting by something far a rainy day. When they meet with a crisis they are often left ruined. In conclusion, the following points should be submitted, as an ideal for a Workmen’s Compensation Act in this country, as a charter for the workman when he meets with an accident. In those instances the compensation should firstly be extended to cover all workers. There should be increased benefits for incapacitated workers. There has been increase here, but let us hope it will be still more in future. Payment should be equal to the full earnings of the workman. He cannot help it if he is injured. He is not the master of the machine. He operates, so why should he stiffer? There should be compensation to cover injured workmen when leaving from or going to work. That is a contentious point which has often been argued in the courts. It has been argued that he is not injured in the course of his duties, but if he did not work in that particular factory he would not have been going to that factory. I think we will satisfy hundreds of workers if they know that they have that security. Security of life and earnings is the basis of that social security we talk so much about. Then there should be adequate protection and compensation for industrial diseases. When a man loses a limb it is an accident and he is covered by the compensation, but if over the years he becomes a sickly man in that work owing to industrial disease, that is not taken into consideration. That should also be covered under this Act. Then, payment should be made on a weekly basis. Finally, there should be the establishment of an industrial disease research bureau to investigate many of the diseases that we are now discovering are caused by certain occupations. If we adopt measures on those lines we shall be on the way to providing proper and decent protection for our workmen.

I only want to say a few words about Clause 2. I am very pleased, speaking as a representative of a rural area, speaking chiefly on behalf of farmers, to notice that we, as farmers, will be allowed voluntarily to come in and to obtain the benefits of this Bill. I feel, however, that as many of our farmers do not yet realise the advantages of insurance, this clause saying that when they come in for a period only they will have to remain in permanently, will keep farmers away from supporting this insurance scheme. Once the farmers realise the real advantages of insurance they will take advantage of it. But this clause which will force them to continue with the insurance if they just try for a period is one which will drive farmers away. Contractors are all right. They will be able to insure, but the farmers are not in the same position. Some of their employees will go on staying with them for ever. If, for a period, they wish to do extra work and to be covered, and they enter into this scheme, they will have to stay there for ever. I would also like to see the poorer farmer being able to cover himself as well as his employee under this section, the same as a contractor can do. I throw out this suggestion to the Minister and hope the Minister will consider it and possibly introduce the necessary amendment in the committee stage.

While supporting the State Workmen’s Insurance Scheme I feel that the Department concerned with this insurance should at least give the same treatment to the insured as the insurance companies did in the past.

You would not like the same treatment.

In the few cases I have had to deal with one invariably finds an attempt on the part of the Department to get out of paying the claim.

Will you give me some instances?

Yes. The position is this, that if one sends in one’s claim to Pretoria these things must be investigated, but in the case of the insurance companies they had a local agent who gave them the necessary information. Surely the Department has the magistrates and the police or other local bodies from whom they can get the information? But still it takes months sometimes to get a reply. I have a few cases from my own constituents. There is one big farmer and general dealer who is also a builder on a large scale, and the man employs many people. On 24th March, 1944, he wrote to the Commissioner in Pretoria asking for certain information, and it will surprise the Minister to hear that on the 12th June he received a reply for the first time, that is 12 days short of three months. As I said before, I am supporting State insurance but I want the State to treat its* clients at least not worse than the insurance companies. On the 28th May, 1944, he sent in a claim with the necessary forms for the insurance due to one of his men. Two months after that he got the first intimation and was paid. On the third occasion he sent in a claim and after again sending a telegram to which he received no reply, almost two months after that he received the first reply. I cannot do better than to read his letter—

I say that at least one can expect that when these claims are sent in, the officer should deal with them as soon as possible. I appreciate that the difficulties are great, but I say that the insurance companies always had local agents to whom they applied for particulars, and I think the compensation officer in Pretoria should also have a local agent, like the police, to tell him about the cases. I am just mentioning this to the Minister. I do not want him to think that I am not supporting him, but I want the Administration to give efficient services.

I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to a few words I addressed to him on the 21st April. 1941—

I think the hon. member who has just sat down (Mr. G. P. Steyn) practically proved that I was quite right, and that since the institution of this State insurance scheme, there has been delay and inconvenience to the public in many cases. I go further. I said—

I would like to ask the Minister how many returned soldiers he has in his Department and how many men he is prepared to absorb in his Department who have seen service. I would like to know what the total number of the staff is which he has and how many of them have seen war service, how many have applied to go North and have been retained on medical grounds or because they are considered to be key men. How many men from Natal, how many from Port Elizabeth, and East London has he on the staff in his huge Department? Those are pertinent questions, but my information is that this service seems to be a refuge for those people who never had any intention to fight or to serve their country in the war, but who are looking for the plums in this new department. I would like an expression from the Minister as to how my warning of nearly five years ago has turned out. The Minister may laugh, but it is not a laughing matter to the soldier who has gone forward prepared to sacrifice everything.

Rubbish. Do not talk tripe.

They have looked for the plums in the service.

Rubbish.

Mr. Speaker, I feel that after listening, to the last speaker who spoke from this corner of the House (Mr. Tighy) my voice must sound like something in the nature of a gentle zephyr following on a full-blown gale. I would like the Minister to regard my remarks in that spirit and treat them as a gentle appeal to pay heed to the pleas which have been put forward by the hon. member for Houghton (Mr. Bell) and the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. Abbott), and, yes, too I think I may include the hon. member for Cape Eastern, who has put forward her case in her usual eloquent and capable manner. I too would like to see the scope of the Workmen’s Compensation Act extended to cover all classes of employees below a certain wage level who may be excluded under the provision of the present Act. With regard to the general amendments proposed in this Bill, I think, the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, that they appear to me to be intended to extend the scope of the benefits embodied in the original Act, and to remove in some measure certain anomalies which have cropped up in the Administration. Undoubtedly there have been anomalies and difficulties in the administration of the Act, and I am glad to see that the Minister is taking this opportunity to bring amending measures before the House. I do not wish to detain the House for long. I would just like to refer briefly to Clause 2. If I read it correctly, Clause 2 proposes to bring within the ambit of the Act, on a partly voluntary basis, those workers who were excluded from it under the existing Act. I say on a partly voluntary basis because it seems to me that the employer and the employee need not of necessity both agree to act under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. I have heard it mentioned during the debate that an employer electing to insure his employees under the amended Act would automatically result in the workman losing his common law rights. I do not know whether that is correct or not. It may be that it is not, but I, for one, am prepared to leave it to the Minister to enlighten us on these facts. Other than that I do not think there is anything with which I can really quarrel in the measure proposed by the Minister. He and I have been good friends for many years. He knows that I, too, have been a worker in my time, and that though now an employer I still have the interests of the workers at heart and that I fully support any measures which would have the effect of improving their position.

I should like to put a question to the Minister of Labour in connection with the alluvial diggings. The alluvial diggings were excluded from the existing Act, and it would appear that they are included in this Bill. I should like to know why they are being included. It will probably cause many difficulties if this Act were applied to them. The diggers are not like farmers or industrialists who remain in contact with their workers for a month, six months or a year. They hire their coloured labourers by the week. How are we going to apply this Act to them? If they engage natives, must they insure those natives if they work with machinery? In the past the diggers have received very little attention from the United Party and from the Government. I am glad to see that the Government is now starting to take an interest in them, but unfortunately we find that that interest is taking this form, that the diggers are going to be oppressed even more than they were in the past. I hope the Minister will reconsider this matter, and that he will tell us to what extent this measure is going to affect the alluvial diggings and that he will decide not to apply this Bill to them. I think they have difficulties enough as it is, and if they still have to insure their native workers, it will cause many difficulties for them.

I never expetced such a wealth of eloquence to be poured out on this miserable little Bill of mine. It just shows you, Sir, that Parliament, like other parts of the world, is open to surprises. You, from your long experience of my Parliamentary career, at all events, will know how very much embarrassed I am this afternoon.

By what?

By the extraordinary circumstances I find myself in at the moment. I, who used to be kicked all over the place in the Parliamentary sense, now find myself the subject, first of all, of cold congratulations, passing through a crescendo of applause and encomiums to the final and culminating point, the pleasant prophecy of my hon. friend over there that in the near future I may be attaining Groote Schuur status. I am just wondering whether he is contemplating changing his allegiance. I should hope not. He is one of those gentlemen who sticks where he sticks. Of course, there had to be a discordant voice, but it is rather unfortunate that that discordant voice should have emanated from my hon. friend, the “Abbot” of Sea Point, reinforced by the resounding notes of the “bell” from Houghton. And what is that discordant voice? What did it seek to impress upon the intelligence of this House? First of all the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. Abbott) quotes, and not only quotes, but he actually reads, the report of the Select Committee, in support of his contention that there should be no voluntary insurance under the State Insurance Scheme. Where did he get that? I am glad he drew our attention to that report, because it has enabled me to read it again, and from the beautiful sentiments expressed and from the expressive language used, I have come to the conclusion that I must have had something to do with the drafting of it. Let me read it—

Where does it say there that that body constituted by the State, shall not take voluntary insurance? Where is it said? It does not do anything of the sort. It does not insist upon compulsory insurance and compulsory insurance only. So my hon. friend is hoist with his own petard. He is convicted out of his own mouth, because the very thing that he quoted—and I am using this word in no invidious sense—gives him the lie. Well, let it be accepted at once that this State insurance is pre-eminently suitable and permitted by law to accept voluntary insurance.

Not as it is at the moment.

Good, but I say it does not prohibit it.

It does not allow it.

It does not prevent it, but it does not actually by word and by language say that it shall accept voluntary insurance. That is why we are proposing to amend it in order that we can do so, and why we are proposing to do that is in order that we shall be able to take in those sections of the community who hitherto have not been insured and cannot be insured by us but who are very anxious indeed to be insured by the State fund. I refer to all those sections which are specifically mentioned in Clause 2 of the Bill. First of all, let us take the objection of those two hon. gentlemen behind, namely that those hitherto prevented from being covered by insurance, namely those in receipt of over £750, shall not now be accepted. That is the argument of the hon. gentlemen. We propose that they shall. We have had, Sir, directly and indirectly many hundreds of applications for insurance ‘of this particular type. I used the words directly and indirectly advisedly. By directly I mean those employers who have actually asked for State insurance.

To make it compulsory?

I will come to that in a moment. And I will come to what I suspect to be the motive underlying that opinion. By indirectly I mean those employers who, in furnishing their wage returns estimates, have included all those earning £750 and over. Well, we propose to meet their desire. I am deeply touched and I am sure my colleagues over there and the trade unions will be equally touched by the kindly disposition of the two hon. gentlemen behind me who are so worried about two things one is the limitation to a maximum of £400 as the basis of calculation for compensation, and the other is that these poor unfortunate workmen for whom their hearts bleed and the insurance companies whom they represent—they say they do in a particular case, not all the time ….

I represent no insurance company.

I thought not. The hon. gentleman is a nonentity. He represents no one.

Don’t be facetious.

Don’t get hurt. Well, isn’t it sad enough to make one facetious? The hon. gentleman is protesting against my making a joke about his intervention in the debate. But I say their hearts bleed because the unfortunate worker will be deprived of his common law rights. What a deprivation. I am one of those who have always held that to hang up that bunch of carrots, the right of the working man to appeal to the courts, is a complete misrepresentation of fact, because how many workmen, as my hon. friend over there pointed out, have the wherewithal to fight a case of this description against the powerful insurance companies to which my hon. friend has been making reference. But they are worried about the worker losing his common law rights. I am not worried and I claim the right, and I claim it correctly, to represent the true interests of the workers in this House.

We say you are taking it away from the insurance companies ….

I am coming to that, I am only referring to the fact that you display such tremendous interest in the working man. Now, says the hon. friend, both by speech and interjection, “make it compulsory”. That is a very kindly way of killing the thing altogether, because they know perfectly well that in this House —and I say it without drawing any invidious distinction—if we tried to make that compulsory all over these sections, these that we propose to include in the Act, the House would reject it.

There would be no objection raised.

The hon. member knows perfectly well it is not going to be done. Hon. members on that side know that it is not going to be done. Hon. members on this side know it is not going to be done. We cannot include those except on a voluntary basis.

What are we going to do about the poor workers on the farm?

For the first time in the history of insurance in this country we are providing an opportunity for the worker on the farm to be included. And why are we doing it? The reason is twofold. Firstly, initially, it is our desire so to do and secondly—and I make this public with a tremendous amount of pleasure—the farmers generally are now beginning to ask for the opportunity not of going to private insurance companies to insure their workers but to come to what they realise to be a safeguard, a State fund controlled by the State. That brings me to the point raised by my hon. friend behind me and by one or two hon. members over there. The amendment, as proposed, envisages that once the farmer has elected to come into the fund to insure with the fund, he must remain for all time in the fund—a sort of voluntary compulsion. I do not think that is quite correct. I do not mean that the statement is not correct, but it is not correct that we should do it that way, and I am willing to accede to the request of my hon. friend behind me and to the point that was made by two or three hon. members over there, that we will permit the farmers to insure with the fund and that if they so desire, upon reasonable notice being given, they can withdraw. I am prepared to accept an amendment to that effect. We will thrash it out. My hon. friend over there, quite rightly expressed the difficulties that the farmers were faced with at arriving at a computation. How can you adjust the rates? Here you have a chap driving a tractor one day, another day he is leading oxen, another day he is kaffir-hoeing ground; he does several different jobs on the same day. That is further complicated by the case of the chap working machinery; he falls sick and someone else comes in also for a short time. I realise all those difficulties, and we propose to get over them in the best possible way, and that is this. Just as we came to an agreement by consultation to allow this voluntary system of insurance by farmers, just so by consultation we hope to get over this assessment difficulty. We are taking the power to assess; we are taking power to insure and the assessments themselves will be the result of complete negotiation and consultation with all sections of the Union concerned.

Will you consult the agricultural union?

Yes, as a matter of fact I am happy to be able to say that the South African Agricultural Union is distinctly in favour of the inclusion of farmers. We have not just sat down and formulated these amendments. They are the result of consultation of the most complete kind with all the people concerned. The assessment will not be imposed upon you; it will be the result of consultation. Does that meet you?

Yes.

We know what the difficulties are. We anticipate all the difficulties. I am a little bit of a farmer myself, and I know the difficulties, so you have got a friend at court.

Then you are a capitalist.

No, unfortunately I am not.

I thought all farmers were capitalists.

Now, I come to my old friend; if he will forgive me for calling him my antediluvian friend, the member for somewhere down in Natal. He trotted out the same old arguments.

Don’t take him too seriously.

Well, occasionally I do. I want to ask him this. He is a retired civil servant. Is he drawing on his experience, as evidenced in his own particular career?’

Yes.

I was afraid of that. It is not a fit demonstration of the general attitude of public servants towards matters of this kind. But would he not be one of the first to protest—were not all these same old arguments which he has drawn from other people, used against the transfer of telegraphs and telephones and postal work from private enterprise to State enterprise? What would have been his attitude when he was just entering the civil service towards a demand that the State should not run the Post Office? The hon. member agrees with me that it was as a result of his own experience that he spoke todaý. I still do not think that the hon. gentleman’s prognostications have been proved to be correct. We have done the right thing in transferring from profitmaking insurance companies compensation for injuries to workers to a non-profit concern such as the State.

What about your hon. friend’s complaint over here?

I am coming to that. It was inevitable and still is inevitable in view of all the circumstances that there shall be delay. We deplore that delay and we are doing our best to catch up on them, and I am happy to say that we have caught up on them very much. We do not have to gain experience, we have already gained the necessary experience. What we want is staff, and my hon. friend need not fear that the Ministerial conduct of workmen’s compensation insurance by me is going to be detrimental to the future employment of returned soldiers. He knows that. When he asks me how many have been taken on, of course, I cannot answer him, and he does not expect an answer, but if he is suggesting by those questions that he asks, that we are deliberately setting our face against taking returned soldiers, then he is making a grave mistake.

I did not say that.

I hope not. My hon. friend withdraws any possible imputation of that.

There is no possible imputation; I did not say it.

All right, my hon. friend did not say it. He will remember how I piloted the Returned Soldiers Employment Act through this House and the man who did that is not going to fall down by the way when it comes to the implementation of the provisions of that Bill.

I was speaking of the Public Service Commission.

The Public Service is all right. I am not going to let them take all the blame.

The Public Service Commission.

The Public Service Commission is not to be blamed either for any anticipated misgivings on the part of the hon. gentleman in this regard. They are as clean-souled in this matter as ever the hon. member can be. I want to thank the hon. member who brought all these instances of delay to my notice. He has promised to give me the letters from which he quoted, and I will cause the very closest enquiry to be made. It must be remembered that we did work under extremely bad and difficult circumstances. I have been reproached —I think my hon. friend over there reproached me—for starting this in war time.

I did not reproach you.

At any rate he regretted the fact that I had to do so.

You did not take all the people in the insurance companies over?

There were none offered to me. I undertook in advance that anybody, who was worth while of course, who was displaced from the insurance companies, by the introduction of our Act, would find a resting place in our organisation, but they never came. We promised them a resting place in an organisation infinitely more attractive than the insurance companies concerned.

Why did they not come?

Because they were not there to come. It was a fallacious argument on the part of the insurance companies. In fact, it was a hypocritical argument on the part of insurance companies. Anything was good enough to flog this beastly thing, the State insurance scheme which the hon. Minister of Labour was introducing. Well, we have not yet overcome the staff position—not by any means—and we are going to take the fullest possible advantage of any returned soldiers capable of doing work of this description who offer themselves for employment, and we will do that with pleasure. My hon. friend over here was very much perturbed about the very rapid building up of a reserve fund. It will be remembered that when I introduced the original Bill ….

I was referring to the policy to be adopted; I was dealing with the future policy.

I am coming to that. It will be remembered that when I* introduced the original Bill, I announced to the House that unlike the insurance companies we contemplated not only meeting our financial commitments to injured workmen but that I proposed to build up a rehabilitation fund out of which to train men who could not do this job, to do that job, and I made it abundantly clear that when they get work at the new job it would not militate against their pension or the sum they might be granted as a lump sum compensation. In other words, they would have their pension as compensation and in addition still get their pay for the work they were doing. The reasons advanced by me are these: It is the State’s business to look after its citizens, and more particularly is it the State’s business, to look after its injured citizens. The immediate financial side is met out of premiums paid by employers, and then we proceed as a State to rehabilitate them. I claim that that is commendable. I announce to my hon. friend that the amount in reserve, not in the reserve fund, but the amount in reserve, which is a fortuitous one, is £423,324, but that is not an actual surplus. We are still getting in claims for 1943.

1943? Not 1944?

No, we are still getting in claims for 1943. Of course, we are also getting in claims for 1944, and the claims for 1945 must still come, but the fact is that that sum does not reflect a surplus over and above all commitments. There are commitments to come out of that, and the building up of the fund to which I referred just now, will not be quite so rapid as my hon. friend fears. Now my hon. friend wants to know what the policy is. The policy is one of caution. That brings me to the point made by my hon. friend over there. He wants to know whether these increased benefits, which undoubtedly are increases, and the inclusion of others, would mean an increase in premiums. No! My reply to the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) as to why we have not gone the whole hog in giving 100 per cent. instead of 75 per cent. is this. I want to give 100 per cent.; I am aiming to give 100 per cent. to all workers who may be injured, but the reason why we are limiting it to 75 per cent. is because of that note of caution; we have to feel our way and we will not know for three or four years where we stand. We cannot financially balance our fund for at least three or four years, and I do not think there is any member of this House, particularly business members, who would urge me to do otherwise, until we know exactly what the cost of the fund is, the number of the injuries and generally how the fund will be able to operate financially. I again assert that that will take another three or four years, and until that time we cannot do anything in the way of increasing benefit or decreasing premiums, but at the moment we certainly do not have to increase the premiums on account of the benefit envisaged in this amending Bill. I am not suggesting for a moment that if later on we find that the temper of the House is of such a character that it will agree to 100 per cent. of the wages for compensation at all costs, that we will not then perhaps increase the premiums, and that being so I will make no bones about asking the House to increase the premiums. I think I have now dealt with all the points.

What about pensions for natives?

That also falls into the category I have referred to, of increases with which I cannot deal at the moment, as I desire to.

What about the alluvial diggers?

I think my hon. friend has missed the point. This is voluntary and it is voluntary on the part of the employer. My hon. friend is worried because he says these workers are itinerant. I think my hon. friend was not here when I made the announcément that I was prepared to accept an amendment. I think I have dealt with most of the points and I hope the House will now agree to the Bill being read a second time.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on the Bill on 16th April.

When the debate was adjourned, I was just pointing out to the Minister that this Bill is not as simple as he may think. In introducing a Bill of this nature, the question of the responsibility for providing employment comes into the picture at once. That responsibility must also be determined, and I want to say right at the outset that we on this side of the House are not opposed in principle to a Bill to register unemployed persons, but I am going to move an amend ment to this Bill from which it will appear clearly what our attitude is—

1. (a) to introduce a properly planned and comprehensive scheme for the employment of unemployed persons, excluding aliens, in which particular emphasis is laid on the responsibility of the State to combat unemployment amongst the people; and
2. (b) to apply the principle of separate spheres of employment for Europeans and non-Europeans, in conjunction with the introduction of a quota system in industries.”

The House will notice that we clearly indicate that we are not opposed in principle to the registration of unemployed persons; but we feel that in addition to that the State must accept the responsibility for the provision of employment. The amendment asks, in the first place, that the State should draw up a properly planned scheme for the provision of employment, that the State should accept the responsibility as a State for its citizens. In the second place the amendment asks that the principle of separateness between Europeans and non-Europeans in spheres of employment be applied in order to avoid undesirable clashes between Europeans and non-Europeans and in order to obviate friction. In the third place the amendment asks for the introduction of a quota system in connection with employment in industries. I think as far as the first portion of my amendment is concerned, the Minister will not have ~much difficulty in accepting it in its entirety. When I come to the first part of the amendment I want to point out to the Minister in all friendliness that in recent times, especially during the war, there has been a tendency on the part of the Government, when members of the public apply to the State for employment, to say to them: “Join the army.” They have been told that there are no other spheres of employment and that they should join the army. The army has been the employment centre in recent years. There is another tendency which has also become strongly evident in recent years, and that is that time and again, when the question of employment is considered, the Minister and the State adopt the attitude that where the State accepts responsibility for the provision of employment, it must in the first instance take care of that section of the population which took a direct or indirect part in the war. In the circumstances which prevailed during the war years, and having regard to the policy of the Government, we find that even as far as this section of the population is concerned, there is no comprehensive scheme. There is no question of a comprehensive scheme which clearly provides that the State accepts the responsibility for employment. The test is whether the Government is making provision for, effective measures for employment. I just want to refer to a case which has also been raised on a previous occasion. Last year we dealt with a measure with regard to employment for returned soldiers and war workers. A Select Committee was then appointed consisting of members on all sides of the House. That Select Committee deliberated and made the following unanimous recommendations. (See the second report of the committee)—

And then they made this recommendation— also unanimously—

That report and recommendation is signed by Mr. W. B. Madeley, the Minister of Labour, as chairman. It is hardly necessary therefore to argue that such a general plan is necessary, but up to the present no provision has been made by the State. Here we have a recommendation which was signed by the Minister as chairman, and it is stated here that as a result of the operation of the Act, a large number of people will be thrown out of employment and therefore he recommends legislation to the Government to make provision for the employment of those who will be displaced from employment in this manner. This is recommended under the signature of the Minister himself, and I think in view of the recommendation which he himself made, he will accept the first part of my amendment without discussion. In the second place I want to put a question, and at the same time I want to test to what extent the State is making provision for employment, as stated by the Minister in his opening speech in connection with the Bill itself. I want to quote from the introductory speech of the Minister. He says, inter alia, in reply to a question as to the extent to which the State has accepted the responsibility for employment under this Government, that the objects of the Bill now introduced are limited and are only intended to affect the registration of unemployed persons. He emphasises that. It may be for that reason that the Minister called it a simple Bill at the outset. Then he goes on to say—

I quote that in support of my argument that the Minister is as convinced as I am that the Bill does not make provision for the acceptance by the State of the responsibility for employment, but that the Bill is only intended for the registration of unemployed persons. The Minister goes on to explain the objects of the Bill: “The objects of this Bill are, in the first place to make the registration of unemployed persons compulsory and to compel the employers to give notice of the engagement or termination of services of persons.” People who become unemployed must register themselves as unemployed persons and the employers have to give notice when they dismiss anyone from their service or when they engage anyone. The second object of the Bill is to repeal the Juveniles’ Act of 1921. There too, no provision is made for the creation of machinery for employment. The Minister also explained in his opening speech what the reasons were for the introduction of this Bill, and it appears clearly from those reasons that up to the present no provision has been made by the State for employment. The Minister mentioned four reasons. In the first place the nature and scope of unemployment will be determined. There the Minister is right. In the second place the Act will be able to determine the trend of employment. The very fact that the employers have to give notice when they engage or dismiss persons, will be an indication of the employment position. In the third place, the registration of unemployed persons will enable the employment office to function better. I should not like the House to get the wrong impression nor would the Minister want that to happen. The conditions under which the employment office is functioning today are not of such a nature that the Minister can sincerely say that the State, as a matter of policy, has accepted the responsibility for providing employment. Indeed, up to the present the Minister has always stated that when people are displaced from employment by soldiers, special legislation on the part of the State will be necessary in order to provide employment for the people so displaced. The Minister admitted therefore that that was the position. And as far as this Bill is concerned, the necessary provision is not being made for employment. In the fourth place, according to the Minister, this Bill contemplates that if all unemployed persons were registered, the department would be in a position to advise the Government in connection with the steps to be taken to handle the unemployment problem. There we have a frank and open admission on the part of the Minister that it is only when all unemployed persons have been registered, that the department will be in a position to advise the Government concerning the steps which the Government will have to take to solve the unemployment problem. As far as employment is concerned, therefore, no responsibility has been accepted by the State, but here the prospect of fixing the responsibility for employment is visualised, and since that is the case, I think the Minister will have no difficulty in accepting the whole of that portion of my amendment as well. If the Minister made the statement on behalf of the Government that the Government accepts responsibility for the provision of employment to the people of the country it would be an important official statement. May I say to the House in passing that during the past few years we have heard a great deal in this House with regard to the provision of social security. Numerous promises made in connection with social security, and assurances have been given with regard to the position in the future. Many plans have been pro posed but very few of those plans have so far changed into deeds. The Minister knows, and the House will appreciate, that the pro vision of employment is one of the inherent ingredients of social security. Give any person decent employment where he can earn a decent wage and his existence is secured. As long as the State does not accept the entire responsibility for the pro vision of employment, it cannot say that it has provided social security. As long as the Minister does not accept this responsibility, he cannot say that he is imbued with a desire to provide social security. I want to say to the Minister in all friendliness that in asking him to accept this amendment, we are not asking the Minister for something which we ourselves are not prepared to pro vide. I want to direct the Minister’s attention to the socioeconomic plan of the Re-united Nationalist Party and to refer him to the principles laid down there. We are not asking the Minister to do something which we ourselves are not prepared to do. Here it is indicated what this side proposes and contemplates—

We accept that as a foundation. Our programme of principles then goes on to say this in reference to labour—

Here it is stated clearly and plainly what the plan of this side is; the acceptance of the responsibility for the provision of employment by the State is asknowledged, and that is what we are asking the Minister to accent. This is no frivolous matter. The position in which the world finds* itself is such that the people keenly look forward to the acceptance of State responsibility, of guardianship over the citizens of the country. The State must assume the responsibility for the provision of employment in order to prevent the large-scale unemployment that we experienced after the last war and that we have experienced so often in the history of this country. The State must make provision in order to afford everyone who wants to work an opportunity of having proper employment, where he can make a living and which will enable him to provide for the necessities of life. So much with regard to the first part of the amendment which the Minister can undoubtedly accept if he wants to do so. With regard to the next portion of the amendment in which we ask that the principle of separate spheres of employment in respect of Europeans and non-Europeans be applied, coupled with the introduction of a quota system as far as employment is concerned, I just want to say that this principle of separateness is an essential requirement for peace and quiet in our fatherland, and in advocating the introduction of the principle of separateness, we find this Bill disappointing. No provision is being made here. Provision must also be made with regard to the policy of the Government in connection with the provision of employment. We want this policy of separateness to be carried out consistently in all spheres, and I need not repeat the reason underlying that. During this Session we have had various discussions in connection with the principle of separateness, but may I be allowed, without mentioning the details, to state the reasons which we advanced in support of our contention that separateness is essential. If there is one thing that is necessary in this country in order to make the fullest use of the labour forces of all sections of the population, it is the establishment of a sound racial relationship. When that is lacking, when the relationship between European and non-European is strained, it has a detrimental effect on the labour potentialities and production of our country, which must exercise a great influence. It is essential to establish a sound racial relationship. This undesirable mixing and friction between the races, with the attendant clashes, must have a detrimental effect on the whole economic life of the country. It is necessary to avoid the contact which causes friction, and we can only avoid it by accepting the principle that there must be a barrier, that there must be separateness between European and non-European. In connection with this matter, I want to remind the Minister that during the Sitting last year, as well as in previous years, particular emphasis was laid under his Vote and on other occasions on the state of affairs which exists especially in the clothing factories in our country. There we have this state of affairs that the principle of separateness is not carried out and the result is dissension, quarrelling and disunity and friction and clashes. I need only refer to the hon. member for Losberg (Mr. Wolmarans) who took the trouble of personally making investigation during the recess, in order to ascertain what the state of affairs is in the factories where the principle of separation between European and non-European has not been carried out. I want to leave it to the hon. member himself to say what the position is which he found there. I think I am putting the position correctly when I sum up the hon. member’s impression as follows, that in his opinion the position can only be described as a deplorable state of intermingling between Europeans and non-Europeans. He stated that it upsets one to see it. It leads to friction and clashes, and that is the position because the principle of separateness is not applied. That is one sub-section of it. To what extent it has already progressed and how keenly that unsatisfactory state of affairs is felt, is evident from the fact that the four Dutch Reformed Churches waged a campaign against the conditions prevailing in the factories under the control of the Garment Workers’ Union, i.e. the factories in which the workers are members of the Garment Workers’ Union. I have here a brochure which was issued by the churches, and the question which is raised here is this: “Why does the church adopt such a strong attitude in connection with the intermingling of Europeans and non-Europeans in the clothing factories?” It is pointed out in this brochure that a united labour front has been established by the Garment Workers’ Union. I have often wondered why we cannot persuade the Minister to accept the principle of separateness and why he cannot apply measures at once to put a stop to the working together of Europeans and non-Europeans. Why is the Minister so reluctant to do anything? Now we get this statement from the churches, and I wonder whether that explains the Minister’s reluctance, namely that a united labour front has been established, without any colour bar. In February, 1943, the “Klerewerker”, the official organ of the Garment Workers’ Union, stated—

Is that the reason? It is not the Church Committee which makes this statement, but the Garment Workers’ Union in its official organ. Is that the reason why the Minister is so reluctant to take action against them and to carry out the principle of separateness? This is a serious matter. We cannot continue to tolerate the present position. The hon. Minister must take into account the feelings of the great majority of the people of our country. We have many members on both sides of the House who fully agree with me that we must have this separateness in the various spheres of employment. It is necessary to protect and to maintain the position of the European in South Africa. We cannot allow the doctrine of equality to take root and to be carried out; we cannot allow the colour bar in South Africa to be wiped out. Since that is the case and members on the Government side of the House also have strong views in this regard, it is the duty of the Minister to take steps, and he should make a clear statement in this House whether or not he is in favour of the practice of Europeans and nonEuropeans working together in the same workshops. He should avail himself of this opportunity to make a clear statement. I assume that he has some sort of policy in this matter. He has as much right as anyone else to adopt a particular standpoint, but let him say what it is. And if he also wants separateness, let him carry out the principle of separateness; let him then accept the second portion of my amendment. With regard to the last portion of my amendment, where we refer to the introduction of a quota system in industries. I again want to point out to the Minister that this is apparently also a matter in regard to which he agrees with us and in connection with which he will experience no difficulty. This Government is not the first Government in which the Minister of Labour has held office. He was Minister of Posts in the days of the Nationalist Party Government and even at that time legislation was introduced by the then Government which embodied this principle. I refer to Act No. 25 of 1926 which amended the Mines and Works’ Act of 1911. I want to point out to the Minister that the amendments which were accepted in 1926 definitely embodied this principle. The Bill was passed in a joint sitting of both Houses of Parliament, and in that Act the question of the application of the quota system was introduced in essence: I read Clause 1 (i) of the Amending Act No. 25 of 1926—

1. (i) The regulations under paragraph (n) may provide that in such provinces, areas or places as may be specified in the regulations, certificates of competency in any occupations referred to in that paragraph shall be granted only to the following classes of persons, namely—
   1. (a) Europeans;
   2. (b) Persons born in the Union and ordinarily resident in the Province of the Cape of Good Hope who are members of the class or race known as “Cape Coloured” or of the class or race known as “Cape Malays”;
   3. (c) Persons born in the Union and ordinarily resident in the Union elsewhere than in the Province of the Cape of Good Hope who would if resident in that Province, be regarded as members of either of the classes or races known as “Cape Coloured” or “Cape Malays”; and
   4. (d) The people known as “Mauritius Creoles” or “St. Helena” persons or their descendants born in the Union.

Here we have a division of persons; a distinction is drawn as far as races are concerned. In essence therefore the principle of the introduction of a quota system which is founded on separateness, was accepted, and the principle of ensuring sufficient work for the people falling under the various separate sections was accepted under the Act of 1926; and one of the people who voted in favour of that measure was the Minister of Labour. I feel therefore that he cannot object to that portion of my amendment, unless he has since changed his opinion; unless the Minister has changed, as the Cabinet in which he sits has changed. He cannot have any objection to the acceptance of my amendment, especially with regard to the principle of the introduction of a quota system. How can such a quota system be applied? The position is that as soon as you have an unsound state of affairs, it leads to clashes and friction amongst the various sections of the population. Where you have the position that different sections of the population compete with one another in the labour market in an improper and unreasonable way, it leads to an extremely unsound state of affairs. Let me mention two examples. I have already referred to one, and that is the phenomenon which we have had in recent years in regard to the penetration of non-Europeans in spheres of employment which have mainly been European spheres of employment up to the present. Penetration has taken place on an unprecedented scale in the factories where Europeans and non-Europeans now work together. The tendency today, more than ever, is that non-Europeans are penetrating into European spheres of employment and are working shoulder to shoulder with Europeans. The Minister knows that that is the case and in order to prohibit it, it is necessary to have a quota system which will effect a fair division of labour. I want to mention another example. In recent times we have had the phenomenon that thousands and thousands of natives have flocked from the platteland territories to the urban areas. They offer their services to the urban labour market and there they compete with the workers living in those areas. Here again it is necessary to have a quota system. Take the industries in the Cape Peninsula, for example. There it will be necessary to determine how many Europeans ought to be employed in the industries and how many coloured persons and how many natives. The Government, on the other hand, is at its wits’ end in connection with the influx of natives; and this penetration of labour from other territories, the penetration of native labourers into these places, creates an unsound position. It is imperative therefore to introduce a quota system for the division of the labour forces. Every locality, every area of every particular sphere of employment could have a fixed quota for employment. It will vary for the different areas of the country, and the various sections of the population living there will have to be taken into account. So far I have confined myself mostly to the Minister’s Bill as it should have been, and I have embodied that in my amendment. I do not think the Minister ought to have much difficulty in accepting this amendment of mine, unless he is so liberalistic that he does not want separateness, and in that case he will in all probability refuse to accept the second part of the amendment. I should now like to devote my attention for a few moments to the Bill as it stands. It provides food for thought. In this Bill the Minister is adopting a singular attitude. We know for example that in Clause (2) the Minister practically assumes full control in the application of this Bill, if it becomes law. He says in the first place that he can proclaim the Act in any area or in respect of any category of workseekers and any sphere of employment. As the provisions read, the execution of this Bill, the proclamation of it, is left to the decision and the discretion of the Minister of Labour. I want to remind the Minister of the fact that as the years pass one becomes old. He may have the best of intentions, but tomorrow or the day after tomorrow there may be another Minister of Labour, and when we place legislation on the Statute Book it must be of such a nature that it is not left to the discretion of the Minister of the day whoever he may be. Here it is being left to the Minister’s discretion whether or not the provisions of the Act will be put into operation, and to whom it will be applicable and to whom it will not be applicable. He can act on his own discretion. When we come to Clause 23 this discretionary power goes even further. First of all, the Minister determines whether the Act is applicable and then he stipulates to whom exemption will be granted. It is granted according to his discretion. He can proclaim the Bill or he can refuse to do so, and he can then grant exemption according to his own discretion to certain areas or to certain trades, so that they will not be called upon to register their unemployed or submit a report when persons leave their employment. He can exempt people from the obligation to report who they engage and who leaves their services. The whole tendency of the Bill is to concentrate everything in the hands of the Minister himself. He decides whether or not the Bill will be administered and how it will be administered. I want to refer to another case where the Minister, as he himself would say, is becoming very pro-Nazi. It would seem that while Nazism is losing its grip overseas, it is gaining a stronger foothold here. The Minister is becoming dictatorially minded. It is stated here that the Minister can dissolve any board. A board is appointed; the Minister appoints the board, but he has the power to dissolve that board at will. It is left in the hands of the Minister to decide whether or not the board will function. In the final resort, therefore, the Minister ultimately will have to do what the Minister himself says. I say that that is the whole tendency of the Bill and we object to it. It reveals an unsound position. I want to conclude by referring to one difficulty. Various measures have been promised in order to make provision for employment and social security. We have had the report of the Planning Council, in which the establishment of a social security scheme is visualised. That was the first. The second was that last year the Minister passed the Soldiers’ and War Workers’ Re-employment Act. In terms of that Act only certain people will be placed in employment. The Minister accepted the responsibility for people who were in the army or who performed war work. I do not want to enlarge on that. But I stated last year that there should not be two separate measures, and that those two measures ought to be linked together. When we have two measures in connection with employment, the difficulty is that it leads to overlapping; we get divided responsibility with the result that ultimately our people are unemployed. Now we have the third Bill which compels unemployed persons to register, and thé prospect is held out that some machinery or other will be established to provide employment for the people. I just want to direct the attention of the House to the fact that here again we may have overlapping and a clash between the various measures. When it really comes to the practical application of these measures, the people who are unemployed and who yearn for employment will not get it. The time has arrived—and for that reason I move my amendment—for the Government to establish a well-planned scheme and to accept the responsibility for the employment of all sections of the population; that should not be done for one section of the population only, not only for those who were in the army or who did war work, but the State should assume full responsibility for the provision of employment to all sections of the population, so that we shall have this sound and happy position that everyone who wants to work will be able to get employment and to support his wife and children and render service to the nation, thereby providing what is necessary to build up a happy community and nation. For these reasons I move this amendment.

I rise to second the amendment because I feel that the Minister of Labour is in favour of the view that it is the duty of the State to provide work for the unemployed. I say that for this reason, because I want to remind the Minister of what happened on the Select Committee, which, during the previous Session, dealt with the Bill for the Re-employment of Soldiers and War Workers. In the general discussion there was a proposal that it should be the duty of the Government to provide work for everybody who could obtain work. That proposal was approved of by him, and adopted. It was however found that it was outside the scope of the Bill, and consequently another proposal was adopted, proposed by the Minister himself in the House, namely that the persons who were in the army or who had done war work, when they returned to civil life, would be a burden on the State in the sense that the State should provide work for them. I am convinced of it that the Minister agrees with me that it is the duty of the State or of the Government of the day to provide work for all the citizens of the country. As regards this amendment we feel, and I personally feel, that this Bill which is now before the House and which is being submitted as part of the scheme for social security, as they say in plain English, “has no guts”. It is proposed in this Bill that the Minister of Labour can proclaim any area as an area falling under the Act, and in addition can proclaim any trade or sort of work in that area as coming under this Act. That is the power he has. He can, for example, in the Cape Town area, proclaim the law for the building trade, but the other trades in the Cape Town area will not be included, and also not the building trade in any other part of the country. In the building trade in Cape Town people must then register when they are unemployed, and the employer must register it when a workman leaves his service. The principals of the schools must register the children who leave school after matriculation or who reach the age at which they can leave school and who do not wish to study further. Well, these persons are now registered. But the Government does not undertake to provide work for those people. The only thing there is is the registration. Even if all the trades in the Cape Town area or in the whole Union were obliged to register with the Registration Officer appointed by the Minister, and even if all the employers were obliged to give notice when anyone leaves their service, the Minister has not done anything yet. The official with whom unemployed are registered and who accepts all these registrations, is simply acting as a sort of Labour Bureau. That is all. That is the kind of bureaux we have in all the cities. People looking for work register themselves there; people who want workmen apply there, and the agency is paid for the services it renders. We anticipate that after the war there will be many unemployed people, and supposing even that all of them registered, what attempts will be made to find work for those people? Take another aspect of the matter, and let us take the building trade as an example. Many people will be without work. If an artisan leaves the service of a master builder, the latter will have another man in his place even before he leaves. He does not give notice when he receives notice from the artisan, but only when the man leaves his service. That means that there is no longer a vacancy. All that this Bill therefore means is that a registration official is appointed with whom the registration I have described here takes place. He is not backed by any body which provides work for these people. He does not receive less salary if he does not provide work for these people, nor does he receive an increased salary if he finds work for many people. He is just an agent where people can apply for labourers. We want a much more serious attempt than this Bill to provide work for people after the war, if we want a better world. We must clearly understand that if an employer needs an employee he can go to the registration official to obtain an employee, but he is not obliged to do so. I can imagine that this Bill will simply be abrogated by disuse in the course of time. Let us now suppose that the registration official sends an employee to an employer; what obligation rests upon the employee to remain there? We know that at the moment it is very difficult to obtain artisans. I was still this morning speaking to an employer who has to do work in Basutoland. He needs builders. He tells me that they send him people from the cities. They arrive there and after they have worked for a day they say that the hill is to steep to climb and they simply return to Johannesburg. There is no obligation on the person to work where the official has found work for him. There is no obligation on him to work for A, B or C, and there is no obligation on A, B or C to employ the person sent to them. This Bill simply means that you have a registration official who sits there. Afterwards he will lose courage, and he is there only for registration purposes, while the registration itself becomes less and less. We shall need police to discover where all the people who walk about looking for work are registered, if we make it obligatory that everyone should register, and therefore the Minister will not let everybody register. The Minister does not go far enough. He stated that he could only go as far as he was permitted to go. But why cannot he have general registration of all the unemployed in the Union? If he does not at the moment have all the officials for it, he will obtain them soon enough. We are told that the war will be over one of these days. He will then have enough men who can be registration officials. He can then have officials in all the areas proclaimed throughout the country. As the Bill stands now, it means practically nothing, just as the Juvenile Affairs Boards and the Act concerned for 24 years meant practically nothing to the platteland. The Juvenile Affairs Boards did good work in the past, but on the platteland we had no benefit from them. The Minister is now abolishing them. He gave no reason for abolishing them. He will no longer appoint the existing Juvenile Affairs Board. We want Juvenile Affairs Boards for the whole country. Take an area like that from Worcester to Riversdal. A Juvenile Affairs Board can be appointed for that area. Such a Juvenile Affairs Board can provide for the registration of the children leaving school after matric, or when they reach the age when they can leave school, if they do not wish to study further. At the moment it happens that some of those boys on the platteland want to enter the trades. We apply to the Juvenile Affairs Board in Cape Town. They say that they have enough applications and that we must wait our turn. In the end they send people to the platteland to learn the trade there. Why cannot we have areas over the whole country where Juvenile Affairs Boards can be appointed? They will do the same work which it is now proposed should be done by the registration officer, and they will do better work, because they consist of people who do that work out of love of the cause, not for payment. Later on they will be able to provide work for everyone if there is proper legislation. The trouble is now this. We are told that after the war there will be thousands of immigrants who will have to find work. What knowledge has the Government of the extent of the unemployment in the various trades unless it has a general registration? If there is general registration it knows how many unemployed there are in the various trades, and if there are 50 or 100 unemployed in a certain trade, the Government will know that it cannot allow people who practise that trade to enter the country. They should then be excluded or else there will be difficulties. People come here from overseas having learnt their trade there, and I want to state here that the training they receive there in their trades is much easier than it is here in South Africa. We know that training for our trades, where there are trade unions, is much stricter in South Africa than in Europe or England. In England training is strict for persons who want to become experts in certain trades, but for the rest the training is much less strict than that of our artisans. Those people will be permitted to enter, and I say that we will have difficulty if we allow them to enter the country to work at a trade in which there is already unemployment here. What will the Minister accomplish by means of this kind of registration? What will actually be the position of this registration officer, and how far will he try to provide work for these people? Today we have agencies doing that sort of work, which do not fall under the control of the Government. I want to deal with another matter. In 1921 certain areas were selected where Juvenile Affairs Boards were appointed. Experience taught us that we ought to have them right throughout the country. Provision is made for registration. School principals must give all the names of children leaving school, as I explained before. That did not solve the problem. The reason is simply because it was only applied to certain parts of the country. We want to know what the position is as regards unemployment throughout the whole country, and not just in one or two areas, in one or two trades and in one or two cities. It means just about nothing for us to have that knowledge. Supposing artisans are required in Mossel Bay, or rather, that there are too many artisans in Mossel Bay and a shortage in Johannesburg; it is then possible that some of these people will go there. That often happens. The matter is becoming more difficult daily as a result of the difficulties in connection with the various trades. I warned the Minister in connection with the Apprenticeship Act. Today we have the position that our artisans on the platteland cannot come to the city and be regarded as artisans here, although they might have three times as much knowledge as artisans in the city. They are not recognised as artisans. The result is that their children do not become artisans but enter the civil service and other activities, with the result that artisans and tradesmen are daily decreasing in numbers on the platteland. We now find half-baked persons there, Europeans, and coloureds who do not know their trade but who still do the work. They work for a builder for a few days and then they want to build. That is the state of affairs we have. That class of workman is busy keeping young men out of the trades falling under the trade unions, and the reason is because it is so difficult for people on the platteland to be trained for the trades. In the cities, where the children want to learn a trade, they cannot get the training either. There is a shortage in the number trained, and if a time of prosperity comes, people must be imported from England, Holland and other places. That sort of thing cannot continue. If we had had Juvenile Affairs Boards for the whole country and if they could have provided everywhere for the training of apprentices, we would not have had this state of affairs. It is said that there is a surplus of apprentices in the engineering trade, but what about the other trades? The country is full of motor garages, because it is something by means of which people can earn money. Take a place like Robertson. In the past hundreds of wagons were built there and people earned a living. They became independent citizens, as wagon makers, and acquired ground. Now there is only’ one person who shoes horses, and here and there he does something to a wagon. We find that the wagon makers turned to making bodies for motor lorries, but even they are now being squeezed out because they have to pay certain fixed wages to their employees. The trade unions in Cape Town send an inspector round, and that is the result. Such a person probably has three or four coloured men helping him. He cannot even afford to employ Europeans. Now the inspector tells him that he has to pay those people so much and so much. He simply replies that he cannot do it because he does not make the money and he has to cease that work. I want to tell the Minister that as regards registration, I am in favour of it, and we on this side are in favour, but we want to see it applied widely and put into effect everywhere. As regards agriculture, there will be difficulties. The Minister has already told us that. I accept that it is so, and I also accept that labourers who work from day to day and who are not people who work by the month, will cause difficulty. I understand that all that is outside the scope of this Bill. But as regards artisans, I cannot see why we cannot have Juvenile Affairs Boards in the country and why we cannot have proper registration of all right through the country. As I have said, the Minister asks for power here to proclaim the Act in certain cities, and then such an organisation for the provision of work, such an agency, is formed. Well, if we look at this Bill, and if this is the social security which the Minister of Labour wishes to provide in the form of the provision of employment we see very little hope for social security. If this is the social security which must be achieved by the provision of employment then I say, with an eye to the flood of unemployment we will have after the war, that there is a very dark future for our people. I cannot see what social security there is in this Bill. We know that all the persons and bodies who have knowledge of these matters and made investigations tell us that the provision of employment is the basis of social security. To help people with money and gifts and subsidies will not give them social security. We must give them work so that they can retain their self-respect and earn a living. Everybody is discussing the matter, and I say that there is only a faint hope for these people if they must expect employment to be provided by this Bill. We heard this morning in connection with the insurance against compensation of workers that £6 10s. a month is too little for these people and that it should be £20 a month. If we can give that amount to people, we should like to do so, because we know that they will manage with difficulty on the money they receive. We must take into consideration whether the State and the industry can pay. Supposing a man received £2 10s. per month as compensation —well, we know that he cannot live decently on that, but we must also consider the other side of the matter, whether the State or the relevant industry can afford to pay it. You now want to give the poor man earning 3s. or 4s. 6d. a day £6 10s. a month. Good and well, but our industries will not be able to compete with the rest of the world on that basis. Coloured labour is the worst in the world, and if they are to be taken up into industry one cannot expect them to receive the same wages as people who can produce more. The same applies here. If this is done, the existence of industries will be in danger. To give these people just a subsidy and money is very unsound. We saw what the dole did in England. I understand that this Bill is only part of the legislation to be introduced, namely insurance against unemployment. This is only part of the scheme. There is an unemployment scheme by which people will contribute, and those who have no work will receive a dole.

There are still two more Bills.

If this is only part of the scheme, we ought to have the whole scheme. Why do we receive it piecemeal? Here we are dealing with registration of the unemployed and we do not know how it will fit in with the other legislation as regards insurance. We get it piecemeal and the position is that if the Government makes it obligatory for certain people to contribute to the insurance fund, which will eventually enable us to pay a dole to certain unemployed, one is exposed to the same danger there was in England. Then I would rather see that we leave the matter and that the Government should provide work for the people. The dole was a curse in Great Britain. Just ask any person who comes from Great Britain, whether he was a worker or an employer, about it. It became a curse there. Seeing that that is the position and that we have here a Bill which we can of course amend in the Committee Stage if the Minister is prepared to apply it to the whole Union and to include all trades, and not only portion of the trades which he proclaims, then of course it is admitted that as regards the provision of employment, it is the duty of the State to see to it, and then our objection as regards that disappears. As regards the second part of the amendment, I should like the Minister to state candidly whether he is in favour of separate spheres of employment or not. I almost dare to say that we will not hear that from him. In the company in which he is he will not say it. I also dare to say that in his heart he is in favour of separatism, but he will not say so. Both on this side of the House and on the other side, I do not think one will find a single member from the north who is not in favour of it in his heart.

The hon. member over there was amazed yesterday when lie really discovered that there are coloureds in his party. In the United Party in the Cape there are coloureds who are members of the party and who vote together with the Europeans at the nomination of candidates for the United Party.

And the Nationalist Party?

No, we have nothing of the kind. The people in the north are in ignorance. They do not believe that coloureds belong to their party, but now hon. members have the statement of the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander), who told them that yesterday. I myself have seen how coloureds participate at party nominations. Are they satisfied with that? That is the position.

What has that got to do with the Bill?

I make bold to say that the Transvaal members from the platteland and even from the cities are not in favour of it.

What has that to do with the amendment?

If the hon. member had listened he would have known. If hon. members want to vote against the amendment, good and well, but then the members from the Transvaal cannot say that they are in favour of separatism. If they do not vote for the amendment, they declare that they are in favour of coloureds and natives and Europeans working together and smoking and eating together. That is the position in Cape Town. Go to any factory.

I looked but I did not find that.

Then the hon. member must go to the doctor to have his eyes tested, or he must obtain another pair of glasses. That is the position. As regards the Minister, when he introduced the Factories Bill—it was shortly after I entered Parliament—he made provision for separate spheres of work, but supporters of the Government who have factories, exerted their influence and he had to delete it. Now he has the opportunity.

That is not reasonable. He cannot do it in this Bill.

He can put anything into the Bill.

It is not a Bill dealing with spheres of employment, but with employment.

In this Bill it is proposed to create a labour office, and the official will receive instructions to see that people have work in the factories, and therefore the matter of a dividing line does come up for discussion here. The Minister can say here that there should be such a dividing line, and if he does not do so I take it that he does not wish to do it. Therefore we ask him whether he is going to do it or not. I do not think it is necessary to say much more about the latter portion of the amendment. The hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) has made it clear that the Minister has already voted for it, and seeing that he has voted in favour of it we take it that he will be willing to vote for it and will be willing to make provision in the Bill for this matter. I now come to the Bill itself. I have already said that I am looking into the future and I cannot see that any good can be born of this Bill. I cannot see what we will gain by it. There are the Juvenile Affairs Boards which worked well in the past. That is again included. The Act of 1921 is repealed, and provision is again made here but it is nothing new. All that is suggested is a different manner of appoint ing the Board. The Minister still receives the powers he had under the old Act. The Juvenile Affairs Board will act in the same way as formerly, except that the Minister appoints certain people. The Board will further act as a sort of work-providing body, and give advice to parents and children, but that was also the case under the existing Act. I however wish to draw attention to the slovenly way in which Bills are drawn up. We had that difficulty with the Bill we dealt with from this morning until late this afternoon, which contains just as many amendments to the existing Act as the existing Act had clauses. The Act was adopted in 1941, after they had worked on it for years, and now in 1945, a few years later, all these amendments are required. Certain amendments became necessary as a result of the experience gained, but there are other things which are changed, which the Minister must have known about in 1941 when the Bill was adopted.

The hon. member cannot now discuss that Bill.

I want to apply it to this Bill. Here we have to deal with the same circumstances. There are gaps in this Bill which allow of the passage of a wagon and 10 horses. There is for example the definition of a guardian in connection with juvenile workseekers. If the father for example is the guardian of a juvenile workseeker and he is absent from his place of residence someone else becomes the guardian. It does not mention for how long the father must be absent, permanently or for a day or having gone on holiday. No period of time is fixed. It further says here “the person who has the custody of that juvenile workseeker”. It is quite possible that he is not at all in the custody of one or other person. Who is the guardian then? Say for example his parents are absent and there is no one with him; they are away on holiday and the coloured servant is there to prepare his food. Is she then his guardian or who? One can mention numbers of these things. There is for example the definitions of “employed” and “employment”, in respect of the employer, and in the other case of the “employee”. I do not wish to waste time, but right through the Bill one can point to inaccuracies, and I prophesy that the Minister, if he is still the Minister or else his successor, will have to bring a series of amendments in two or three years, as we had today in connection with the other Bill. The Minister laughs. I take it that it is no serious matter to him. He has never given proof that any Act is serious to him. He may think that to be amusing does him good in the eyes of the nation, but I want to give him the assurance that if he sits down to analyse this Bill, he himself will see that it is not worth the paper on which it is written. When it comes to the registration of the unemployed, I want to suggest that the Government should provide work for the people. If there are 1,000 unemployed, build offices in Pretoria, so that one does not have to walk right through the whole of Pretoria to find an office. Create work. It is possible for the State to do so. Unskilled labour can be used to build roads and for anything. The people do not want charity from the Government. They want to earn their food and to live respectably. If you are not willing to make provision for work for the people as far as you possibly can, you need go no further with social security. You will increase old age pensions and other pensions a little and give something to the incapacitated and the semi-incapacitated, but that is as far as you will get with social security. Other countries have completed their plans, and if you are not prepared to make plans, to provide plans to create work, and if you do not stop talking and do something instead there will be no social security. If you are going to have immigration from overseas, which is so often pleaded for, and import people who will take the bread out of the mouth of those who were born here, you cannot expect to get the support of even the labourer.

I want to say honestly that I cannot vote for this Bill before I have more clarity. As one of the hon. members said here, I had the honour of visiting various factories on the Rand. I was not alone. What I say here can be supported by an inspector of the Department of Labour. These are not stories. I went from one factory to the other to see how white ladies work with native women and natives. I can quote what I found. The hon. Minister the other day asked me which factories I visited. If he will mention the names, I can read it out. I have a whole batch, with remarks about the circumstances we discovered. The first is the Transvaal Shoe Factory, No. 6, 21st Street, Malvern. The report reads—

When I visited the Labour Office in Johannesburg the inspector gave me a list of factories to which he wanted to take me, but I had my own list and took him there, and this factory was the first. I must say that no inspector had ever visited this factory, although it is within two miles of the Labour Office in Johannesburg. The inspector will be able to confirm what I state here. I do not wish to say that it is the fault of the inspectors. The position is that there are 27 manufacturing districts and there are 3,500 factories, and there is one chief inspector, one assistant-inspector, and two ladies who have to inspect the factories, and that immediately gives rise to distrust on my part in the whole Department of Labour. I can quote a lot more. Take for example the African Caps and Hats Factory at 22, Lovers’ Walk, Fordsburg—

If we say that, they say it is politics.

I have nothing to do with politics here; I am just dealing with the daughters of my nation. For that reason I made the sacrifice, and I want the assurance from the Minister that he will enforce the dividing line between the races here, and I must have more clarity as to what his policy is as regards the races. Where I was I found an utterly unhealthy state of affairs, and I must say that the trade unions have far too much power there. I have sworn declarations here of ladies about the manner in which the constitution of the executives takes place. They gave me sworn declarations to the effect that they were asked to hand in seven ballot papers for one nominee. After I had examined the factories I sent a copy of all this to the Department of Labour and asked that changes should be made and that the girls in the factories should be protected. The reply I received—and for that reason I rose to speak here in the House—was that nothing would be done during this Session. I deplore that. I must honestly say that if you go and see the circumstances and conditions under which European ladies suffer there, and we have a Minister of Labour who pretends that he is so deeply sympathetic and so very sorry for the daughters of the labouring classes in the country, then I must say that I am very surprised that such things continue under his leadership. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) rose here the other day and referred to certain Ministers and said that their actions justify them being asked to resign as Ministers. I in turn wish to say that what I found, the circumstances under which our daughters must work in the factories, justify me in saying that if there is one Minister who should resign, it is the Minister of Labour. If he does not change his policy, if he gives no explanation, I say that he is the first Minister who should resign. The time has come to act. I cannot enter into all these matters because the time awarded to me to speak is brief. I would be able to read to you the sworn statements af ladies.

Read just one.

You have time enough, 40 minutes.

I will read just one extract from the sworn affidavit of Gertruida Johanna Wilhelmina Dippenaar—

This position is of course dangerous to the ladies who work there. If they do not do what they are told to do they are dismissed as members of the Trade Union, and if they are dismissed as members of the trade union they cannot receive work in the factories. That happened in the case of two ladies who were dissatisfied, namely, Mesdames Moll and Nel. They lifted their heads and said that it was wrong, and they were dismissed from the trades union; they cannot be members any more, and the result is that these ladies, until today are unemployed. The factory will not take them back. Letters and deputations were directed to the Minister. I myself went to the Minister and he cannot protect, or will not protect them. These ladies are afraid and they must simply do what Miss Cornelius and Sacks tell them to do. That they must accept unconditionally. I ask whether that is a sound state of affairs. I ask the Minister to see to it that when an election for the executive of the trade unions takes place, it should take place under the supervision of the Department of Labour. That is a very important body. It disposes of £70,000 of these ladies and they receive no account of the money. I ask that a charge should be made, that they should receive a meticulous report about the money which they deposit. They do not get it. Only the few members who sit there as an executive have all the authority. What they say is the law. The ladies who do not obey are dismissed and cannot find work, and there is no court to which they can appeal, not even the Minister. They must go to the same people who dismissed them. There they have to lodge their complaints. It is an utterly unsound position. Therefore I say that I will not vote for the Bill before I receive a very clear exposition from the Minister as regards his policy and what he will do in the interests of white South Africa, whether he wants to create a coffee-coloured nation or whether he wants to protect European civilisation. If he refuses to do that, I will not support him.

I want to discuss this Bill in the light of the important economic principles involved. I want to discuss it also from the point of view of its appropriateness at the present time, and its applicability to the early years of the peace. I wish to say at the outset that this is a very valuable economic measure. It is essential to the economic reconstruction framework for our country; and for that reason I heartily congratulate the Minister of Labour on introducing this Bill. Those of us who can recall the depression years of 1920 and afterwards, and again in 1933, realise that this Bill brings home to us the significance of the establishment of an employment service under the State in this country. It is an important measure not merely because of the need to meet the incidence of depression unemployment, but because of all unemployment incidental to normal times. In the present economic structure of society periodic fluctuations in business activity always occur. That is true of a planned economy, for example, as in Soviet Russia, but there counteracting measures by the State effectively iron out the fluctuations without economic loss to the workers. Under technological capitalism—and that is the trend of our economic organisation in this country— this cyclical unemployment is always present. It would work out, I think, on a world scale —I am influenced by the view of American authorities—at about 3 per cent. in manufacturing industries, 15 per cent. in constructional industries, and 5 per cent. in trade. Cyclical unemployment is a phenomenon against which every wise government must make provision. This Bill makes mainly administrative provision against it. Another factor which makes unemployment always present is technological change. Unemployment due to this is the price that the workers have to pay for industrial progress in the country. Over an average period —and again I am thinking of American authorities who have probably done the best work in research on these lines in the world —over an average period of 10 years this technological change is responsible for something like per cent. of the total unemployment in the world. This type of unemployment has a very heavy incidence usually after war, wars being a period when technological improvement is very much marked. I believe that we can regard it as certain that in the first years after this war this type of unemployment is seriously going to affect South Africa. That is why I welcome this Bill; and I know the Minister has this danger in mind. This Bill is a preparation against such unemployment. The third type of unemployment, one which is likely to be of importance in this country in the early years of the peace is due to what we might call the migration of businesses. That is likely to happen on a considerable scale in this country after the war. That position certainly threatens South Africa. We have allowed many mushroom industries to grow up during the war. Others have developed with an exhorbitant cost structure, built up during the war. Such industries are definitely going to be shaken by the peace. Many of them will collapse; and a residue of workers will be left. I know the Minister has that possibility in view. Finally, in normal times, unemployment is due to several personal factors—sickness, disease, misconduct, irregular habits, for example, on the part of the workers; and on the part of the employers, unsatisfactory treatment of the workers and careless recruiting of the working force. The figures for South Africa are somewhat interesting as indicating the possible incidence of unemployment after the war, even if we should go into comparatively normal times. I am using the figures compiled last year by the Social and Economic Planning Council. During 1935-’36 and 1936 was a comparatively prosperous year in this country—losses during the year in days were as follows: Bricklayers, 18.19 days in Durban; 43.6 days lost per year in Cape Town, fitters, 5 for the Union; painters and decorators 31.2 for the Union. Thesé figures are for Europeans. For all European males in all occupations, the loss was. 6.6 days per year on the average. Then the council endeavours to give us the figure in percentages of the unemployment rate in South Africa. I deal with Europeans only in this connection: males, 5 per cent. in the cities, 4 per cent. in the towns and 2 per cent. in the rural areas; females 3 per cent. in the cities, 2 per cent. in the towns and 1 per cent. rural. Those figures should sink into our minds; because we must realise that the incidence of unemployment is likely to be repeated; the consideration should make us appreciate the very important value of this Bill. The various causes I have out lined indicate that in normal and abnormal times the labour market is making a constant turnover. Just as in our economic system we provide more or less for the ordinary marketing of investments and commodities, so under this Bill the Minister hopes to provide for the ordinary marketing of our labour resources. I do not like the word marketing in connection with labour, but I think the Minister will understand that I use it in order to make my analogy applicable. In other words, the Bill proposes to set up a sort of clearing house, a clearing house of information; and in addition to that it will establish hiring points of labour, åt strategic points throughout the country. In that way I submit that this Bill will be an invaluable means to employers, on the one hand, and to the trade unions on the other. I sincerely hope the Minister will get from the employers and from the unions the fullest co-operation. It must not be forgotten that unemployment is a problem of industry and requires not merely State remedies, but chiefly industrial remedies. Nevertheless,’ an employment service such as we visualise in this Bill will assist industry to overcome the frictions, the delays and the waste of time and effort and money. Moreover it will bring the workers and jobs together at bargaining points. Another function of this employment service, which will depend mainly on the staff that the Minister will be able to engage in carrying it out, is that it will reduce to a considerable extent the misfits in the hiring of our labour force in this country. The records that he will get of available manpower in South Africa, will be a great help to employers in getting the right kind of workers. No attempt can be made to estimate the full extent of the economic losses, losses in wealth that could be created and is not created, which misfits cause each year in this country to industry and commerce; wastefulness in the form of mistakes, neglect, vacillations, and so on. I believe that this Bill is going to be a great boon to industry in South Africa. I come now to what I regard as being the most urgent aspect of this important measure, and that is the question of juvenile employment, vocational guidance, and follow-up. I hope the hon. Minister intends to make this not an incidental part of the work which this Bill will set afoot in South Africa, but a fundamental part of his organisation. Youth in this country has not received from our legislature, even from our universities down to our high schools, a fair deal in regard to education for work. I hope under this Bill youth will get from the organisation to be set up expert guidance in regard to careers, follow-up, and after-care protection. A link-up through this Bill with the colleges, schools and vocational schools is necessary so that the Minister can formulate a proper system of vocational guidance. We have not such a system on a national scale in South Africa. I speak now from a knowledge gained from many years of expenrience in connection with industrial and vocational training. We shall have to set up for that purpose suitable standards, suitable methods; and a system providing for regular adjustment of the young workers. We have not made satisfactory progress in our country with juvenile employment and juvenile care after employment. Unfortunately, South African parents still think that the essential requirement in looking for work for their children is to earn money as early as possible. Our school system, by raising the leaving age, is counteracting that. But that view is still prevalent; and those of us who know our universities in South Africa realise that they are practically vocational schools, and that the view that training for work is a first need reaches even into the higher groups in the university. Here in this Bill an opportunity is to be given to the Minister of Labour to fashion for South Africa a system of guidance and advice on scientific lines for the schools and for the parents of our generation now in the making. I hope also that the Minister will be able to provide in this Bill scope for the care of our veterans, in so far as they are to be dealt with by the Directorate of Demobilisation and by the Central National Committee and the Regional Committees which he hopes to set up under the War Workers’ and Soldiers’ Employment Bill. Finally, there is another important consideration in this Bill. South Africa is statistically starved; and the compiling of statistical data in connection with labour conditions and êmployment and the movements of labour will be a great gain to this country, valuable for vocational guidance, as I have said; for the proper organising of apprenticeship; and for the scientific use of our manpower. Such data will also be essential if we establish a public works programme to offset any possibility of depression. This Bill fits admirably into the body of legislation for which the country is grateful to the Minister of Labour. I congratulate him on this measure. Its true value will be recognised when South Africa, along with other countries, has to face up to the industrial and the manpower problems of the peace.

Various people who have daily to deal with labour and who are acquainted with the position that exists in South Africa have asked for this Bill. Quite recently some members of the Cape Town City Council approached the Department and enquired why registration of this nature could not take place. One reason why I am rising is in order to reply to what the hon. member for Losberg (Mr. Wolmarans) has stated. The hon. member spoke here today about conditions in the factories. I do not know how he managed to talk about conditions in the factories while we are dealing here with the registration of unemployed, but the fact remains that he did manage it.

Order. That is a reflection on the Chair.

It is for Mr. Speaker to say whether the hon. member is in order and not for the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein).

The hon. member for Losberg referred in a previous debate to the report he mentioned, and today he eventually read out the report.

This is the first time that he has spoken about it.

Give me a chance. What is the hon. member reporting? He is reporting something that has nothing to do with the matter under discussion.

That is for Mr. Speaker to say.

Yes, that is absolutely correct, but I maintain this has nothing to do with the Bill with which we are dealing.

What about the amendment? It seems to me you have not read it.

The hon. member reports there about certain conditions that he encountered in the factories. I want to put this question to him: Are they in the Losberg constituency?

You did not listen.

I presume they are in the Transvaal. The hon. member will of course now tell the House in whose constituency those conditions were encountered.

It is not necessary.

It is very necessary, because I am very certain that the constituency on which the hon. member has made that venomous attack would like to know it. I want to know now from the hon. member for Losberg whether he told the Parliamentary representative of that constituency that he was going to visit that district and that he was going to speak about these things in the House.

Why?

In whose constituency is it? The hon. member will not say in whose constituency it is, and it is not surprising that he has no confidence in the Minister of Labour, because he has not observed the ordinary etiquette existing amongst Parliamentary colleagues, to intimate to a member of his own Party that he was going to see whether his house was in order. I say that I charge the hon. member with not possessing the etiquette that exists amongst Parliamentary colleagues and with not having informed the members in whose constituency those factories are, of this visit, in advance.

This is now the third time that the hon. member has repeated that argument.

But they are making such a noise that the hon. member for Losberg cannot hear me.

The hon. member should address the Chair.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the Chair is on my right and the hon. member for Losberg is on my left. I want to address the Chair but I think it is customary when you are talking to an hon. member or talking about him, that you extend the courtesy of looking in his direction. That is the only reason I am doing so. I did not mean to turn my back on you, but unfortunately I have to turn towards the hon. member because I am speaking to him. I maintain that if the hon. member has no faith in the Minister of Labour I am not at all surprised in view of his conduct. I think that any member in this House when he visits the constituency of another member should advise him of his intention to visit that constituency. He should say to him: “Look, old chap, I am going to visit you and to see how you carry on.”

But it is not one constituency; it is a group of constituencies.

Well, even more so, if it is a number of constituencies the hon. member should advise the representatives of those constituencies. But the hon. member has not revealed that etiquette towards a number of members.

But why should he do this?

Perhaps the Westdene constituency is also one of them. I only want to say that the things about which the hon. member is referring also exist in other places. He has stated that there are certain factories where there are a number of Europeans, coloureds and natives working all mixed up together. You have the same position on the mines and when we talk here about a dividing line and separation in industries we have to be a little practical because I have never known, for instance, how in a mine you can keep natives and Europeans strictly apart. You cannot do it. In certain factories from the very nature of the work you have to divide the work. You have a white person in charge of a number of natives. It is the sort of work that is divided up and not the area, and if in a factory you have a group of coloureds together and then a group of natives, who is going to exercise supervision? It is not practical. Unfortunately the hon. member has not told us how far it is practical to have strict separation applied in those places. We have also the report of the Department of Labour that it is the intention, if at all possible and practicable, to have that necessary separation. As far as possible it is the aim for instance to have the Europeans on one side of the table and on the other side you will have the coloureds. That is done where it is practical. I do not know about the factories that the hon. member has visited, but in the majority of factories that I have visited that policy is being exercised in a very desirable manner. But for the hon. member to come here and say that he is not going to vote for this Bill because he has seen those conditions in the factories—well the hon. member has no doubt his own reasons for that. He has attacked the Minister of Labour, and he has stated that the Minister of Labour is the first Minister who ought to resign.

You recently said that all the Ministers ought to resign.

Yes, I did, and I gave my reasons for having said that. Nor do I withdraw it. But I had sound reasons.

He only did what you did.

Now we come to the big reason why I said that two of the Ministers ought to resign. I said they ought to resign because they refused to make a statement in reply to two questions that I put on questions of policy. That is of course a horse of a different colour.

He did precisely the same as you.

The hon. member for Losberg stated that the Minister of Labour is not the only one who should resign, or in other words, that there are a number of other members in the Cabinet who in the opinion of the hon. member, ought to resign. When the position is such that members of our own party want Ministers to resign things have got to a pretty bad stage. No, perhaps the hon. member is disappointed over the tremendous progress that the hon. Minister of Labour has made, because so far as I know the hon. member for Losberg in the only member in the House, or at any rate on his side of the House, who has no’t admitted that the Minister placed a good Act on the Statute Book when he put through the Workmen’s Compensation Act something for which the workers of all political opinions are grateful. I can mention other things for which the workers are grateful, but I know that you, Mr. Speaker, will not allow me to do so. I admit that I also asked that Ministers should resign, but when I asked a Minister to resign then I try to do that in connection with the great question of policy and not in connection with questions about which I know nothing. The hon. member for Losberg has himself admitted that the state of affairs he has described is to be attributed to the fact that no inspectors had been to those factories. He himself stated that there were no inspectors. Last year the Minister stated that the great difficulty in his Department was that he had not enough inspectors to carry out all that work, and we have heard that there are a few people that are in charge of over 3,000 factories, and have to exercise supervision over them. It is self-edivent that if you have not got the inspectors and if the employers are not good employers, you cannot exercise proper control. I admit that there are decent employers in the country, but there are others who abuse their position because they know that there is an inadequate supervision to see that they comply with the requirements of the law. That is another matter. We have not heard the hon. member for Losberg award praise to the mass of good work that has been done in the past few years by that small staff of inspectors. The hon. member is apparently very disappointed in connection with those thousands and thousands of pounds that this small staff of the Department of Labour has put into the pockets of employees, in respect of payments made in conflict with the prescribed wage schedules. In hundreds of cases the Inspector of Labour has investigated the books and pointed out to the employers that they have paid their people too little, and in those ways the Department of Labour with its small staff has brought thousands of pounds into the pockets of the employees. But the hon. member for Losberg has no praise for that. He has only mentioned a few things which in his view are not right, and on that account heaven and earth must be moved. On account of these trivialities—

Are these trivialities that he has mentioned?

They are trivialities because they are on a small scale. And why is it on a small scale?

Is it on a small scale?

Of course it is on a small scale.

It is on a small scale, and yet your Minister cannot put it right.

The hon. member for Losberg provided the answer himself. It exists on a small scale, because there are not enough inspectors, and the fact that it has not yet been adjusted is to be attributed to the inadequacy of the staff. [Interruptions.

Hon. members must allow the hon. member to make his own speech.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Losberg adopts that attitude. I feel that I am not doing any injustice when I say that his opinion is entirely based on one fact, and that is that he does not know better. He is comparatively ignorant about the whole position, the entire state of affairs in the factories of South Africa.

And you know everything.

The conditions have improved tremendously and not deteriorated. They are improving steadily every day with the small staff the department possesses. The position is being improved daily. There are certain factories which have not yet been visited by inspectors, and it is only when an inspector visits a place and submits his report that the position gradually begins to improve. The hon. member has himself admitted that one of the factories he visited had never seen an inspector. But show me one factory in the country in reference to which the inspectors were acquainted with the position, where they themselves investigated conditions, and where improvements have not been brought about. Point out one to me. We should be reasonable in our judgment of the position, and the Department of Labour is not the only department suffering from a shortage of properly trained staff. There are other departments which are short-staffed, but the shortage is nowhere more acute than in the Department of Labour. This morning we heard the question put as to how many members of the Department of Labour had reported for military service. I know hundreds who applied to go on military service and who were unable to go because there was a shortage of staff, and I know that the department is every day looking for capable men to do that work, and accordingly I think it is very unreasonable on the part of the hon. member to make this attack on the Minister, knowing full well that those irregularities that are happening today are only occurring because there is a shortage of staff in the Department of Labour.

I must say in all honesty that I have never seen a member in this House perform such an egg dance as was done a moment ago by the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) in an attempt to protect his own Minister in connection with a policy which he knows the people of South Africa do not want. The hon. member for Krugersdorp made a strong attack upon his colleague, the hon. member for Losberg (Mr. Wolmarans) and accused him of not being fraternal enough and then he proceeded to say that my constituency too was in all probability visited by the hon. member for Losberg, and that I had not given my permission. Let me say at once that if that is so, I do not regard it as an insult. But in the egg dance which the hon. member performed, he did not once deal with the Bill which is before the House. All he did was to try to defend the wrong policy which his own leader, the Minister of Labour, is advocating today. The hon. member for Krugersdorp stated that the hon. member for Losberg did not have the courage to recognise the good work which the Minister had done in certain respects. That is absolute nonsense. We have always admitted it when the Minister has done something good, and we did so this morning in connection with his Workmen’s Compensation Act. We gave the Minister of Labour credit for what he had done in connection with the Workmen’s Compensation Act, but does the hon. member expect us, where the Minister has done one good thing, to praise him for all the bad measures too? On the contrary, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Losberg for the courage he displayed here. I want to congratulate him on the revelations he made here today in connection with the position in the factories on the Rand. Last year when I revealed those conditions connected with the dismissal of Mrs. Moll and Mrs. Nel, the Minister of Labour as well as the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) stated outright that no such things existed, that Europeans and coloureds were not working together. The Minister denied what I said here, and we have just heard that a member of the United Party, whose Minister sits in the Cabinet, personally made investigations and he made these revelations here. I want to congratulate the hon. member on personally selecting the factories where he made investigations rather than taking the list which they gave him. He gave us certain data, and it is not necessary for me to go into that more fully. I want to tell the hon. member for Losberg that in spite of the criticism which was levelled against him by the hon. member for Krugersdorp, the nation will be grateful to him for the revelations he made here. In connection with this Bill for the registration of unemployed, I want to say, in the first instance, that I have gone through this Bill, but I must frankly admit that the Bill taken on the whole will have no practical value for us in the future as far as the provision of employment is concerned. This Bill as it reads at present will leave the question of unemployment in South Africa just where it is; it will not improve the position in any way. The main object of the Bill is to register unemployed, and even in that connection it is a half-baked measure. Clause 2 of the Bill provides that the Minister may by notice in the Government Gazette proclaim this Bill in any area and in respect of any category of employees within that area. The result is that only the unemployed in that area and in the proclaimed trades or industries will register themselves. Outside those areas, there may be a mass of unemployed who will not be registered. Just as little as the Minister knows today what the extent of unemployment in the country is, will he know in the future under the application of this Bill. I say that as far as that is concerned, this Bill is ineffective. Then the Minister goes on to say in connection with Clause 4 that persons who contribute to unemployment funds are excluded from the operation of the Act; registered members of trade unions are excluded. Can the Minister tell us why contributors to unemployment funds are being excluded, and why members of trade unions have to be excluded? I suppose it has been proved in this House over and over again that the future of every employed worker, where the closed shop principle applies, is very unsafe and insecure, and we dare not exclude those people from registration. The hon. member for Losberg pointed out what was happening in the clothing factories. When those people are dismissed, they cannot obtain employment elsewhere. We do not find it there only, but also in a big industry like the mining industry. I have before me a copy of a letter which was sent to the Prime Minister by the “Action Committee of Discontented Miners”. Inter alia they say in this letter—

These people can be dismissed and once they have been dismissed they have no hope of obtaining employment in another mine. Why are these people being excluded? The Minister even makes provision for the registration, on application, of persons other than unemployed. Why then are these people whom I mentioned being excluded? If we want to make the registration of unemployed successful, we must no exclude those classes of persons; we should make it of general application. The Minister must not make exceptions. Then I come to the question of separateness. In that connection the Minister is very ambiguous in the Bill, and he was very ambiguous in his speech as well. It is laid down in the Bill that—

But in his speech the hon. Minister said this—

Then he goes on to say—

Then the Minister points out that he has been urged to make statutory provision for these Juvenile Boards which act in an advisory capacity. But in the same breath the Minister says that the present Bill makes provision for statutory boards to cope with the interests of any specific race— Europeans, coloureds, natives, etc. I say that the Minister used very ambiguous terms in regard to the question of separateness, in spite of the fact that it is a matter of vital importance to South Africa. Having regard to the revelations which we have had from the hon. member for Losberg. I hope the hon. Minister will see his way clear to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Losberg. I believe that the Minister shares my views in this matter. But there are forces in his own Cabinet and in his own Party which compel him to relegate this question of separateness in South Africa to the background. The Minister himself may see to it that the provisions of this Act are properly carried out, but he may not be there tomorrow. He himself told us that he was “on his last run”. The Minister should lay down the principle of separateness in this Bill, and carry it through to its logical consequence from A to Z. I just want to refer once again to what I said a moment ago in regard to the closed shop agreements. I am convinced that the Minister personally is not in favour of these agreements either. I am firmly convinced that the Minister himself does not like them. If that is so, I want to ask him why he cannot take any action? I suppose he is afraid of the Trade and Labour Council. I want to tell the Minister that he must establish separate bureaux. We want separate spheres of employment. The hon. member for Krugersdorp said it was impossible. It is not impossible to have separate spheres of employment for Europeans and coloured persons and natives. That would be the sound policy to adopt in South Africa, and I agree with the hon. member for Losberg that if we cannot get it, it is going to lead to friction between the races. We noticed in the clothing factory in Germiston that the working together of Europeans and non-Europeans led to endless friction. The Minister himself knows that the matter became so serious that all the Afrikaans Churches turned against him. The Minister dare not ignore the wishes of the people in this respect. It is a matter of life and death to us. It is the only policy which we can adopt in South Africa to keep it a white man’s land, and to make provision for our children. There is no other policy and the sooner the Minister realises that in his labour legislation the bettetr it will be for the future of South Africa. This working together of Europeans and non-Europeans will lead to endless racial clashes and it may later lead to unnecessary bloodshed in this country. Not only that, but it is a policy which is going to endanger the European civilisation in this country. For that reason I want to associate myself with the amendment in which the hon. member asks that a quota system be introduced. This is a serious matter and the Minister must give his attention to it. Then we go further. We say that this Bill, if it becomes law, must be confined to Union subjects. At the moment there is a great deal of unemployment in South Africa, whether the Minister wants to admit it or not. We know how many people are applying for work and they are told to join the army. These are people who have the courage of their convictions and they prefer to suffer before they do anything which is against their convictiontions. As it is, there is a great deal of unemployment in this country and thë position will become worse in the future. We know that something like 14,000 officials of the railways enlisted. I take it that there are approximately 10,000 or 12,000 temporary workers on the railways. The soldiers will get their employment back. It is right that they should get it back, but what is going to become of those 12,000 temporary workers who will be thrown on to the street over the length and breadth of South Africa? Under this Bill it will be possible for those people to register themselves, but where and how are they going to find employment? Aliens will also be registered. There are many aliens in our country who have told me that after the war they do not propose to return to their own countries. It is the duty of the Minister to give priority to the sons and daughters of our country in the matter of employment, and that employment is not provided to people from overseas who come to this country and practically take the bread out of the mouths of our own people. That is one of the reasons why we urge the Minister to accept this amendment, to apply this Act to Union subjects only. Reference has been made in this House to large-scale immigration. If these people come in, work will have to be found for them, and we say that provision must first be made for the sons and daughters of South Africa. I hope the Minister will accept this amendment, because it is effective, practical and in every respect practicable. Now I come to the last portion, and that is that this Bill as it now reads will be of no avail as far as the provision of employment is concerned. The policy of this side is that the State is responsible for the provision of employment to every man and woman in South Africa at a living wage. The Minister is evading his responsibilities. He is making-provision for registration. Let us even assume that he will go to the length of getting a complete registration in South Africa; in what way is that registration going to help us? It will cost us a great deal to effect that registration, but this Bill will be of no avail if the State does not accept the responsibility to provide employment to the citizens of South Africa. I say therefore that the Minister should accept the standpoint of this side that the State is responsible for the provision of employment. I am pleased that in one respect, as a result of the action on this side, the Minister has been converted; he has provided in the Bill that the registration officials must be bilingual. I congratulate him on that decision. I hope he will still be sufficiently converted to accept the whole economic and labour policy of the Re-united Nationalist Party. We ask that a Labour Council be established in South Africa under the General Economic Board which we advocate. The Minister knows our policy. I do not want to go into the composition of this board; but it will exercise supervision of the wage and working conditions of the whole nation. In the second place there must be a re-classification of work and a quota system of employment for Europeans and non-Europeans, which must be applied under the Board of Control. The board will have control of all labour funds. That is an important point. Then there are other matters such as the Employment Fund, the Miners’ Phthisis Fund, etc. These are all matters which can be controlled by that board. It may be asked how the board will be able to carry out all those things. It could have sub-committees to assist it in the execution of its duties, such as, for example, wage committees in principal and employment areas. The point is that the State must assume responsibility for the provision of employment. Then there is the question of essential co-ordination of work between the Labour Department, the Department of Social Welfare and the Department of Public Health. What we urgently need is a board of control to carry out those duties. In conclusion I want to ask the Minister seriously to take into consideration this amendment. I want to say to him that it is partially in his hands today to save the future of South Africa, and we ask him seriously to consider this matter.

When the Minister introduces legislation in connection with the registration of the unemployed, we expect the Minister to submit a more comprehensive programme in connection with the provision of employment to unemployed to the House. When he has said A., he ought also to say B. The Minister cannot introduce a Bill like this to provide for the registration of unemployed and then, when the people have been registered, adopt the point of view that he need not see to it that they obtain employment. We on this side of the House, the Minister must understand, fully agree with this measure, but we say that it simply does not go far enough. That is where I differ from the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Sullivan). He made a speech here in which he spoke about the necessity for the registration of unemployed. He regards this measure as a most wonderful measure. But it only deals with registration. We on this side have indicated that we already have enough legislation in connection with registration.

But not scientific registration.

In so far as this Bill attempts to consolidate the registration of the unemployed, we agree with it. But what will be done when the thousands of unemployed have been registered; what will we do with them? Supposing the hon. member for Berea returns to Durban and there are thousands of workless people who come to him and ask him for work. He will then tell them: You are registered as unemployed. But that will not satisfy those people; they want work.

But we must make a start. Registration is the start.

We want both. We must have an assurance from the Minister of Labour that the State will have extensive schemes for providing work for these people. We ought to know now, at this stage, how many people will be absorbed in the various industries, how many will be employed in State schemes. We have the Minister of Public Works. He ought to be able to tell the Minister of Labour what his programme is for the following 10 years and how many labourers he needs, how many artisans and how many people in all the branches of all the trades he needs for the Department of Public Works. The Department of Irrigation ought to tell the Minister of Labour how many people they will need. The Minister of Lands speaks about his great schemes. He wants to cut tunnels to divert rivers from one bed to another—one tunnel of 63 miles. He speaks a lot about his great schemes and he ought to be able to tell the Minister of Labour how many workers the Department of Irrigation will need. Then we have the Department of Forestry. In the last few years we lived on our capital as regards our forests. Our forests have been denuded. Thousands of morgen of ground must again be planted and the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry should be able to tell us how many people the Department of Forestry will need, to plant trees once again. If the Minister of Labour tells us that he wants the registration of unemployed people, then he should at the same time be able to tell us that his colleagues informed him that they need so many workers in various directions and that he must make provision for them to receive those workers. In the absence of all this we feel that this Bill is not worth the paper on which it is printed. That is the practical difficulty we have in connection with this Bill. I welcome the Bill in so far as it enables the private employer to go to the Department of the Minister and to enquire whether there are workmen available in the various branches of activity. But it appears to us that the Minister just lays the responsibility on the private employer, and does not devote enough attention to the responsibility of the State. We must now begin to think of reconstruction. We had the reports of the Planning Council in which we were informed as to how many unemployed there would be. The Minister knows that the figures given are tremendously high. It is over 200,000, if natives are added. They say that we are able to provide work for 70,000. We have learnt in this war that money can be made available. We shall have to continue making money available for the rebuilding of the soil. We sat still for five years in regard to providing for the requirements of the people, and it really seems as if the Minister of Labour is not getting enough support from his colleagues in connection with this Bill. It does not help devoting our time to this Bill if we do not go a step further, because it will mean nothing. Another important matter on which I feel strongly is that in connection with providing employment in the future, we should in the first place look after the Union citizens. Provisions should first be made for the men and women born here. We see that there is tremendous disorganisation in other parts of the world. There will be unemployment and poverty. The people will try to flee from Europe, because quite probably they will not be able to make a living there. They will want to come to our country, and when they land here and tramp our streets, the responsibility rests on us. They will quite probably satisfy the requirements of the immigration regulations, so that they can enter our country. But when once they are here, when they are in our midst, they are a burden on us. Are we going to apply this registration in connection with them also? That is a matter which needs the Minister’s serious attention. He should first provide for our own people. The Minister knows what happened after the last great war, how much unemployment there was. At that time I was a student in Cape Town and saw how numbers of unemployed walked about here and practically had to beg, and I also saw how strangers entered the country, and now I say that we should make provision for it that that condition will not be repeated, and that we should first look after our own people. There should be proper control of labour. What is happening today? One finds that at a certain place there is unemployment and at another place fairly much work, but the one does not know about the other. In the registration of unemployed I see an attempt to obtain control over labour, but it will not be enough; it should be more intensive. We ought to know precisely what the requirements of every trade are, and what the requirements, are at any given period of time, for example in the building industry, so that we can prevent people being unnecessarily unemployed, and in this measure proposed by the Minister I do not see sufficient control for that purpose, to regulate the labour of the nation. That is lacking in this measure. There should already be control in various areas, but after the war it will practically be essential to have control of labour everywhere. For instance today on the platteland one finds that one can practically never obtain a properly trained person to do one’s work. There is such a shortage of skilled labour on the platteland that if one obtains someone to do one’s work, one must just put up with the standard of work performed by him. There ought to be bureaux where one can say that one needs so many men, and then the Department of Labour ought to be able to provide the workmen, and if it cannot do so immediately, it should be able to do so in the near future. I consider that there is no proper control of labour in the Bill, Then I just want to ask the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. van den Berg) whether he is satisfied with the conditions described by the hon. member for Losberg (Mr. Wolmarans). All that the hon. member for Losberg did is to describe the circumstances he knows about and which I know about. Those are the circumstances which exist in our factories today. It is not enough to say that there are not sufficient inspectors to visit all the factories. The hon. member for Losberg asked the Minister to amend the position, and then the hon. member received the reply that the Minister is not going to do it, and therefore he stated that because the Minister of Labour said that he will not change the position, he will vote against the Bill, unless the Minister satisfies him. We on this side of the House, and I think also numbers of members on the opposite side, feel precisely the same about the matter. It is not an impossible matter. I have been told that new factories are at present being erected where separatism is maintained in the factory. All that we want, and that the hon. member for Losberg wants, is that there should be legislation to enforce the separatism.

He also demands my resignation.

He says that if the Minister does not satisfy him, he thinks he must resign. But I do not want to splinter a lance for the hon. member for Losberg; the hon. member for Krugerdlorp has already said many worse things about the Ministers opposite. He has been much more of a rebel than the hon. member for Losberg, and I cannot understand why he now becomes so excited when the hon. member for Losberg opens his heart about this matter. But if at 6 o’clock this afternoon you go not far from here, to Keerom Street, the area where there are factories …

Surely you are not referring to “Die Burger”.

No, at “Die Burger” things are always in order. If the Minister goes there or to Woodstock or to other industrial parts of Cape Town, he will see what is happening there, and how all the workers of the different races and sexes emerge from the same door and use precisely the same conveniences. We want to stop that, and we say that the practice of separatism will not be detrimental to relationships inter se, but actually will improve it. If for example one goes by the national road to Somerset Strand, one gets to the Klipfontein Road, where there is a large area inhabited only by coloureds. They live there in clean houses and under very much better circumstances than they live in the slums of the city, mixed up with all sorts of races. If one asks those people whether they want to revert to the old state of affairs, they say no. That is precisely what we also want in industry. I now want to deal with the other point, that of the quota. We realise that there are different sections of the community and that each one should have his legitimate share in the labour of South Africa, and we need a quota to divide the work in the various activities amongst the different sections of the population. If for example in Cape Town or in the Cape Peninsula one has a certain number of coloureds and a certain number of Europeans, say 200,000 of each, then it is easy to determine that in a certain activity a 50-50 quota should be applied as regards labourers. It is not a difficult matter. When one comes to the Transvaal, where the proportions of the various sections of the population are different, a different quota can be applied, in proportion to the population. But we must see to it that the position does not arise where for example in Cape Town or Port Elizabeth or East London the activities are filled with just one section of the population, while the others lie idle. It is the policy of this side of the House to look after all sections of the population, whatever their colour or race may be, and we should like to see that the Minister should go in that direction, and therefore we propose this amendment.

At 6.40 p.m., the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 25th January, 1945, and Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate was adjourned; to be resumed on 12th April.