as Chairman of the Select Committee on the Dongola Wild Life Sanctuary Bill: I move as an unopposed motion—

I second.

Agreed to.

I move—

The hon. member has seen me in connection with the proposed motion, but in view of the statement made in reply to Question No. XXXIII asked this morning to the effect that an enquiry is being made into the circumstances connected with the accident referred to and also in view of the fact that a motion for the adjournment of the House on a definite matter of urgent public importance must be moved at the earliest possible opportunity (see V. & P. 1939, p. 140), I regret that I am unable to accept the motion.

Without desiring in any way to contest your ruling, might I with great submission represent that the reply given to Question No. XXXIII today is altogether insufficient to allay public concern and anxiety and the purpose of my motion was to draw attention, among many other things, to the statement of the Department of Defence, officially issued, that it is their intention to use Ventura planes for the purpose of repatriating ex-prisoners-of-war, although the Acting Minister assured me on the 8th instant they would not be used.

Under the circumstances, I feel I cannot allow the motion.

I move—

This Bill gives effect to two of the resolutions that were approved of after discussion in the Committee of Ways and Means. It also has as its object the making of certain amendments in the consolidating Act that was adopted last year, amendments that will remove defects and facilitate the administration of the Act. The Bill will also bring up for discussion certain other matters which fall within the compass of the Act passed last year-. I refer, in the first place, to the two resolutions that were adopted by the House in Committee of Ways and Means. One has as its object to calculate the value of imported goods to the nearest £, for customs purposes, where the value is more than £10. It is naturally only for administrative purposes that this proposal is being made. That proposition was accepted and is now contained in Clause 10 of the Bill. The other proposal that has already been accepted had as its object the obtaining of more elasticity in connection with the application of dumping duties, and that is taken up in Clause 7 (b) of the Bill which modifies Section 82 of the principal Act. This will have the effect of making the dumping duties more elastic. It is not necessary to repeat what I stated on a previous occasion. Paragraph (a) of the same clause introduces a further amendment to Section 82 of the Act and makes it clear that dumping duties can be applied to goods which, although not precisely the same as manufactured in the Únion, answer to the same general description. Then I wish at this stage to refer also to Clauses 8 and 9 that propose amendments in other sections of the principal Act in order to bring it into conformity with Section 82 as amended by Clause 7 of this Bill. Then I come to the other provisions of the Bill. It is not necessary for me to go into all the particulars now, especially seeing that they are dealt with in a White Paper that has been laid on the Table and as many of them are relatively small amendments in connection with administrative matters. I only wish to refer to the most important alterations.

Tell us about the meat.

I am coming to that. In the first place in Clause 1 we deal with three amendments in connection with Section 21 of the principal. Act Section 21 places an embargo on the importation of certain types of goods. Paragraph (a) extends the embargo to goods marked in such a way that they violate the rights of another person in connection with such a trade mark. Paragraph (b) gives effect to an undertaking I gave last year, I believe as a result of observations made by the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals), that I would go into the question of copyright, and this paragraph will have the effect of extending the protection of copyright to all countries with which the Union has a reciprocal agreement. I stated last year that I would first go into the implications of such an amendment and into the legal aspect of it. That has now been done and consequently this amendment, as advocated by the hon. member, has been introduced. Paragraph (c) relates to a matter that has been mentioned by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Lt.-Col. Oosthuizen) on a previous occasion. It gives the power to exercise control over the import of surplus war stores from other countries to the possible detriment of our industries. The following clause to which I wish to refer is Clause 13. This introduces two amendments to Section 98 of the principal Act which deals with the refund of customs duties under certain circumstances. This is explained in the White Paper, and both are concessions to the taxpayers. Clause 14 will give us the right to require a declaration from an individual leaving the Union in connection with goods in his possession. This is necessary in view of the restrictions obtaining in regard to export. Then there are Clauses 15 and 16 which deal with penalties for smuggling. I do not think there will be any objection to these. Clauses 17 and 18 have as their object granting approval to the non-collection of customs duties on imported meat. During the period of shortage last year it was necessary to import meat from elsewhere. Clause 17 relates to the import of corned beef and Clause 18 refers to the import of meat from Southern Rhodesia. In view of the local prices the present customs duties which are of a protective nature have no significance, and consequently in order to further the interests of the public it was agreed not to collect the customs dues and this House is now asked to accord its approval to that. Then Clause 19 deals with a certain type of goods as explained in the White Paper, that are being imported by the Director-General of Supplies. In all the cases mentioned here the collection of customs duties would only mean that it would be collected by one Government department from the other. This is neither necessary nor desirable. These are the main provisions of the Bill. As hon. members will see there are no real principles involved in it. We are dealing with a number of clauses which do not actually bear any relationship to one another, and it will perhaps be more convenient to discuss the specific points in the Committee stage. In any case I do not intend to ask that the Committee stage should be taken today.

Though in principle not much objection can be taken to the amendments as proposed, with the exception of a few I nevertheless think I should point out that in the first year after the adoption of the consolidating Bill we have before us a whole series of alterations and amendments, so that it is unique in my experience. I do not want to express condemnation in respect of considering the legislation, but if it is bruited abroad that the Union Parliament within a year of the passing of the consolidating Act had to introduce such a series of amendments without there having been much change in the circumstances it would cast a reflection on this Parliament such as we would not like to have on our name. I think this can really be interpreted as a defect in connection with the consideration of Bills before they are drafted or of their treatment in this House. I hope this will be the last time that we shall be confronted with such a position. I have about 12 years’ experience in this House and this is the first occasion that I have been faced with such a mass of amendments in connection with a new Act. As has been said, there are a number of amendments with which we are frankly in agreement, more particularly that under Clause 1 in reference to trade marks. The application of restrictions is extended there and we welcome that. Although the former description embraced a certain number of cases the new description is in any case much wider than the old and in view of the fact that this amendment has the effect of extending protection, we welcome it. It affects articles which are imported in connection with merchandise and which are in conflict with the intention of the present Act. I also wish to give my approval to the amendment in regard to which the Minister mentioned me. He said that last year I made a proposal of this nature. I want to welcome the amendment cordially but if the Minister wishes the House to understand that this is all that I contemplated last year he would be giving the House a wrong impression. The clause in this Bill still leaves gaps. My amendment last year was designed to provide a basis for all copyright, and I intended that no exception should be made in the relationship between nations and nations as far as copyright is concerned. In my opinion this is an international matter and I should like to have had a general basis as between ourselves and other countries. I felt that this should also apply within the British Empire, but now exclusive rights are still granted and this is not what I proposed. Still this amendment is an improvement and I welcome it. I think, however, that it is not right to exclude a number of the nations. I hope the House will accept this amendment but I know the matter will again be brought up in order to make the provision of general application. In regard to sub-clause (1) (c) I am in hearty agreement that the Department and the Minister should protect the clothing industry in South Africa against the possible importation of surplus war stores from overseas. This was the experience in the last war and there were serious complaints from the clothing manufacturers at that time. In the past 25 years we have developed industry to such an extent that we have a large number of clothing factories manufacturing material of the same sort or similar, and accordingly I warmly welcome the introduction of this amendment to afford proper protection to the existing industries in our country. There are a number of other amendments that must also be welcomed, especially where the Minister wishes to protect, the country against possible dumping from overseas. After the war, after the paralysis that war brings and after the expenditure that the war has entailed and that the population will be called upon to pay internal conditions must arise requiring that production should be placed on a sound basis, and the fostering of mass production. To bring down the unit cost will probably entail that surplus stores will be accumulated internally and not only this, that you will have the position of seasonal surpluses, and the commercial tendency is always there, obviously, to protect itself and ensure its right to exist and under such circumstances to export goods at reduced prices. I am glad that provision has been made in this Bill in this connection. The Miniswill, of course, realise that as the provision regarding the fixing the value has now been repealed and the discretion granted to the Minister he is assuming an important responsibility and I take it that he will not exercise this discretion but that he will function through the Board of Trade and Industries. In any case I welcome this in principle that the absolute basis of 50 per cent. of the value has been annulled, because it was not sound. In some cases it was adequate but not in others. Therefore this is an improvement on the existing law. In regard to the provisions of Clauses 17 and 18 I will leave these to the agricultural representative to go into, although without doubt this opens up a contentious subject. A fundamental difference of opinion exists on this question whether there really is a shortage of neat in our country. I and other hon. members are of opinion that there is no shortage, only an artificial shortage as a result of the action of the State, as a result of the system of control, and in view of this belief I regard it, of course, a wrong course that the State after its failure has to utilise the revenue of the State for compensating that failure. I take it that not a large amount is involved, but it is a question of principle, whether there was an artificial shortage of an essential article of food and whether as a result of that the Government had to endeavour to obtain supplies and to import them. It can also possibly be interpreted that this measure will be used against internal producers. It is a highly contentious matter. One amendment that I really expected in the Bill is not contained in it. The hon. Minister will, I believe recall that last year the question of Section 87 was under discussion. This really forms the basis of our protection policy, but it is applied in particular to certain internal products. In connection with this section the question was raised whether we should not arrive at a new basis whereunder we could extend the protection for home products. In the clause a few principles are incorporated that we approve, but these are principles which without doubt may be misused, and it is exactly in connection with the principles included in Section 87 that we considered last year that the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Economic Development should find a new basis for the provisions of Section 87. I go even further and I think it can be described as a promise that the Ministers would as quickly as possible have a discussion with the Board of Trade and Industries and that a new basis would be drafted to be incorporated in the legislation. I shall be glad if the Minister will inform us whether this has enjoyed his attention and whether it was discussed and so forth. We should have modification of the basis. We cannot have a special basis for each specific product of the country and incorporate it in the customs legislation. We must have a general basis. With the exception of these few observations which I consider contentious we welcome the additions and clarifications in this Bill as improvements on the existing law.

I should like to address a few words to the Minister in connection with the alteration in the existing trade agreement with Rhodesia. You will recall that the wine farmers on two separate occasions were stabbed in the back by the governments of those days in connection with their trade agreements. The first instance was when the crayfish agreement was entered into with France. Certain privileges were at that time withdrawn from the wine farmers in regard to the naming of wines, and the wine farmers felt this specially because they considered it was unnecessary to make this provision and to punish a section of the population for the sake of selling crayfish. I believe that France does not now buy crayfish. We do not need to sell it to France because we can sell all we have to America, but in regard to the other matter, the contract with Rhodesia for the importation of cattle, the position is that a feeling has been aroused between Rhodesia and ourselves because privileges have been taken from them and duties on the importation of cattle have been increased and that has reacted against the wine farmers because Rhodesia has imposed an increased duty on our wine and on our brandy. In order to assist our stock farmers the government of those days again stuck the wine farmer in the back. Whisky costs you less in Rhodesia than our brandy. When the Minister, or the Government, is negotiating with Rhodesia I should be glad if he will keep this matter in mind. If they renew negotiations they must address themselves to securing relief, and a reduction in the import duty as far as wine and brandy from South Africa is concerned. I should like the Minister to understand that we as wine farmers feel it is not right that a section of the community should be punished so that another section may be assisted. I do not want the interests of one section to be sacrificed in order to gain privileges which otherwise could not be obtained. That does not appear to me to be right. I take it that a good opportunity was afforded to touch on the matter when permission was given for the importation of meat from Rhodesia. It would, have been a good opportunity to mention the case of the wine farmers, because on top of that there is the position that whisky cannot easily be imported on account of lack of shipping space for whisky imports, and they have been obliged to consume our liquor. This was a golden opportunity in the circumstances to assist the wine farmers. I should also like to emphasise what the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) has said in connection with the meat position. There never was the slightest doubt in my mind that there was enough meat in the country, and I do not want this procedure to be applied of allowing the importation of meat in order to coerce the stock farmers to follow the course the Government wishes them to follow. That is not just. At the time they discussed the necessity for importing meat from America and from Australia it was done with the object of compelling the stock farmers to sell their products. A protest was registered against that. I realise now that the duties would virtually only be paid by one department to another, but the position is that if the duty is not levied on meat that is imported the State will be losing revenue. If the duty is levied it would have to be collected from the consumers. But now a subsidy is given— that is what it boils down to—to the consumers and the stock farmer is hit. I feel this is not right. There was no shortage of meat. If there was a shortage at certain centres it was to be ascribed to other circumstances. It was perhaps to be ascribed largely to the export of meat. We exported our fresh meat and now tinned meat is imported and you do not know what it is comprised of; and the result is that our stock farmers may in this manner be forced to do things that the Government wishes them to do. I do not want this provision in the Bill to be used in future to compel the farmers to follow a course the Government wishes them to follow.

I should like to support what the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) has stated regarding the whole series of amendments now being introduced so soon after the passing of the consolidating Act of last year. Those of us who have had experience of customs’ work know that a series of amendments greatly increases the difficulties of administration. On that ground we were delighted last year when the House adopted the consolidating Act. When we, so quickly after that, are presented with a whole series of amendments we fell there is something wrong somewhere. Why is such a long series of amendments necessary within a short period? Was the legislation not thoroughly considered before it was brought before the House? I am referring now to the Bill that became the principal Act.

It came too late in the Session.

Under Clause 7 I want to refer to the adddition of the word “kind” in regard to dumping rights. We thoroughly realise how important it is that, our industries in South Africa, especially after the war, should be protected against dumping by foreign countries. We shall always have to import goods, but at the same time we feel the Minister is assuming a great responsibility when he broadens as widely as he has the definition of goods subject to dumping duties. This will make it very difficult in some cases. In the first place it will have to be decided whether an article falls within a certain class, and now the Minister goes further and says it Will have to be decided whether the article falls within a certain “class” or a certain “kind”. The definition has now become so wide that unless it is wisely administered it will constitute a dangerous element in the legislation. Accordingly I hope that in this connection the Minister will take into consideration the hint given by the hon. member for Ceres. There are definite dangers involved in this clause, and I hope that the Minister will take no steps without preliminary investigation by the Board of Trade and Industries. In Clause 8 there is refrence to the fixing of prices for dumping duty purposes. On what basis will the Minister fix prices for dumping and customs duty purposes in respect of countries where today prices are controlled but still are diverse. Take a country like Russia. A price may be fixed in the Ukraine for a certain article while another price is fixed in White Russia or Siberia. If there are such diverse prices is there any method under which the Minister can fix an average price? In regard to meat, personally I feel that we have prescribed dumping duties in respect of imported meat. Now the Minister may perhaps say the consumers may derive the benefit from the non-collection, but the State has in the meantime lost the customs duties. The Minister must now in one way or another, take the revenue from the pockets of the taxpayers, and we on this side of the House feel that the importation of meat was not necessary, and it is only as a result of the weak administration of the meat scheme that confusion arose thereby rendering necessary the importation of meat. The Minister goes further and allows the country to lose the revenue through this legislation. In Clause 19 the Government proposes to allow goods imported by the Director-General of Supplies to be admitted free of duty, or rather not to levy any duty when the goods are offered for sale to the public, but I should appreciate it if the Minister would take into consideration that there will be quantities of these goods which undoubtedly will be able to compete with locally manufactured goods. Will the War Supplies Disposal Board or will the Minister, or will the Commissioner of Customs bear in mind not allowing the goods to reach the market in such quantities, as a result of the exemption of the customs duties, as to cause unfair competition with our local products. Take, for instance, shoes and boots and clothing and numbers of other articles that are manufactured in South Africa. If the protection duty they enjoy is lifted they will no longer be able to be produced, and then you will have the position that possibly some of those articles on which no customs duty was levied in the first place will come into the market. I should greatly appreciate if the Minister would give an explanation of the attitude he will take up to prevent these goods from competing in an unfair manner with our local industries, which in any case will probably have a hard enough time in the future.

I also wish to protest against Clause 17 covering the import of meat. I feel there is also a misunderstanding as the result of the words used in the schedule. I believe it was not really the Meat Control Board that proposed this but it was done under the Emergency Regulations, and I believe that the object was to reduce the price of meat in the country. Why was the 1½ per cent. dumping duty not levied? Is this not proof that it was done to make the meat in our country cheaper? We should prefer the dumping duties to be continued. Then we would have proof of the value of our meat in comparison with the meat obtained from outside. I feel it was absolutely undesirable not to levy the dumping duty, because otherwise we would have clearly seen that the prices in our country are lower than those for which one can obtain meat beyond our borders. Accordingly I protest against this provision.

I also would like to make a few observations in reference to Clause 17. One cannot feel otherwise than that from the time the meat scheme came into operation the threat was present that meat will be imported. Certain borders were thrown open to allow meat to come in from outside, though we have always maintained there is enough meat in the country if the scheme was properly carried out. Today the market is really overstocked. Even this morning I see the prices at certain centres have fallen considerably. This is further proof we really have the meat, but as a result of weak administration of the scheme the meat has not been put on the market. Now import duties are lifted and I think that is not right. Consequently I too wish to register my protest. It does not really help to discuss matters with the Minister of Agriculture. He will not make the necessary alterations to enable matters to go smoothly, but we want to register a strong protetst against the way in which our meat industry is being threatened.

The hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) and the hon. member for Gezina (Dr. Swanepoel) have referred to the fact that so shortly after the passing of the consolidating Bill we have produced a whole series of amendments. May I point out that the Bill of last year was, in the first instance, of a consolidating character, and it was our object as far as possible not to incorporate in the Bill amendments of existing legislation. True, there were certain amendments, and it was not a consolidating Bill within the scope of the ruling given by Mr. Speaker two years ago. But an effort was made to limit amendments as far as possible in order to facilitate the handling of the Bill. In addtiion, I should also like to say this, that quite a few of the clauses of this Bill, such as Clause 1 (b), Clauses 7, 8 and 9 are the result of undertakings I gave last year during the discussion of the consolidating Bill when I said that I would go further into certain aspects. While I am on this point I wish to refer to what the hon. member for Ceres stated in connection with Section 87 of the principal Act that deals with the duty that is levied on the basis of the c.i.f. price. May I say that the question is still under investigation by the Board of Trade and Industries and that it is consequently not yet necessary to bring forward proposals. The hon. member for Ceres and various other members have referred to Clauses 17 and 18. They have asked how much revenue we have surrendered. Viewed from one angle we have not sacrificed any revenue, because if the arrangement had not been made we would not have any revenue, as is clearly stated in the White Paper. It would not have been possible to dispose of the meat in the country if the duties had to be paid. Hon. members have even asserted here that it was not necessary to import the meat, and then of course we would not have earned the revenue. Consequently regarded from the one angle the answer is that no revenue was ceded. We merely ceded something which we otherwise would not have got. But if we actually had levied customs duties on the meat the amount in respect of Clause 17 would have run to £17,000, and under Clause 18 to £23,000. I repeat, however, that if this special arrangement had not been made we would not have had any revenue. I want to point out that in both instances the proposals stood in respect of a limited period. Clause 18 was for four months, which are past, and Clause 17 covers only the period of 14th October to 3rd November of last year. We are thus dealing merely with something in the past and not with anything which is continuing. The hon. member for Swellendam mentioned the matter of possible relief in connection with the restrictions on the import of our products into Rhodesia, such for instance as wine. This is, of course, a matter that can be dealt with when the agreement with Rhodesia again comes under discussion, but it is not a thing that we can now discuss.

Was it not an excellent opportunity?

No, because it was not Rhodesia that came and asked us for something but on that occasion we asked Rhodesia. The initiative did not emanate from Rhodesia but from us and it is on that account, too, that this is merely a temporary arrangement, while what the hon. member expects is a permanent arrangement. The matter will again come under discussion when the trade relations with Rhodesia are again the subject of negotiation. The hon. member for Gezina mentioned a few points. In the first place he referred to the proposed extension of dumping duties in Clause 7 (a). It is true that we are widening the definition, and it is true that a certain degree of danger is hidden in it, but I believe that more danger would exist for our industries if we did not widen the definition, and I can give the hon. member the assurance that we shall go to work judiciously and after consultation with the Board of Trade and Industries. I realise the danger, but I think we can get round it. He has also brought under discussion the matter of the determining of internal prices in great countries where the ruling prices are possibly not uniform. This is not a new difficulty; it has also arisen in the past and we have indeed found means to surmount it, and I believe we shall by tackling this in a judicious manner again arrive at a solution. Then he mentioned an important point in connection with Clause 19, the proposed exemption from customs duties of goods imported by the Director-General of Supplies. As I have explained, unless we do this we shall simply be allowing the collection by one department from another department to take place, but the hon. member says rightly this may signify that if the goods are eventually sold to the public unfair competition may be created with our own industries. I am able to give him the assurance that we will see to it that here, too, wise action will be taken in the handling of such goods by the War Supplies Disposals Board in respect of the placing of the goods on the market. We do not want to glut the market. In the second place, I want to say in respect of the prices at which goods of this description will be sold by the Disposals Board it will make no difference whether customs duties are levied or not. It will make no difference in view of the fact that the goods will be sold by tender. The hon. member may thus accept my assurance that in this case no actual danger is present.

If they are sold by tender will large profits be made by the sellers?

No. We shall make the profit, but only nominally, because otherwise we would have obtained the customs duties. Thus in any case it would have come to us.

Motion put and agreed to.

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

I move—

The idea is to limit it to genuine workseekers, people who depend on work for their livelihood. This does not mean that it will cut out people who have means; they are allowed to register but they are not forced to.

I should like to discuss a few of the definitions. The definition of “employer” reads—

I cannot understand at all how you can “tacitly” undertake to pay anybody. I think it is unnecessary to include that word. I cannot understand how anyone can “expressly or tacitly” undertake to pay a person. I do not know what it means. I have never come across it. You take someone into your service and you undertake to pay him, and I cannot understand what the words “expressly or tacitly” mean. They seem to me to be superfluous. They can only lead to difficulty. Then we come to the definition of “guardian”. The reason for the definition of “guardian” is that later in the Bill it is laid down that the guardian must provide certain information. That is the reason for the presence of the definition. No provision is made for the case where a person has no guardian at all. A person under a certain age, as stated in the Bill, may have no guardian at all. He may be living alone, and then he will not be required to register, because the guardian is charged with that duty. The duty of the guardian arises in connection with a juvenile workseeker. The guardian, the father or, if the father has died or is absent from the residence of the juvenile workseeker, or if the juvenile workseeker is an illegitimate child it is the mother; and if both parents have died or should they both be absent from the residence of the juvenile workseeker, the person who has the custody of that juvenile workseeker has to register him. If the father is absent, as well as in the case of an illegitimate child, it is the mother under the law, and if both parents are dead or absent then it is the person who has the custody of that juvenile workseeker. Supposing there is no one who has his custody. Then he is not registered, and he falls outside the Bill. Moreover the Minister makes no provision in the case of the father being absent. The father may be absent on a week’s holiday. Then he is “absent”. Or he may be temporarily absent. I understand the intention of the Minister, and I should like to help, but here he is looking for difficulties, because if a man is absent for a week or fourteen days and the juvenile has to register within seven days then the mother will have to do this. She is then the guardian. Most mothers know nothing at all about this sort of thing. You can place the responsibility on the father but not on the mother. Then the mother will have to be prosecuted, because if she does not register the name she will be committing an offence. I submit that to the notice of the Minister and I should like to move the following amendment—

I feel this will remove the difficulty. I am in favour of registration, although I do not believe the Minister has gone far enough but anything that can assist towards the solution of the problem of unemployment will have my support. I do not want to hold up the Bill, but I want to prevent a recurrence of what occurred in connection with the Customs Act, when the Bill was pushed through hurriedly with the result that we now have to make alterations. I have accordingly conceived it my duty to bring these things to the attention of the Minister. Then there is the definition of “native”, and it reads that a native is someone who belongs to one of the following categories—

And then it is stated that this does not include American negroes Eurasians, Cape Malays and Griquas. But Indians are left out. I do not know what the intention is. It seems strange to me that Indians are not mentioned. Then we come to the definition of workseeker. This is someone over the age of 15 years who—

And then the clause adds later—

I think that the student who is exempted should also be inserted here, otherwise confusion will be caused. In regard to the words “or other remunerative activity” I cannot imagine any other remunerative activity except what is mentioned here, unless perhaps it means stealing or gambling. If he steals of gambles he is not employed, and I think it would be a good thing to make these people “unemployed” under the Act and to oblige them to work. I think the words are not very clear.

The hon. member wants the words “expressly or tacitly” omitted from the definition of “employer”. He is not concerned so much about “expressly” as “tacitly”. I am advised the word “tacitly” appears in all laws in connection with agreements.

But that does not make the law right.

No but I am a layman and quite unable to appreciate the fine legal points the hon. member has raised. This is the draft of the law advisers, and who am I to question the law advisers when they want these words in? However, I think the hon. gentleman will agree it is not of very much moment, and if I do not accept his amendment it is not because I am contumacious but because it is not absolutely necessary. He is concerned too about the possibility of the father of a juvenile child being absent for only a week, in respect of the definition of “guardian” and thinks it must be a fortnight. A week is the term mentioned because that is the significant term; within a week the juvenile must register. I want to assure the hon. member that under no circumstances would a child be prosecuted because his mother knew nothing about it. The male parent may be absent only ten days, or a fortnight or three weeks, and then by administration we get over that, but there is just the possibility of him being required to register because of some work offering itself. I do not think that point matters very much either.

Cannot you bring in some other word?

If my hon. friend can give me some other word I do not mind. I want to help him just as he has asseverated he wants to help me. In regard to the definition of “native” he objects to the word “Indian” not being included. Well, that goes without saying. Under no circumstances can ah Indian be regarded as a native.

You never know what interpretation the court might give.

Perhaps I have more faith in the courts than my hon. friend. Then, the hon. member is worried about the order of the wording, although not the actual wording, in the definition of “workseeker”. I do not see that that matters at all, and I think under the circumstances it is just as well to leave it as it is.

I hope the hon. Minister understood what I said, although I spoke in Afrikaans. The position is this, that as far as any law is concerned, I know that the law advisers get certain terms which they put in in every Act for some or other reason. I suppose it becomes a sort of rule of thumb. But the position is this, that I want to see an Act not only decently drawn but neatly brought forward. One can put in things higgeldy-piggeldy and still have it all there, but one likes to see things neatly done, and as far as the words “expressly and tacitly” are concerned, one finds that in all Acts. I do not think there is any need for it really. However, I do not worry about it. I think it is the duty of the Opposition to bring these things forward, and I have done so, but I am not asking even for a division on it. But this thing about the father is possibly a dangerous thing to insert because the father may be away at the time when it is necessary for the registration to take place. The Minister may take it from me that it is no good his telling us that he will not prosecute. He may not be here tomorrow.

My Department will not prosecute.

But departments do funny things sometimes. They may think they are correct in what they do, but the general public does not think so. But there is one part of my objection which has apparently not been interpreted to the Minister. It is this, that the guardian has to give particulars, but you make no provision for the case where there is no guardian. There is no obligation on the juvenile to give information; the guardian must give it.

Can one enforce an obligation aginst a juvenile?

It is a new thing and it is difficult to say. Some people are against fining a juvenile.

But you cannot fine a juvenile.

Yes you can, if he is over seven years of age.

You make no provision in the clause for someone else giving the particulars. Only the guardian has to give it, not the minor himself. If the guardian does not give it the minor cannot be brought before court. I do not say he must, be brought before court. I am afraid people will say: “Why must I pay if I do not carry it out?” The only thing is not to make the fine so high. But what I say is this, that you make no provision at all for a minor to give the particulars. The guardian gives it in the name of the minor. I think that some terms should be found to make the father liable and not the mother, and if the father is away from home one day, the mother is the guardian for that day. Then there is another thing, that a guardian who is a married woman, married in community of property, cannot sign documents without her husband’s signature as she is herself regarded as a minor. She cannot be the guardian except if you make her so by Statute. But there are other disabilities. When I have made my views plain, and have explained them to the Minister, and they are not accepted, I will not worry. He has to do what he thinks is right, and I just consider it my duty to point out these things. With regard to the last objecion, I will use the same words as you have, only where you exclude a man over 65 and a woman over 60 you should also exclude school children. That is the place to do it and not in the middle of the paragraph. It is not neat. That is the reason why I move the amendment. I merely move these things, but I leave it to the Minister.

I am grateful to the hon. member.

With leave of the Committee, the amendments proposed by Mr. S. E. Warren in lines 27 and 30, were withdrawn. The remaining amendments proposed by Mr. S. E. Warren were put and negatived and the amendment proposed by the Minister of Labour was put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 2,

The hon. Minister will remember that during the debate on the second reading of the Bill we raised objection to the way in which legislation has been drawn up of late as it virtually places all the authority in the hands of the Minister. The question of the application of the legislation is becoming more and more a question of the pleasure of the Minister concerned. We have objected to that. When we draft legislation in this House we do so because we consider that legislation necessary whether the Minister wants it or not. We are not making legislation to conform to the will of this Minister or that. We have made a very strong point of this objection, and we also did so last year in connection with labour legislation. It is not a question of one Minister or another but simply a question of principle, and we feel legislation should be so drafted that the application of that legislation will not be left to the discretion of the Minister, to the will of that Miniser, who may from time to time be in office. I want to refer to a second point, and that is we are more and more saddling the country with legislation. Year after year masses of legislation are being adopted and it would be interesting to see how much of that legislation that has been adopted over a course of years is no longer in force. The tendency has been in recent years to leave the enforcement of the legislation more and more to the decision of Ministers, and it increases that tendency when legislation is adopted and never carried out in the country. In order to profit by this opportunity to discuss that question I wish to move the amendment appearing on the Order Paper in my name and reading as follows—

If this amendment is accepted the clause will read as follows—

This provides the procedure for the Minister to follow. I can well understand the Minister cannot apply the Act simultaneously throughout the country to all classes of workseekers. For that he needs machinery. But if we put the clause in that form we get away from the discretion of the Minister. The Minister knows that we, like he are strongly in favour of the principle of the registration of unemployed. We are not combating that principle. We supported the principle of that strongly during the second reading, and the reason is we wish to create the opportunity for all unemployed to be provided with work through the medium of the State. It is a very necessary function of the State to see to it there are as few unemployed as possible. Generally speaking there are two kinds of unemployed, one the kind who will not work, and the other comprised of those unable to work. If we want to provide employment in a proper way and see that both kinds get work then we should have on record a list of all the people who are without employment. Accordingly we support the principle of the Bill, to have a record of the names of unemployed persons, because it will be much easier then to provide work for these persons in an effective way. Consequently it is necessary that we should accept this Bill. In view of the character of his record, and the circumstances he would like to prevail in the c untry, that all persons who are out of work should be provided with work—and as that is the motive for him having presented the Bill—I assume that the Minister will be prepared to accept this amendment.

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

In regard to paragraph (6) of Clause 2 I have listened attentively, but have failed to grasp the reasons for the presence in the Bill of this provision, and why certain members object to the inclusion of agricultural industry within the purview of this purely social measure. As the object of it is to ascertain who are unemployed and to provide employment for them. I see no reason for the exclusion of the countryside as it is our duty to provide employment for agricultural workers in the same way as for workers in the towns. I should like to know from the Minister whether this clause should not be withdrawn.

I should like once more to direct the attention of the Minister to the fact that though this is a small alteration in fact it is an important alteration of great significance. Before I proceed I should like to know from the Minister what his attitude is. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. van den Berg) referred a little while ago with very great pride to the fact that the Minister of Labour is the only Minister who has hitherto during this Session introduced important legislation. That may or may not be the case. It is for them to judge, but when he introduces this amendmént which merely clarifies the responsibility for the Minister to apply the legislation, and not to leave it to the free will of the Minister, the Minister will be introducing something of great importance into the Bill, and he will be able to take the credit for a legislative innovation which will be very good and which prevent our having in the Statute Book a mass of legislation that will never be enforced. I hope, therefore, the Minister will accept it.

I should like to support the amendment of the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein.) I do not consider it unreasonable. The Minister already has very wide powers under the Bill, and as all sides of the House desire the registration of unemployed I think it is no more than right that the Minister should give us the assurance that this legislation will actually be enforced. It should not merely be stated that it may be enforced, but that it shall be enforced. I wish to propose the following amendment to Clause 2 (5)—

This amendment, of course, alters the whole clause, and it will then read that the Minister will make the Bill apply, so far as the registration of unemployed is concerned, to native workseekers as well, in consultation with the Minister of Native Affairs. We on this side of the House have repeatedly, with an eye on unemployment amongst natives, pleaded for a system of registration of natives, and I am convinced in my heart the Minister of Labour will agree with this. If you go to the towns, particularly Johannesburg, you will find unemployment there, but the extent of it is unknown. Instead of matters improving, however, they grow worse every day, and I desire to draw the Minister’s attention to what happened at a special meeting of the Johannesburg City Council on the 12th April of this year. It was revealed by Councillor O’Connor that the position on the Rand regarding natives who had gone there is that some 10,000 natives streamed into Johannesburg the previous month, and he said—

The Minister of Native Affairs shrugs his shoulders and will not listen to anyone. Now we come to the registration of unemployed and here we urge on the Minister that he, being cognisant with the circumstances, particularly on the Rand and Cape Town, should have this Bill applied not only to Europeans but to the registratoin of natives as well. It is definitely not in the interests of the natives to roam round from one place to another like this. They are lying idle in the towns by tens of thousands, and even the Minister himself is not aware of the extent of the unemployment amongst natives. They are creating a critical situation in the cities, and consequently we advocate that the natives should be registered as well, because there is an abundance of work for natives. We ask the Minister to meet us and to see to it that natives also are registered so that they can be evacuated from those areas where they have no work, and so that they may obtain employment in other areas or be returned to the various reserves from which they have come. It is the duty of the Minister to register not only Europeans but also natives. All that the Minister has to do is to accept my amendment so that this Bill will be made applicable to natives after consultation with the Minister of Native Affairs. If we do this, this Bill can be used to solve one of the greatest problems in the cities. The Minister will then be able to gain a conception, more or less, of the measure of unemployment amongst natives in the cities. On the occasion in the City Council of Johannesburg I have already referred to, that member of the City Council said, inter alia, in the course of the speech, that more than 5,000 new passes are issued every year by the Post Office. Thousands of natives stream from the platteland towns to Johannesburg. During last month 8,600 came. The Minister knows as well as I do that the native carries a pass when he is seeking work. He is swallowed up in Johannesburg and that is the last we hear of him. He goes to the native townships such as Orlando and Sophiatown. He becomes a loafer. The city council itself has no idea of what the position is, and because conditions have become such as they are today the city council has been obliged to convene a special meeting. The position is so serious that the city council unanimously decided to ask that the curfew regulation should be reintroduced in Johannesburg. I am referring here to Johannesburg because I know the conditions prevailing there. I assume that in other cities like Cape Town, there is an equally dangerous state of affairs. The only way out is to make registration applicable to natives as well. It is not necessary for me to explain to the Minister the seriousness of the matter. I know that he has a full realisation of it, and I would urge him to accept this amendment because it will assist him in arriving at the solution of this serious problem.

I want to give the Minister the assurance that we have no intention of holding up this legislation or detaining the House. It will greatly facilitate business if the Minister would, as soon as possible after our amendment is proposed, give us a reply so that we may know where we stand. I do not say we will leave the question at that but it will expedite things. Let us discuss one amendment after the other and dispose of them in order before we pass on to other amendments. I think if we dipose of the amendments seriatim it will expedite the work of the House. In any case I believe it will be a good thing if the Minister will communicate to us as early as possible his attitude towards the amendments.

I want to say that one of the reasons why this Bill commended itself to us, as it has done is that it provides for the registration of all workers and we have supported it on the ground that we have long worked for the principle that there should be control of all labour and that the control applied to the native population should also be applied to the whole population. We are as anxious as anyone can be to see established the registration of our workseeking population so that we shall know where they are, what our potential labour force is, and what its needs are. In so far as the hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz) has been putting up that claim I strongly support him. I am assuming that he is, like us, is in favour of the application of this Bill to all sections of the workseekers in this country, because only on the basis of the registration of all workseekers can there be benefit from the Bill. But my contention is that the Bill as it stands makes provision for exactly the thing the hon. member is pressing for. I cannot understand why he urges an amendment to meet that situation. The clause as it stands provides that the Minister shall declare the Act to be applied to workseekers after consultation with the Minister of Native Affairs where it is applicable to native workseekers and native juvenile workseekers. I may be wrong, and I hope the hon. member for Westdene will put me right if I am wrong, but the way I read the amendment is that it will limit the application of the Act purely to the registration of workseekers and it will delete from this clause its application to native juveniles and the establishment of Juvenile Affairs Boards. The hon. member has not said anything about that in his presentation of his amendment to the Committee but to me that is the significant thing that the amendment does. It leaves the power to the Minister to do what the section empowers him to do but it deletes from the clause the provision that the Minister shall establish Juvenile Affairs Boards in respect of the native juvenile workseekers. Now, that is an amendment to which we cannot possibly agree and it is an amendment not in line either with the spirit of the Bill or with the development of our industrial organisation. We have today a considerable permanent urban native population and we must plan for that population just as we must plan for every other section of the population, and one of the pieces of machinery we built up in order to plan for the efficient use of our labour resources and the full development of the potentialities of all our people is inherent in this Bill in these Juvenile Affairs Boards which the Minister proposes to set up. I feel that the very fact that this Bill has provided for the establishment of Juvenile Affairs Boards for all sections of the urban population is one of the best features of the Bill and one which should have the support of every member of this Committee. Today one of the major problems in all our cities, about which the hon. member also had a good deal to say in respect of Johannesburg, is the vagrancy which exists amongst the young native population in the towns, for whom neither schools nor any system of training is provided and for whom there are no guiding channels into productive employment. Already we are exploring the possibilities of not only increasing the educational facilities for this section of the poulation, but for organising training centres which will develop their potentialities; and from that point of view we must provide some machinery whereby these potentialities will be directed into productive channels, and the only type of machinery I can visualise which will do this is the very machinery proposed in this Bill, namely the Juvenile Affairs Board. So if I am right in my interpretation of the hon. member’s amendment, it will have the effect of depriving the Minister of the power to institute these Juvenile Affairs Boards, and for that reason I trust that the Minister will not accept it.

There is a good deal to be said for the appeal of the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) that we should dispose of one amendment before going on to another, provided, of course, its acceptance or rejection does not close the discussion on the other amendments. It does not, in this case, but if we dispose of the second amendment first, we could not come back to the first amendment. Of course, discussion inclines to become discursive and we lose sight of the one in discussing the other. But the two amendments have been raised, so I hope my hon. friend will forgive me if I deal with both of them now that I am on my feet. Now, I cannot accept either amendment. That must be clearly understood. In the first place the hon. member for Boshof wants to make it obligatory upon the Minister to put the Act into force. It is always obligatory for a Minister to put an Act into force.

No, it says you may.

It is extraordinary to me that hon. members who are lawyers should use that specious argument, because they know that “may” means “shall” but with this difference, that the Minister shall put it into operation when he can.

How much did you pay for that legal advice?

I assure the hon. member that I am not a legal expert and that I step very gingerly in that domain, but I depend on legal advisers who hold a watching brief in a very neutral capacity, and they tell me that if you are to say “shall” it would be completely incomplete unless you add some other qualifying words to it, for example “shall if the Minister thinks fit” or “shall if the Minister finds it convenient” or “shall if the Minister finds it possible”; and all these qualifying words must be added, whereas “may” is comprehensive and makes it clear that the Minister shall do it whenever he can.

The courts often interpret “shall” as meaning “may”.

Well, we have just heard the highest legal opinion of all. That disposes of that, I hope. Now let us come to the hon. member over there the hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz). It would be as well once again to see what effect his amendment has on the clause. He proposes to delete all the words from “or” in line 28, up to and including the word “accept” in line 30, and also the word “not”. Then the sub-section would read like this—

Now then, that has two effects, or rather it has one apparent effect and one actually painful effect. The apparent effect is this. The wording seeks to throw the responsibility upon the Minister of Labour. That is what it appears to be. But what does it do in actual practice? Under the wording of the sub-section as it stands now, I must consult with the Minister of Native Affairs before applying the Act to natives. I must do that, and these words have precisely the same effect. It only means, taking the words one by one, that it will look a little tidier, but it has a very significant result that we will not be permitted then to establish native Juvenile Affairs Boards.

But provision is made for that.

Then why do you want to cut it out here? Because if you cut it out here you prejudice the next one. I ask my hon. friend: Does he really want to have that? Does he want to make it impossible for us to establish native Juvenile Affairs Boards?

Provision is made for it elsewhere.

That being the reply, I have to work on the assumption that that is his desire, and I cannot agree to that amendment. We must treat the native just as the European in this respect, and surely at this time of day in a Christian House, we will not deliberately depress our unfortunate native population by doing this.

Provision is made for it.

If I allow this to go through in his form, he will immediately use it as a reason to delete it somewhere else. No, let it stand. I regret that I cannot accept either amendment. The hon. member for Troyeville, (Mr. Kentridge) would like me to apply our labour legislation to the farms. I go further; I want to apply all labour legislation to the farming population, but I will not do it. I would do so if it were going to be effective, but this would have no effect beyond making us the laughing stock of the whole Union in our efforts to cope with the tremendous diversity of geographical situations. It is simply impossible.

I told the Minister during the second reading that this clause is the most important in the Bill. I must honestly say that I cannot see all the wonderful prospects that have been put to us in connection with this clause. I maintain that if we are going to have registration of a small group of workers and that, moreover, only in respect of certain trades, and not of all the unemployed, not much is going to be gained by it. This Bill gives the Minister the right to declare that registration must be carried out in respect of certain trades and even in respect of sections of trade in specified areas.

Do you want sub-clause (6) to be deleted?

I am not so stupid that I do not know what the position will be under sub-clause (6). It deals only with employers concerned in agriculture. It relates to the obligation imposed on people who are unemployed to register. We know that in agriculture the procedure is for workers to be engaged by the day. They are with you today and tomorrow they are gone. The law cannot be carried out on that account. What is more, for the last 20 years there has been a shortage of farm labour. It is not necessary for the Minister to attend to unemployed on the farms. There is work for them. There I am prepared to agree that they must remain outside the Act. I am referring now to unemployed in the trades and the young people who have no trades. I maintain that it is not going to help matters, for instance, to declare in respect of one area that motor garages should register unemployed and people whose services are terminated, if the law is only to be made applicable to one small place, resulting in our being unable to learn what the position is throughout the country. If registration is made to apply throughout the country it may be revealed that there is a shortage of workers in Cape Town, while on the other hand there is a surplus of workers in Johannesburg in the same trade or calling. The Minister states now that if he is given the authority to apply the law in any area he also has the right to apply it throughout the Union. I am not opposed to registration. I think every citizen in the country ought to be registered, and things are working that way. That was the case before the war in Europe and America. It is now going to be carried out in England, and no doubt we shall have the same thing here. It is not wrong. But as far as unemployed are concerned the Minister will no doubt commence with the cities, an although it may be accompanied at the start with some difficulty people will soon become accustomed to it. They will know if they are unemployed they will have to give their names, and the people who have vacancies will also realise that they must notify those vacancies so that unemployed persons may be given work. But the difficulty I am labouring under is I do not know whether this registration will ever be made extensive enough. That is why I said at the outset that this Bill is not worth the paper it is written on. It ought to be made obligatory in large areas where groups of people work that they should be registered. We would have an office there for arranging matters, and if people are unemployed they can be taken to places where work is to be found. But as the matter stands here I cannot see how we are going to solve the difficulty. I leave it there, however. I only want to refer to the object of my hon. friend. He wants to see the registration take place and he does not want this Bill to be placed on the Statute Book and not carried into effect, or only made to apply to a small area of the country. We expect unemployment on a large scale within a few years of the end of the war. May heaven grant that it will not be so. We want the Government to be prepared to tackle the whole matter. We desire that the whole of the Union should be placed under a system of registration so that a man will be in a position to give his name if he is out of work. In every town a bureau must be set up which can send the names to a central office. That is my idea. But this Bill does not do that. I too have an amendment I wish to propose, and I do not think the Minister can take any objection to it. It is laid down here that the Minister can give notice in the Government Gazette that the Act is applicable to any area in respect of any class of workseeker. The fact that this is proclaimed in the Government Gazette is not sufficient notification. Attorneys and members’ of Parliament take the Government Gazette, but 90 per cent. of the people do not. I would like therefore to move an amendment, after the word “Government Gazette” to insert “and in a newspaper or newspapers circulating in the designated area”.

You do not state how many newspapers.

No, it is “newspaper or newspapers”.

One in each language.

That is perhaps a good suggestion the hon. member is giving.

Then you want it to read like this—

Yes, I have no objection to that at all.

Would you have any objection if I inserted also that it must be in both languages?

Of course. Of course it must be in both languages.

I thought I could leave it to the Department to give notice in both languages. The newspapers will in any case see to it if it is given to more than one, but I think it is a good suggestion the hon. member has made.

I hope the Minister will again direct his attention to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz). The clause now reads that the Minister is not making this Bill applicable to native workseekers except after consultation with the Minister of Native Affairs. This means the Minister can simply exclude the natives entirely. There is no obligation on him. The object of the hon. member for Westdene is that the Minister should make this apply to native workseekers as well, after consultation with the Minister of Native Affairs. It appears to me that the Minister does not completely grasp the position. If the amendment of the hon. member for Westdene is accepted the position will be this. The Minister must make this Bill apply to native workseekers so far as their registration is concerned, after consultation with the Minister of Native Affairs. Then we find that the Minister of Labour will be obliged to carry out this clause. He must carry out consultation with the Minister of Native Affairs but he must apply the law to native workseekers. It is very necessary that this should be compulsory. I will put the matter in this way to the Minister. What is going to be the position if he applies registration to Europeans and coloureds and not to natives? They will be obliged to register if they are unemployed and the employers will be obliged to register when anyone leaves their service. But a very large portion of the population, the natives, are being excluded. The position will then be as I have explained here that an offence will be created by the Europeans and coloureds if they do not register. But it will not be an offence in respect of the native. That will create an impossible position in the country. Consequently I think it necessary that the native workseekers should register as veil. We have today in our country a tremendous migration of people and it is in the main the natives who are migrating to the towns. They are collecting in the towns and the cities. A shifting of the labour force is occurring, and it frequently happens that natives move to a place where there is no work for them. They go of their own free will to any place they want to go to, and those centres are then presented with a problem such as that described by the hon. member for Westdene. There is an influx of natives to the urban areas and I maintain the State is obliged to intervene to assist in arriving at a solution of that problem.

Every argument the hon. gentleman has used is met by the clause as it stands. There is no practical alteration made by the amendment, but the clause does include the positive disability to the native population of not having a Juvenile Affairs Board for natives. His amendment is unnecessary because the points made are covered, „nd because of that. In regard to the other point, will the hon. member be content if I accept the principle of the point, and then I shall consult the law advisers and have it incorporated at the Report Stage?

I do not think the Minister thoroughly understood our amendment well. At the outset I said this amendment will alter the clause. What we contemplate here is that we should also have registration amongst the natives. As the clause is now it is left to the free will of the Minister and why we are feeling so uneasy is because another Minister, the Minister of Native Affairs, says he has nothing to do with registration of natives. Now the Minister says we want to throw the onus on him, but the Minister is of course man enough to bear the responsibility. It is his work. The Minister asks how it is possible that such an amendment should come out of a Christian house. What would the Minister regard as the more Christian: To assist us to obtain registration for all the natives and thereby to assist them in difficulties, or merely to let things drift and allow the natives to wander around in their thousands unemployed and in misery?

The clause also covers natives.

The whole reason for the amendment is to oblige the Minister to register unemployed natives. Now the Minister says we are going to kill his Juvenile Affairs Boards with our amendments. We are not opposed to them. If the Minister will accept the responsibility of having the natives registered in the same way as Europeans I shall be quite prepared to add to my amendment the passage that deals with Juvenile Affairs Boards. Clause 13 relates principally to Juvenile Affairs Boards. We are not going to touch that, but if this is the Minister’s only objection I am prepared to meet it so long as he will accept the rest of the amendment that makes it compulsory for natives as well to be registered if they are unemployed.

The amendment of the hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz) really falls into two parts. He wants, in the first place, to make compulsory the registration of native workseekers after consultation with the Minister of Native Affairs; and, secondly, so far as Juvenile Affairs Boards are concerned he does not want their establishment to be made to depend upon consultation with the Minister of Native Affairs.

No.

I am not saying this is what the hon. member has now stated, but it is what is in the amendment. Is the hon. member prepared to stand by his amendment. I hope so. Because the second amendment does not request that the establishment of the Juvenile Affairs Board shall be made dependent upon cinsultation with the Minister of Native Affairs. So far as the second point goes, I can see no objection to it. This deals with urban African youths, and the case has been made out over and over again for the establishment of Juvenile Affairs Boards for them. The problem of juvenile delinquency, so far as native youths are concerned, has become more serious as years have gone by, and that for reasons out of the control of these youths. They come from poor homes, their mothers and fathers go out to work, and the educational facilities are not adequate to keep them in schools. If they live in the cities there is nothing for them to do, nobody to control them, and nobody to find work for them. For that reason the establishment of Juvenile Affairs Boards for these natives is necessary. And I agree with the hon. member for Westdene; why consult the Minister about it? The hon. member for Westdene says he will withdraw that part of his amendment; I hope he does not. I have no objection to consultation with the Minister of Native Affairs. Any Minister of Native Affairs worth his salt knows the necessity for this, but if the hon. member for Westdene feels that the Minister of Native Affairs should not be consulted over Juvenile Affairs Boards, I do not mind. A case has been made out, whatever any Minister of Native Affairs may say, for the establishment of Juvenile Affairs Boards for natives. But I cannot agree about the other part of his amendment. He wants to make it compulsory on the Minister to register native workseekers in circumstances in which he would not have to register workseekers of other races. I believe that suggestion on the part of the hon. member for Wesdene and the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) misses the whole point of this Bill, which is not registration as such, but registration for a particular purpose,’ for the purpose of knowing wherever the Act applies, how many people are seeking work, there is provision later on under which employers must say how much work is available and in this way the supply of labour is matched with the demand. It is not registration as such.

If you apply that to one section of the community why not to the other?

I am absolutely with him there. If he wants to make it compulsory for all races I am with him. But it is subject to this: I do not see how the Minister can do it, unless and until he has the facilities available. The purpose of the Act is to obtain this information regarding the supply and demand and to match the two, and that certainly requires administrative machinery, as for instance the establishment of labour bureaux and exchanges. An appropriate procedure would be after the Act is in force to provide for its being brought into effect in certain areas by proclamation when the department is ready to go ahead with the job. But I agree with hon. members over there it should not be applied only to one class or race, it ought to be applied to all, and it is for that reason, as a matter of fact, I cannot see any special purpose in making it compulsory for native workseekers to register if you do not make it compulsory for others. The hon. member for Boshof would make it compulsory for all, but the hon. member for Westdene would make it compulsory only for native workseekers.

No, no.

That is the effect of the amendment.

Clause 4 makes it compulsory for them to register.

That is what I am saying.

Why not apply the same principle?

The hon. member has misunderstood me. He would make it compulsory for all races, but as I understood the hon. member for Westdene, he would make it compulsory for natives only.

No.

Well, if I misunderstood him that point does not arise. Then I apologise to the hon. member. The difficulty in making it apply to all races compulsorily is the one I mentioned just now, that the Minister must put into working order certain administrative machinery. This Bill proposes registration for the purpose of finding people work, and there is no purpose in making them register until the Minister is in a position, through his department, to find them work. But the hon. member for Westdene need not worry so far as the native position is concerned, because we have laws in this country which make natives register for the sake of registration and nothing more. They are oppressive provisions. I hope the provisions of this law will make it unnecessary for them to be continued.

What Act is that?

The hon. member does not know the legislation of this country. The Act we are referring to is the Urban Areas Act, which only applies to registration, it has nothing to do with seeking work. The registration in this Bill is for the purpose of providing people with work, and we are absolutely in favour of registration under this Bill because it has, as its purpose assisting the worker himself, whereas under the Native Areas Act registration has no purpose whatsoever.

If the natives are unemployed in areas other than urban areas are they registered?

No. It applies to urban areas only. We agree fully with registration under this Bill, to apply to workseekers of all races, but I do not think it is reasonable to make it compulsory on the Minister to register native workseekers until he is in a position, and his department is in a position to carry out the purposes of this Bill, which is to find these people work.

I really cannot understand the point made by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. He is in hearty agreement with us on this side that the unemployed of all races should be registered, but then he disputes our proposition that natives should be registered. I think the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) does not grasp what we are dealing with. I assume the Minister’s object in this Bill is to assist people who are unemployed to find work. The object is twofold. One is to prevent people walking round unemployed so that they are unable to fend for themselves or their families, and the other is that we should make the best possible use of the manpower in our country. That is the way I regard it. And now we say that there is a clause in the Bill that will make it compulsory for Europeans to register as unemployed in any area proclaimed by the Minister, and all that we are doing is to propose in this clause that natives as well should register in an area proclaimed by the Minister. What we have against the Bill as it now stands is that this Bill apparently will never be made applicable to natives, and we are proposing the amendment to make it obligatory for the Minister to apply it to natives as well.

It does apply to natives.

This Bill proposes to register unemployed people for the purpose of finding them work. I am not a lawyer but I do not know a single law in which unemployed natives are registered with a view to obtaining work. I definitely do not know of a single law. Now we ask that natives as well should be registered under the law. We have the peculiar position in our country of there being a surplus of work at the moment, but while that surplus exists one finds thousands of natives unemployed. It is precisely the natives who today are out of work, and consequently it is clear that the best use is not being made of the manpower of our country. Now we propose to utilise the natives more economically, and registration is necessary for that purpose. The natives are to a great extent still primitive people, and when they find themselves in an area where at the moment there is no demand for their work they roam around and live on others, and they are a real burden on the State. But if the natives are registered the department can very easily provide native workseekers with work in an area where there is a demand for their labour. That will greatly benefit the natives and it will also greatly benefit the State. We require the labour strength in the country. This Bill is being introduced with an eye to a possible decrease of the opportunities for employment in our country. Then it will be necessary to register the unemployed. But now we have thousands of natives unemployed and no one is worrying about them. If they are registered the State will be able to lay its hand on them and to help them to employment, and they can also help those people whose services they require. The European unemployed have normally greater opportunities and they know where they have to go to look for work. But a great proportion of the natives have not that knowledge. If a native is on a farm and cannot obtain work he wanders around hopelessly and is a burden to the State and to the neighbourhood. That is why we are pleading for registration. I cannot understand why the Minister will not yield. It is a reasonable request. If our amendment is agreed to it will be to the benefit of the State and also of the natives.

I cannot understand where and how any and all the members on that side of the House get the impression that the natives will not have to register and that only Europeans will have to register. Nothing of the sort.

What we want to know is why you should have to consult the Minister of Native Affairs when you are dealing with workers.

I will tell my friend. It is the history of South Africa that the Native Affairs Department controls the activities of natives as such. We have not yet decided in this country that industrialised natives particularly shall be transferred to the Labour Department. There is also that vast number of natives employed not in industrial life but on farms and in farming areas. They want them to be registered too. That will be done under this Bill. While we want to consult the Minister of Native Affairs first of all, on account of the historical factor, there is this point in the second place, that they have an organisation already built up dealing with the natives. We’ have not got one yet, only in industrialised areas.

You only deal with natives falling under a certain category.

We make the category.

Quite correct, but you cannot deal with farm labour and domestic servants; this Act is not applicable to them.

Oh yes, it is. We declare the area. We might declare the whole of the Free State, and that might include all the farming population of the Free State. But the employers are not required to register. We shall make the employees register under this measure. So all the points made by the hon. gentlemen over there have been met. I do want to make it perfectly clear that Juvenile Affairs Boards for natives must be set up. Then there is a point made by the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno), namely, that we should not have to consult the Minister of Native Affairs ….

I said there was no necessity.

You can consult Native Affairs without putting it into the Act.

Then it is obligatory.

But you can accept the recommendations in any case.

We want to use their machinery where we have no machinery in existence ourselves. We want to use the Native Affairs machinery, and we will want to use the Native Affairs machinery even in municipalities. The Johannesburg Municipality is a case in point. We shall want to use every little bit of machinery that is available to make the Act effective, but let me give this assurance to hon. members over there: We do intend to control natives of every description and all natives everywhere.

I cannot understand the Minister. If he wants to do this why does he not say so in simple language? What is so extraordinary to me is that the Minister says he will do it. But here he is putting it in a negative way and when we ask him to make it positive he will not accept that. Of late it has been the habit of the Minister to ask us to accept certain things to say that he will apply the measure in a certain manner. But sooner or later they will kick him out of the Cabinet, this indeed may very easily happen, and then we shall have another Minister who will carry it out according to his own wishes, and this provision will then become a dead letter. Accordingly, it should be clearly set out in the Bill. The Minister stated that the first portion of this clause was not applicable to natives except in consultation with the Minister of Native Affairs. I wonder whether he now believes that.

The rame thing applies.

How can it be the same thing? The two words are as wide as the Poles apart in meaning. In one case you say you do not apply the Act except “after consultation with the Minister of Native Affairs”; and in the other case you say you are applying the Act in consultation with the Minister of Native Affairs. You are putting it in a negative way when you say you are not applying it except after consultation with the Minister of Native Affairs, and you create the position that it can be so interpreted. In the other case you are stating it positively. If there is any doubt why cannot the Minister accept this amendment in respect of this passage, as we have put it here? What objection has he to the acceptance of a method to clarify the position? Often when a matter comes before the courts the question of law is often a matter of interpretation. It frequently occurs that the lower court interprets the Act in one way, but when you come to the superior court it interprets it differently. Let us put the point clearly; and I think the amendment of the hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz) puts the position more clearly and positively, namely that this Bill will also be applicable to the native workseeker of the country and when the Minister applies it to him he does so in consultation with the Minister of Native Affairs.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Serfontein put and negatived.

Question put: That the word “not” in line 27, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—67:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bekker, H. J.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, H. J.

Corman, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis A.

De Kock, P. H.

De Wet, H. C.

Du Toit, A. C.

Faure, J. C.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gluckman, H.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Higgerty, J. W.

Howarth, F. T.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

McLean, J.

Madeley, W. B.

Marwick, J. S.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Molteno, D. B.

Morris, J. W. H.

Mushet, J. W.

Oosthuizen, O. J.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pocock, P. V.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Sullivan, J. R.

Sutter, G; J.

Tighy, S. J.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Wanless, A. T.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and W. B. Humphreys.

Noes—31:

Bremer K.

Brink, W D.

Conradie, J. H.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Le Roux, J. N.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Mentz, F. E.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.

Question accordingly affirmed and amendments proposed by Mr. Mentz negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 3,

I am convinced that the Minister’s intention in this clause is to give effect to the bilingual principle, but as the Afrikaans text reads here it can be interpreted quite differently. The Minister can by notice in the Government Gazette appoint an official or the secretary of the Board or any other person who should be bilingual as an official. According to this text it amounts to this, that the official or the secretary of a board need not necessarily be bilingual. It seems to me as if the provision for bilingualism is of application only to “any other” person. I should like to move a small amendment which I hope the Minister will not object to. It is only to put the matter more clearly. I therefore move—

I know it is the Minister’s intention that it should be a bilingual official, and I hope that the Minister will be prepared to accept the amendment.

That seems to be rather heavy. I want to meet the point made by the hon. member.

In the English text it is quite in order.

It is not necessary to have the word “bilingual” in front of “officer”, because an officer must be a bilingual person. This would be an officer under the Public Service Commission and as such he must be bilingual. The hon. member can take it from me that that is the position. I am not an officer. That is why I am not bilingual. I see the hon. member’s point. Even in the English text it reads rather badly—

It does not seem to be obligatory upon the officer or the secretary to be bilingual, but it is obligatory upon “any other person” to be bilingual. We cannot put “bilingual” in front of “officer” that would be silly. I will give this undertaking, however, that if it is found that this does not insist that the secretary of any board or any officer or any other person appointed to the board by the Minister must be bilingual, then I will have the clause redrafted.

Under this Clause 3 I wish to refer to an aspect which unfortunately cannot be included by way of amendment or description, namely, the position of the employment officials for whom provision is made in this clause. It would of course have been much better if provision could have been made in this clause for a qualified official, an official who for example has studied social matters at a university, but in view of the scarcity of qualified persons, I take it that we are dealing here with Public Servants. As someone who during the depression year 1932 and even after 1932 before the period of the present war, dealt fairly extensively With unemployment I should like to stress the necessity for the appointment of somebody who has studied social welfare, and in the second place somebody who is sympathetically inclined towards a man who finds himself in a condition of unemployment. We had cases in Johannesburg where the persons concerned thought absolutely nothing of the unemployed who came there; he was just nothing. That is exactly the time when the unemployed person expects sympathy, and at least decent treatment, and I wish to express the hope that when the Minister makes such appointments as those for which provision is made in Clause 3, he will do his best to appoint persons who not only make up the cards and put them in order, but persons who are sympathetically inclined towards the unemployed, and they must also be acquainted with the area in which they will be employed. If for example you were to appoint a man from Johannesburg in Cape Town to deal with the registration of unemployed, he will be hopelessly lost. He does not know Cape Town and does not know where there may be possible channels of employment. The same is of course true of a person from Cape Town who is appointed in Johannesburg, but where a man is acquainted with the area he knows all the possible channels of employment. I have seen such employment officials go out of their way to find work for the unemployed. For instance, they go to people known to them personally and say: “Look, we know you have enough workers but can you not take one or two more in order to meet these people?” These are all things which help to alleviate the position, of the needy, and I wish to express the hope that although we cannot provide for it in the Act, the Minister will take special notice of these two aspects in making appointments, and I also take it that the conditions under which these people will work and the wages they receive will be taken into thorough consideration. Somebody said here this morning—I think it was the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren)—that we can expect unemployment. I hope that will not happen, but it has happened in the past that a Labour Bureau is erected and no investigation is made of the circumstances under which these people must work, how these people are treated in their new spheres of work. I have seen unskilled labourers being employed on sewerage construction work. Perhaps it is still stipulated what wages these people will receive, but they do not ascertain how much leisure the man will have, how much leave he will have and what the general conditions of employment will be. I feel that before we send people from our Labour Bureaux to jobs we must make sure of what the conditions are. When the man leaves the Labour Bureau he must know under what circumstances he will work. I wish to express the hope that we will have sympathetic officials, and that they will remember that these people are not only unemployed but human beings.

I would like the Minister to prove his accommodating spirit. He knows as well as I do that there are officials who, under the public service regulations, should be bilingual, but who are not. The Minister cannot deny it. There are still officials who are not bilingual, although they ought to be, and this employment officer is one who will come into contact with both sections of the community, and it is necessary that this employment officer should be somebody who has not only, as we say, a working knowledge of the one or other language, but who should have a thorough knowledge of both languages. Where this person will come into contact with both sections of the community and where he will be performing important work —the placing of the unemployed will be dependent on this employment officer—I think we should, to be on the safe side, stipulate in the act that the official should be thoroughly conversant in both languages. And this is what we understood the Act to imply in the first instance. The hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Menta) congratulated the Minister at the second reading that he had introduced legislation this year which demands that the officials administering the Act should be bilingual. Last year we had a hard fight with the Minister to introduce that provision, namely that the officials must be bilingual, and we hoped that the Minister had perceived the advisability of so doing, and that he had now decided to make provision for that principle, and I must honestly say that we read the Act in that light. We read it in such a way that the stipulation was that both the official and the secretary of the board had to be bilingual, and in the event of any other person being appointed, that it would also be compulsory for that person to be bilingual. If the Minister accepts the amendment, he will be giving an assurance to those people who fall under the provisions of this Act, that when a person comes to them under this Act, he will be thoroughly bilingual and he will be able to converse with the person with whom he comes into contact. I also wish to urge the Minister to insert the word “bilingual” before the word “official”. He may have an official who is bilingual but not to the extent that he is able to converse equally well with both sections of the population. I now ask the Minister to meet us half way. He wants bilingualism; then let him state clearly that the official and the secretary of the board must be bilingual.

I thoroughly agree with everything the hon. member says as to the desirability of these officers being thoroughly bilingual, and the compliment that was paid to me during the second reading debate by the hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz) shows that I was aware of that.

Beware of the Greeks when they bring presents.

Set a thief to catch a thief.

Where it is necessary to have the word “bilingual”, I have got it in, and I am assured by my advisers that no alteration is required in this clause to give effect to what I promise this House, namely that every official conncted with the working people shall be thoroughly bilingual, and that will be done. It is not necessary to say in the Bill that the officer shall be bilingual. He is bilingual in any case.

I fully appreciate the objections raised by the Opposition. The English text as well is not absolutely clear here; it is not absolutely clear who must be bilingual and who need not be bilingual, but in my opinion it can be easily overcome. If we amend the Afrikaans text, with the necessary translation on the other side, without inserting the word “bilingual” before the word “official”—which under the circumstances is perhaps necessary, but which is legally unnecessary—by inserting the words “all of whom”, it will completely obviate the objection. The clause will then read—

This will rectify the matter completely. It is unnecessary to insert the word “bilingual” before “official”, and it will give effect to what the Minister proposes, and which we know he will give effect to, namely to have bilingual persons there. It will in my opinion also satisfy the Opposition. I therefore move—

This Clause 3 gives the Minister the authority by notice in the Government Gazette to appoint an officer (who, I hope, will be bilingual), as an employment officer. This person will fill a very important position, and he is the pivot of the whole business of registration and finding work for the unemployed. He does this by means of a notice in the Government Gazette. Now we have this position. You appoint a person in Cape Town, for instance, as an employment officer for the engineering industry. The person who has to register must go to that official to register. He is the man who will of course do all the work. But this is put in the Government Gazette only; the advertisement in the Government Gazette confers certain powers on that officer; the rest of the world knows nothing about it, and I want to know whether the notice inserted in the Government Gazette should not also be advertised in the newspapers circulating in that particular district. It should also contain the address so that that man can easily be found. I assume that his office will be a sort of labour bureau to find work for people, and the people who have to register should therefore know where he is to be found. What I should like therefore is that the address, the name of the officer and the postal address and the office address should be published in the Government Gazette and in the newspapers in that area. The public will then know where they have to register and give notification. I think in any case that the notice ought to be a written one. If the Minister accepts in principle what I am stating here I shall presently propose an amendment. But this official is the most important person in the organisation, and if the Minister does not wish to accept something of this sort I shall be obliged to move an amendmentt later. Then there is another matter which possibly is not so important. I assume the Minister will in a place like Cape Town begin first with a particular trade, say with the engineering industry. Now the law provides that the Minister may nominate an official, who must be bilingual, as employment officer in reference to that specified category of workseekers. Now he continues and he applies the Act later to the building industry. Then another employment officer is necessary and if he wants to utilise the same person I think it is necessary to insert in the Bill “class or classes of workseekers”. He may perhaps employ one person for all classes of workseekers. As it now stands it appears to me that this officer may only be used for one class of workseeker. If the Minister accepts these points in principle I shall not move an amendment at the present stage.

I am sorry but I cannot accede to the request of the hon. member to have this notice published in the Press. I do not think that is necessary. But we will give all the information the member asks for now in regard to whom the registration officer is and what his address is. With regard to the word “classes” being used in the plural, that will not be necessary. The hon. member instanced two industries, the engineering trade and the building trade. He could also add plumbing and gas-fitting. All it is necessary to state is that Mr. A. van Zyl is appointed as Employment Officer for the building trade. The other notice will state that Mr. A. van Zyl is appointed Employment Officer for the engineering trade. So you do not have to put classes at all.

I should be glad to know whether the Minister accepts the amendment of the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp). This is precisely what we are asking for on this side and what is contained in our amendment. We say that the official, the secretary of the board, or any other person, should in any case be bilingual.

If you are prepared to accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp) I am prepared to accept it also.

I am entirely satisfied to accept that but I cannot really understand the Minister. He objected to my amendment and now the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp) proposes exactly the same thing and he accepts it. That amendment covers the whole ground, and I am therefore prepared to withdraw my amendment in favour of that of the hon. member for Vryheid.

With leave of the Committee, the amendment proposed by Mr. Mentz was withdrawn.

The Minister has now intimated that he is not himself going to propose amendments in connection with the publication of the name and adress of the official in the local newspapers, and therefore I move the following amendment—

I just want to announce this fact to the hon. member who has agreed to withdraw his amendment in favour of the amendment of the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp). It means of course having the amendment in the English text also. The one follows the other. But I cannot accept the amendment just moved by the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren).

Amendment proposed by Mr. S. E. Warren put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—30:

Bekker, G. F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer K.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Mentz, F. E.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren. S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels. C. J. O.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.

Noes—68:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden. W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, H. J.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

De Wet, P. J.

Faure, J. C.

Friedman, B.

Gluckman H.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Higgerty, J. W.

Jackson, D.

Johnson. H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Tellers: G. A.

Humphreys.

Latimer, A.

Madeley, W. B.

Marwick, J. S.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Molteno, D. B.

Morris, J. W. H.

Mushet, J. W.

Oosthuizen, O. J.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pocock, P. V.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Sullivan, J. R.

Sutter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Wanless, A. T.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Williams, H. J.

Friend and W. B.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed by Dr. Steenkamp put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 4,

I move the amendment as printed standing in my name, as follows—

The amendment refers to the period provided for registration. Before I explain this amendment it is necessary that I should express a few opinions on the registration of workeseekers as dealt with generally in this clause. The Minister of Labour knows that registration of workseekers represents one of numerous methods unemployed persons avail themselves of to obtain work, and to be absorbed in industry. Workseekers avail themselves of various methods to obtain work in factories and elsewhere, and social workers who carry out enquiries in factories amongst employees and employers assure us that workseekers resort to nine different methods in order to obtain work in factories. Only when we discuss these methods in conjunction with registration as one of the methods, can we place registration in its right perspective and regard it against the correct background as one of the methods resorted to by workseekers to obtain employment in factories or elsewhere. The most important method workseekers avail themselves of to be absorbed in a factory or elsewhere, is, in the first place, their own initiative. They find work through their friends and acquaintances, or through one office or another, or through individuals who know them and who assist them to obtain employment. In the second place, there are the labour bureaux and Juvenile Affairs Boards. Then there is the method of newspaper advertisements. Next there are the trade unions. In addition there is the system under which the employee is sent for. I think, for instance, of children at school who are sent for by the principal. In the same way certain individuals are taken up by the factories. It is of course important to know which of these nine methods is the most important in the placing of workseekers in factories. According to a sociological study made by the late Dr. Erika Theron, who visited 540 factories and questioned workers of both sexes, 84 per cent. of the Europeans and 80 per cent. of the non-Europeans find employment by having recourse to the first three methods I have described, while only 7 per cent. of Europeans and .8 per cent. of non-Europeans make use of the labour bureaux to obtain posts in factories. I mention these features in order to indicate the importance of the time provision in connection with the registration of workseekers. If we make this period too short it will have the effect of neutralising the other methods of seeking employment. I should like to see the period extended so that the unemployed will be placed in a position first of all to make proper use of the other ideal methods of finding work before in the last resort turning to the other methods. This seems to me a matter of considerable importance. In this clause registration is virtually replaced by compulsory registration, and it will create a sense of the presence of the element of compulsion in connection with the providing of employment. Consequently if we do not wish to impair the initiative which impels people to look for work themselves and if we wish to have a proper application of these various methods of looking for work, we must take account of this period that is stipulated. We should not make it too short. We should extend it somewhat, because then these persons will be put in a position to rely on their own initiative and to try to find employment in the factories by calling on their friends, or by other methods. I want to ask the Minister of Labour to accept this amendment of mine, although possibly he has decided beforehand not to do so.

I am afraid the hon. member for Brits (Mr. Potgieter)—I do not want to offend him and I know he has made a study of labour affairs—is not quite correct in what he says. I hope he will take a little longer before he tries to speak on the aspect of labour. [Laughter.] In the first instance the so-called classes of unemployed the hon. member refers to, in factories, etc., will be covered by sub-section (3) of this same clause. This clause will therefore not apply to them. That is the important point. But I am glad to hear at long last that it is admitted that the trade unions do something for people. I thought they did not do anything. But these people whom he refers to are covered by sub-section (3). In arguing his amendment he wanted the period changed from seven days to 14 days. I sincerely hope he will not persist in that. It is dangerous. He will do the unemployed a disservice by doing that, for the simple reason that in all the larger urban areas, if there is registration of unemployed, and work becomes obtainable, they are placed in work according to the length of the period of registration. It is obvious that a man who has been registered for a fortnight will get preference over a man who has been registered for a week, and one registered for a month will be preferred to one registered for a week or two, for the simple reason that he has been unemployed longer. If the hon. member extends this period from seven days to 14 days he is going to put these people at a disadvantage. They will find it extremely difficult and it will retard their chances of obtaining employment. I sincerely hope he will not do so. I do not know on what grounds he is basing his amendment. The argument he has used should have been used under Clause 5. There I would have supported him, but not under Clause 4. I sincerely hope, for the sake of the unemployed, that he will not press that point.

I am rapidly forming the conclusion that ‘one does not require a long period of study to obtain a special insight into labour matters. The hon. member for Johannesburg (West) (Mr. Tighy) poses here as if he has a monopoly of wisdom in connection with labour matters. I want to say at once that the statement he has made has no bearing on this clause. It reminds one of the saying—

The more he saw the less he spoke ….

What I am pleading for here is this. If we institute compulsory registration we shall be supporting the spirit that exists for compulsory provision of employment. So as not to mislead people I want to leave some latitude in connection with the extension of the period for registration, so that they can make effective use of the ideal methods of obtaining employment I described in my previous speech.

What methods?

I have already intimated them to the House. If we do not lengthen this period and make it too short we shall not be giving the privilege to the workseeker to use that fine initiative in order to find a niche for himself in our factory life or elsewhere. If the Minister of Labour comes to this House and says he gives us the assurance that there will be compulsory provision for employment for all who want work I shall be in agreement with the period being as short as possible. But if he is unable to give that assurance to the House it is imperative for psychological reasons to extend that period as I have proposed here and for the reasons I have given.

No, the period is not too short, I assure the hon. gentleman. If I could manage it T would like to have it shorter still.

Then you must provide the work also.

We must have the record of the individual who is out of work before we can provide him with work.

Why?

We have to have his record. That is a condition precedent. It is a condition precedent to know this man is out of work before you can find him work. In addition, you must not forget he can be a week out of work before this week starts in which he has to register. I realise the interest that has been taken in the matter by the hon. member who has moved the amendment. He says there are three or four different ways in which this man can obtain work without registering. We do not stop him doing that.

But the period is too short, he cannot explore all the avenues.

Then you do not want registration at all; it will take him six months to explore all the avenues.

I want now to put a direct question: What was the reason for workseekers, male and female, having made such little use of labour bureaux in the past? I ascribe this to the fact that these people have still the feeling they would like to utilise other methods to obtain employment. But if the labour bureau is to become the centre of gravity in the search for work then you will have a systematic accumulation of unemployed at the labour bureaux. Then you will have an unprecedented position on account of your not having made unemployment registration go hand in hand with systematic provision of work for all in the second reading of this Bill. Consequently it is imperatively necessary for the Minister to accept my amendment so that there may be a linking up between unemployment and the providing of work.

There is another matter that I should like to bring forward. The hon. Minister will see that in Clause 4 (1) every workseeker, whether he is temporarily or permanently resident in an area, must register. For instance, someone may be living in Worcester and come down here for a holiday. He may be a builder and building work in the Cape Peninsula may have been declared as falling under this Act, so when he is here temporarily on vocation, a week or ten days, he has to register.

That is a poser.

I am reading the Bill. If he returns to Worcester after his holiday what is the position then? When he registers he is given a card and if at the end of the month he is without work has he to notify the registrar again? When he is at Worcester he will fall outside the area of the Cape Province. I do not understand why the word “temporarily” has been brought in here. A man may come here temporarily and not be able to find work. This does not appear to me to be a proper provision. What is the Minister’s plan in connection with such people? Then this Bill does not apply to workseekers who contribute to an unemployment benefit fund or to members of trade unions. I should like to know from the Minister why he has inserted this provision. I know that later on in the Bill provision is made that a trade union and insurance company must notify the official if such people are registered with them. But why are they excluded here? It is much simpler for every man seeking work to register. He is not obliged to got to a trade union for work. He can also go to anyone else. No trade union will prevent its members from doing this. A man who contributes to an unemployment benefit fund will naturally be notified through the fund. The fund will endeavour to find work for him as quickly as possible, because so long as he cannot find work it has to pay out. Now I understand the Government intends to introduce a Bill which will make provision for unemployment insurance. Is this so? If this is so what are we doing with this Bill? I would like to know what the Minister has to say in this connection.

In regard to the first point, if a fellow is spending a week’s holiday somewhere else he is notunemployed.

I am talking of a man who is unemployed.

Then he registers. My friend rather objects to us excluding those who are members of an unemployment benefit fund. Why? Surely we must explore every avenue for registration purposes, and is that not an easy and simple way where unemployment benefit funds have a number of unemployed on their lists and can immediately telephone the information? We do not prevent either the man who is in an unemployment benefit fund or any other man from looking for work, but we want to know who he is and what he is doing? In regard to trade unions, the trade union has the most complete registration you can possibly have. When a member of a trade union falls out of work he at once intimates the fact to the secretary of his branch, and the accumulation of such intimations is on record and is at once communicated to the unemployment officer, or the department, so the registration becomes complete, and as soon as he finds work the trade union informs the registering officer that there is no need to seek for work for him any longer. Registration through a trade union, and in a lesser degree through an unemployment benefit fund, is absolutely complete. That is why we do not want to duplicate the work. We take their record of unemployment as read.

I do not think the Minister understood what I said. I will try and say it in English.

I think I got your point.

I think I had better repeat my points in English. Paragraph (3) of Clause 4 reads as follows—

I have no objection to the registration of a man when he becomes a member of a trade union or an unemployment benefit fund. I think it is a good thing, I think everyone should belong to an unemployment fund if possible; and if there is a trade union they should try and join it.

I did not say you had any objection.

What I say is, what right have you to give preference to a man who is a member of a trade union? All he has to do is to go to his trade union and say, “I am out of employment, find work for me”; and the trade union does all the work for him. They ring up the employment officer and let him know. They ask him any particulars. These are going to be set out in regulations, and there may be particulars the trade unions do not know.

There are no particulars the trade unions do not know.

I do not think any organisation is perfect.

Not even the Nationalist Party.

Not even the Nationalist Party, and not even your Party. We have no objection to them having trade unions. But I understood they were bringing in an Act dealing with unemployment insurance. If you do so you will make it compulsory. So what is the need of them registering? The operation of this Act does not apply to any person who is a member of an unemployment benefit fund.

What will become of your farming natives?

There is no native in my district working on a farm. They work in the municipalities. The farmers cannot afford to pay them what they want. That has nothing to do with the matter. The point is you are giving advantages to certain people you do not give to others. I want to know why you do that. It does not seem to me to be reasonable or right to say to a man because he is a member of a trade union he need not register. I do not consider the Minister’s reasons sufficient so far as I am concerned, and I am going to move paragraph (3) be deleted. It is stated in these sections that notice has to be given, but it is not made clear whether this is to be done personally, by telephone, or how? Has that deliberately been left open?

It is in Clause 10.

I want to know why we should give one workseeker preference over another because he happens to belong to a trade union or insurance fund. The Government is bringing in a Bill, and I take it the Government will make everyone pay a premium to this fund, and they will fall outside the operation of this Bill. To me it needs a better explanation than the one the Minister has given. I move—

Question put: That the word “seven”, in line 45, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—72:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden. W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie’ J.

Christopher R. M.

Cilliers, H. J.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock P. H.

De Wet, H. C.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley G.

Du Toit, A. O.

Faure. J. C.

Friedman, B.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Higgerty, J. W.

Howarth, F. T.

Johnson H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

Madeley, W. B.

Marwick, J. S.

Miles-Cadman. C. F.

Molteno, D. B.

Morris, J. W. H.

Mushet, J. W.

Oosthuizen, O. J.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pocock, P. V.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Sutter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Wanless, A. T.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and W. B. Humphreys.

Noes—34:

Bekker, G. F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer K.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Le Roux, J. N.

Le Roux, S. P.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Mentz, F. E.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.

Question accordingly affirmed and the first amendment proposed by Mr. Potgieter dropped.

Remaining amendment proposed by Mr. Potgieter and amendment proposed by Mr. S. E. Warren put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 5,

I hope I shall have the support of the hon. member for Brits (Mr. Potgieter) as the arguments he used on Clause 4 really apply to Clause 5. It is a pity provision has not been made for a further paragraph more or less on the following lines—

I am only speaking from past experience. There are a lot of details required from the unemployed party, but there are definite steps to protect his own interests. I am speaking for the man who, in spite of being registered at the labour bureau still goes out and looks for work himself and finds work. What has happened in the past in the case of such a man? The prospective employer likes him on account of his appearance and initiative, and sends him back to the bureau to get his card. But they will not let him have the card. In spite of the fact that the man has himself found the work the bureau is not bound to give him the card to enable him to start work. They send someone else to take up the job. I do not want to worry the Minister with amendments, but I hope he will take up this suggestion in that spirit. It has to be remembered in this connection that some people consider that by virtue of the fact they are registered at the bureau they have fulfilled their duty to their household and their family; their names sometimes stand for weeks on the books, but they have no intention whatsoever of finding work. They just register because the law compels them to do so. What happens? The man who really wants to work to look after his family and who wants it badly might have registered after these other fellows and then he is debarred from obtaining work because the others were registered before him. Those are anomalies which I think we should provide for in this Bill. Whilst I am not prepared to press for an amendment I sincerely hope that the Minister and his Department will bear that aspect in mind and Will give those people who out of their own initiative look for work and find it a chance and will not Withhold the card from them.

I hope the Minister will frame such an amendment. It has been my experience too, and more particularly in departments of State. There is a regulation that any person who comes to a department of State must have come through the Labour Bureau.

Also subsidised work.

Many a person has gone out to look for work. His responsibilities to his family make it necessary for him to find work and he finds it. They have gone back in many cases to the department which has said: “No, I am sorry that you are not registered here” or else they say that they already have some men for the job. I have intervened in several cases like that, and mostly I was successful. Now if there is a case under this registration of workseekers where he is required to bring a certificate from the Department of Labour, I feel that the Minister should put that in the Act because these things do happen and it is not a flight of the imagination.

What is the position under this clause? Is a man prevented in any way from seeking his own employment? Not at all. The point is that if he succeeds in finding work he does not register.

No, the point is that he has to return the registration card.

No, he does not have to register, but if the period has lapsed he must register. All this thing says is that when he finds employment he must return the card.

And then?

Then what? He is employed and not unemployed. I cannot understand the fear expressed about this matter. It is entirely unwarranted.

I am afraid the Minister does not follow. Perhaps it is not so clearly stated in the Act, but I think he will agree with me that the Act is just a skeleton. It is when we come to the administration that the real spirit of the law emerges.

The Minister may have the best intentions, but what happens is this. X registers at the bureau. He looks for and finds a job. The employer may be either a municipality or a Government department or an employer subsidised by the Government, and in many cases it is a private employer. I am reminded that all the farmers are subsidised employers. Now what happens? As soon as the man finds work he must go back to the bureau and obtain another ticket in order to be employed there. That employer says: “I will employ you but you must get another ticket.” That is usually called the pink ticket. This card I have in my hand is the white ticket. Then the bureau says: “No, I will give the work to another party.”

But the section does not allow that.

I know that, but that is the administrative part of it. But I do not press for an amendment. I just point out what can happen.

I must say that the practice today is for any person who wants to be taken on at a job in the Public Works Department, in the railways, and I believe in other departments of State, is that when he finds the job he is looking for he is asked to go to the Labour Office and to produce a registration card, and until he produces that registration card from the Labour Department the railways, Public Works and other departments will not give him the job he himself has found. I have had to intervene many times with the Labour Office and ask them to give this man a card for the job he has found. I assure the Minister that that is a fact and not a flight of imagination. It actually happens and the Minister probably knows that the P.W.D. will not take a man until he has passed through the Labour Bureau. I have known people with wives and families who did not sit down at the Labour Office but looked for work and the employer sends them to get the card but at the Labour Bureau they are told: “No, I am sorry, I have another man I want to send to the job.” These men have rushed to me and I have intervened successfully in many cases. But if it is incumbent upon the Registering Officer to provide a man with a ticket and giving him the right to retain the job he has found it should be in the Act.

I am afraid the hon. member for Green Point (Mr. Bowen) has had no reaction from the Minister; but this is a very important principle. I was wondering whether the hon. Minister can see his way clear to add a further clause (d) in the following terms, more or less—

I am not prepared to accept that. In reply to the hon. member for Green Point (Mr. Bowen) the only case where a man does find a job is with a private employer, when he seeks for it himself. The State, as the hon. member correctly puts it, must get its labour from the Labour Department.

But many a workseeker gets work from an engineer in the P.W.D. office because he looks for it himself.

I certainly cannot accept that amendment because the Labour Department is the best judge as to who should work for the State.

Clause, as printed put and agreed to.

On Clause 7,

I move the amendment standing in my name. As the clause is at present every employer of labour who engages an employee for a week or more, and every employer who terminates the employment of the employee after a week or more must notify the Employment Officer within three days of the engagement of the employee or the termination of that employment. No, the position is that increasingly there is a tendency for a five day week, so that the date of the termination of the employment is usually on Friday, and very often that is also the day for taking on men, the idea being that the man should start on Monday. Now if that employer ceases work on Friday and does not work on Saturday and Sunday, it means, if he has to notify the Employment Officer within three days, that he has only one day on which to notify the Employment Officer, namely Monday, and in effect it boils down to this, that he has only one day in which to notify the Employment Officer that he is taking on or discharging men. I think that is unreasonable, as not enough time is provided. In the circumstances therefore I think, at the end of line 6, after the word “within” there should be added the word “working” so that the clause reads “that he shall give notice within three working days” and in the following line “that he shall give notice of termination, again within three working days. I think the hon. Minister will accept the fact that that is a reasonable amendment and that he will have no objection to it.

You know I have not. I accept the amendment.

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 8,

This clause deals with the information which the guardian has to give. You will see that the obligation on the juvenile workseeker is specially excluded by this section and the only obligation rests on the guardian to give the information. This is the clause I mentioned when we discussed the definition of the guardian. It means that any child who has no guardian in terms of the definition does not register and there is no-one to register for him, and he is probably the person who would require registration most, as he has no-one to look after his interests.

How can we word it?

I only saw it this morning. I had studied the Act for some time but left the definitions to the last, and when I came to the definition it suddenly struck me that that is the position, and I think it is my duty to draw the Minister’s attention to it. The clause reads—

Now, the registra ton of particulars is essential to carrying out the intention of the Act, and if the workseeker is not compelled to register the operation of the Act is lost as far as he is concerned. He can voluntarily give the information and say he is looking for work but there is no obligation on him to register. I am thinking of an orphan of 16 who lives in a room. If his father and mother are dead or he is living on his own it means that he has no guardian and if he is unemployed there is no obligation on him to register. That is the man whom we seek to help by making the definition of a guardian easier. The only way I can think of is this, that where he has no guardian— and in law it is an expensive process to have a guardian appointed ….

I thought every juvenile who has lost his parents has a guardian appointed?

No, it is very rarely done. It is only when there is an estate and he has some means. He could become emancipated, but in any event it means that he is not obliged to register. What I suggested is a definition of guardian, that when both his parents are dead or absent and it should not be necessary for him to have a guardian and that he should be obliged to give the information himself.

You wish to throw the obligation on the juvenile?

Yes, someone must do it and it is too expensive to go to court to have a guardian appointed. Something like that will have to be done. It would be different if he were adopted by someone or lives with someone in a house, although in the latter case he also has no guardian and you cannot make the owner of the house or the boarding-house keeper the guardian and make it obligatory for him to give the information. For that reason the definition of guardian should be altered.

I am sympathetic to the point the hon. member is making. I had thought that every juvenile has a guardian. If we agree that something of that kind should be done to throw the obligation on the juvenile it seems to me it should be done in the definition.

Yes, I think that would be best.

Let me consult more meticulously the law advisers and my Department on this question. If they come to the conclusion that there will be many such cases we will change it. Are you satisfied?

Yes.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 10,

I have an amendment which is on the Order Paper, to omit the word “and” in line 42 and to substitute “concerning the persons employed by him and the number of persons he may be able to employ at any particular time”. Representations have been made that the clause as it is now is too wide, and we may impose any sort of obligation on the employer. We do not wish to do that, and it must be narrowed down. I move—

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended put and agreed to.

On Clause 11,

As regards this clause I would like the Minister to tell me what it means where at the end of the clause it says—

Supposing I am a carpenter out of employment and I register, and the Act is not applicable to the carpentering trade, and say that I am looking for a job. Such a carpenter can register. He gives him name as seeking for employment. Is it obligatory on him to accept any employment which is offered to him or any employment in the particular trade he follows?

No, that is not the object. The specific object is to deal with those who are not obliged to register, i.e. the old man of 65 or more and the old woman of 60 or more, but persons who are in employment can also register for a change of occupation. That is all it means. They themselves have the right then to refuse that employment if it does not suit them.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 12,

On this clause I have an amendment that appears on the Order Paper and reads as follows—

I think the amendment is perfectlly clear. It is necessary that we should endeavour to apply the colour bar still further. I understood from the Minister of Labour that it is the policy of the Government to keep people in separate working places. We have already several post offices with their separate entrances and where separation is applied. All we now ask is that in connection with this registration there should also be separate bureaux and lists and that separation should be recognised. I foresee no difficulty in that connection. We can have the same officials, but separate bureaux and separate lists, and then separation will be maintained. I do not know whether it is necessary to support my contention by a number of arguments. All of us have already reflected on this matter and many have arrived at the conclusion that separation must be carried into effect. There are the others, the negrophilists and liberals, whom I call communists, who have come to a different conclusion, and no argument of mine will influence them. I rely, however, on this, that the Minister of Labour has stated that separation is his policy and the policy of the Government. I therefore rely on him accepting the amendment. It has been approved by the legal advisers and has thus not just been drawn up hurriedly. I should like to know from the Minister whether he is prepared to accept it.

It is entirely unnecessary. My hon. friend is right when he says it is the policy of the department and of myself to have complete separation. They will have separate bureaux, separate registers and everything will be as the hon. member desires. It is so today. Why rub it in by inserting it in the Act?

I cannot really understand the Minister’s reasoning. He says what I desire is what the department will do. How can the department keep separate bureaux and registers when the Act says quite differently? The Act as it is here says—

and then it goes on to say that he shall—

1. (b) conduct and carry on an employment office for workseekers within the area in respect of which he has been appointed.

Some of my friends have said that it sometimes appears that the hon. Minister is afraid to accept anything coming from the Opposition because he does not wish them to say that they did anything worth-while. As far as I am concerned, I assure the Minister that I will not get on a platform and say that he accepted my amendment. It is not only a question of policy. I take it that the Government is in favour of separateness and they will carry it out, but they may change their mind tomorrow,’ and then they say that the Act gives them the right to do so. I feel this, that I do not see what the Minister is losing, if that is his policy. It is not a question of rubbing it in. I have often said in this House, when people say I should not say this or that, “separate the white people”. I have no objection whom you separate as long as we get separation. That is the position. But there are some people who object to the word “segregation”. When this Bill was before the Select Committee, the word “segregation” was mentioned. It was said that “segregation” had a bad meaning, and they would be satisfied if the word “separatism” was used. These words are synonomous. It is not a question of wanting to rub it in, and I am prepared to give these people who have not got the same colour as I have, as square a deal as they get anywhere.

Would you make all their employment officers the same colour?

If the coloured people want a coloured man to do their employment work, I have no objection.

I mean create it in the Department.

I have no objection provided there are separate areas of employment for Europeans and non-Europeans.

And European employment officers.

For example I have no objection to giving a portion of Cape Town to the coloured people. I have no objection to their having their own shops and offices and lawyers. I have never had any objection to that. It would be silly on my part if I did object. But I do not like to see Europeans and non-Europeans mixed in one factory or in one office. There is always a lot of misrepresentation when one talks about these things. The position is simply this that as far as coloured people are concerned, I have no objection to their carrying on in their own way as long as they are separate. I have often said, as far as the Gardens are concerned: “Give them one half of the Gardens; let them eut it into two; let them have first choice. But I hate to see this trouble that we have at present.”

Why do you pick on “Gardens”?

Because you have a lot of trouble there. I have experienced it. I have seen coloured people sitting everywhere in the Gardens amongst Europeans.

Do you mean in the Municipal Gardens?

Yes.

He thought you meant his constituency.

The hon. member must not be so conceited as to think that when one talks about the Gardens, one refers to his constituency. I feel that that is what is necessary, and if the Minister gives the assurance that that is their policy and if that is their policy, why not put it in the Bill? It seems to me not to be unreasonable, and I can assure the Minister that I will not go on any platform and say that I persuaded the Minister to accept an amendment moved by this side. He can rest assured of that. One cannot help feeling afterwards that because people are politicians one cannot come to this House and suggest improvements to a Bill and do one’s best just because one does not belong to the same political party. One of the Nationalists moved a certain amendment about bilingualism. The hon. Minister would not accept it. Then a member behind him got up and moved the same amendment, and the Minister promptly accepted it.

No, he did not move the same amendment.

To be quite candid his amendment went even further than the amendment moved by the hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz).

But it was like saying “yes”, “yes”, “no, no”.

Of course, the Minister has a majority behind him and he can refuse to accept this amendment, but I make this request to him earnestly to accept the amendment. I am sure it will obviate a lot of trouble if he did so. We see what is happening in the country. There are agitators in the country who tell these people every day what to do. We have just had 10,000 people marching in the streets of Johannesburg. I do not know why the authorities do not shoot the agitators; then things will be very much better. I want to say to the Minister that we are marching to trouble. Of course, if the Minister does not want to accept the amendment, then I must be satisfied.

There is only one thing I want to say to the hon. member, and it is this. I hope he will acquit me of any intention of not accepting this amendment because it comes from that side of the House. If it is a good amendment, I will accept it.

You did not accept mine.

No, because I thought it was no good. I will accept an amendment from any quarter of the House if it is a good amendment.

You accepted absolutely the same amendment from the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp).

No, it was a different amendment and if the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) had moved it, I would have accepted it.

I trust the Minister is not again going to split hairs over the effect of this definition. It is very clear that as the clause stands it can be misused. As the Minister has stated, a basis of separation can only be instituted under his direct instructions. But though this Bill will remain on the Statute Book the Minister is not always going to be in that post. If one of the hon. members on that side was Minister of Labour what would the position be? He could simply enforce the law as it stands here. The law does not prohibit them from sending white and black into the one office together. If is not prohibited to pile them altogether into the same bureau. On every occasion the Minister comes to us and says: But this is our policy and we will see that it is carried out in this way. If this is the case then it is really no crime to insert this in the Bill to ensure that his successor will not follow this course. So long as he announces this should be done on a basis of separation I accept it will remain on a basis of separation, but when he is no longer there but makes way for someone else, someone who will herd the whole mob together, there would be nothing to prevent him doing so, and the Minister knows that it is our policy to maintain separation in every sphere. The Minister admitted this afternoon that this is absolutely correct. He has, however, refused to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz). Subsequently the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp) proposed previsely the same amendment and the Minister accepted the amendment of the hon. member for Vryheid and refused that of the hon. member for Westdene. If the Minister agrees with this what harm can there be in providing in the Act that the principle of separation shall be maintained in the future.

The Minister got rather heated just now when we demanded a division, and I want to tell him that he must not imagine that he can expedite the Bill in that way. We have another instance here. I am very sorry to tell the Minister this, but if he acts as he did in that case and as he is acting now we shall have to accuse him of going to be misleading. I want to tell the Minister bluntly that we have no intention of merely accepting his assurance in connection with a matter of this description. In connection with every clause we have witnessed this spectacle of the Minister rising in his place and assuring us he will comply with our request. Why then does he not insert in the Bill, literally and clearly, what we are asking for? If the point is on the Statute Book in such a way as to be capable of several different interpretations the Minister will be able to appease the Communists by saying: I shall ensure that your policy of equality shall be maintained. And then he can also tell the other side: You can go and look up Hansard, I have stated that I shall maintain separation. We charge the Minister directly of intending to mislead the people, if he does not accept this amendment. I say definitely that if I was an unemployed person and I entered an office to register my name and saw January’s name there and Abdul’s name, I would definitely make an objection. We now propose that separate registers should be kept for the European unemployed and Separate registers for the non-European unemployed. Why will the Minister not incorporate this in his Bill? What objection can he have to it? We have the illustration provided by the Voters’ Roll. The Voters’ Rolls were compiled but the principle of separation was maintained in connection with them. The names of non-Europeans were placed at the back. There is one list for Europeans and a separate list for nonEuropeans. We want to have a clear division between Europeans and nonEuropeans. Now the Minister says he also wants a division between European and nonEuropean, but he does not wish to lay down in the law that that separation will exist. This amendment is of very great importance. It touches in the first instance on the separate registers, and I want to tell the Minister it is necessary that he places it in the Bill in this way, and if he does not insert it in this way we shall simply have to make the deduction that he is refusing to accept the amendment because he wants to satisfy some of his communistic friends that he stands for equality, while he is making a contrary statement in the House. The first part of the amendment refers to the registers, and I cannot see how any objection can be made to that. It is not such a difficult thing to keep separate registers. The second part of the amendment has reference to separate bureaux. The Minister knows that from time to time application is made for separate entrances for Europeans and non-Europeans in public offices, as for instance, in magistrate’s courts and post offices. This demand is becoming stronger and stronger on the part of the public. The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs is sitting there and he knows that this has happened. When he builds a new post office he constructs it in such a way that there are separate entrances for Europeans and non-Europeans; and we are now asking that there should be separate bureaux for non-Euro peans who register in the urban areas where there will be a flow of registrations. There should not be intermingling when people crowd into these registration offices. The Minister has refused another amendment, the amendment of the hon. member for Brits (Mr. Potgieter), namely that the period of registration should be extended to 14 days. The Minister has now accepted that it should occur within seven days. Now this position may arise in the urban areas, you may have a fairly strong influx of unemployed, and these people will all have to register within seven days. This being the case it is all the more necessary to have separate bureaux, so that you will not have a herding of Europeans and non-Europeans there. Where you have Europeans and nonEuropeans congregating together there will be clashes. The contact is unhealthy and clashes will later occur, and it is necessary to administer this law in such a way as to avoid such clashes. I cannot see what the Minister’s objection is. I want to tell the Minister point blank that we do not intend to accept his statement that he wants to follow the same course as we do, but that he does not want to insert this in the Bill.

The Minister assures us that this is carried out in practice today.

If it is true what the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Clark) has stated, my case is even stronger. Why cannot that provision be incorporated in the Bill. What objection can there be to inserting in the Bill something that is carried out in practice? No, let me tell the other side very plainly that they are now adopting an ambiguous attitude in relation to this question. Many of them are convinced in their hearts that the attitude of the Nationalist Party on this matter is the correct attitude. They have not the courage to say they are in agreement with us, but now they want to adopt this ambiguous attitude so that they may appease the public. To the people who want separation they say: We also want separation. But to those who do not want separation, those who stand for equality, they can say: We have refused to insert this in the Act. If they want separation they must lay down in the Bill those things that are necessary to maintain separation. Let us put an end once and for all to the arguing we have every year in connection with every Bill on this question of a demarcating line between European and non-European. We have advanced a little. First we had hon. members on the other side who are colour-blind standing up and pleading equality, but the great majority found they got into hot water with their voters when they did this. We are now coming a little closer, but why cannot we apply the policy of separation textually in the Bill and carry it out in practice? If we do this we shall not have a recurrence of this argument year after year. Let us state explicitly to the Minister that we do not intend to accept his assurance that he agrees with us but that he does not want to accept our amendment. If a thing is right it is right it should be in the Act.

I am taking a deep breath before I begin to talk to see first of all whether the Minister will not rise to say that he will accept this amendment. We are every much in earnest about this matter, and for us on this side, this amendment involves a principle. We advocate year after year that the principle of segregation should be incorporated in our legislation. Year after year Ministers on the other side come along, and particularly the Minister of Labour, and give us the assurance that segregation will be given effect to, but in practice it is not the case. In every sphere you find that things which are not laid down by law are carried out in one place and not in another. If this clause goes through in its present form, you will find that the principle of segregation is executed in one place and in the following place they will tell us that under the circumstances it is not practicable; it cannot be carried out there. We find everywhere that in practice the principle is given effect to in certain places and in other places it is not. Then we are told that in certain places it is practicable but in other places impracticable. We are running the same danger here, namely that we can be told that it is practicable in one place to give effect to the principle, but that at another place it is impracticable to do so. With us it is a matter of principle that this principle should be given effect to everywhere in practice, whether it causes more trouble at certain places or not. There appears to be something very much deeper behind the Minister’s refusal. It is very clear to me that it has become the Government’s policy to refuse to include the principle of segregation in our legislation. They run away from this important principle of segregation. It has become the policy of that Government to allow matters to take their course, and to trust to public opinion that a measure of segregation is maintained. But they refuse point blank to incorporate the principle of segregation in their legislation, and the Minister is in this way pacifying public feeling. It is very evident to me that the Government is afraid—we heard the other day that they have left wings and right wings on that side—and the Government is afraid of that liberal wing and does not want to offend them, and the nation has now to be satisfied to allow this principle of segregation to be postponed and to be passed by. It is not a question of what will be given effect to. It is wholly a question of principle and it does not help for the Minister to tell us that those things are not practicable. We know these things are not given effect to over the whole country. We know that when they are not incorporated in the legislation that exceptions are constantly being made, and we want to prevent exceptions being made where this principle will not be given effect to, and that is why we insist on this amendment, and I hope that the Minister will not find pleasure in bringing this side of the House to its knees to beg and pray for this principle. This principle is one which South Africa as such has accepted. There is but a small percentage of the population which does not desire the principle of segregation, and where this is the case, why should the mass of the population who hold these views always have to bow down to this small group? The Government is afraid of this small group of liberalists. The Government has now allowed them to suffer enough owing to the liberal attitude on that side. I think the time has now arrived for them to respond to public feeling.

At this stage I want to make an appeal to the Minister of Labour to accept the amendment proposed by this side of the House. The Minister states in his reply that in practice they still follow the principle of separation. So it is right in practice. Now I ask the Minister: If it is right in practice why refuse to insert it in the Bill? Why is he so obstinate in refusing to accept the amendment because it comes from this side of the House? We have had the Minister’s pronouncement that he stands for separation. But we have had the disquieting statement from the hon. member for Losberg (Mr. Wolmarans). The Minister gave the excuse that his staff is not up to strength. Now I am harbouring some doubts. Why should the hon. member for Losberg only have gone to certain factories and it was only as a result of his own insistence that he visited these factories? It seems to me something is being kept back in order to appease those people who do not wish to have segregation in South Africa. Why cannot we have separate registers? It cannot be attributed, of course, to the shortage of paper. The Minister surely cannot advance that as a reason for refusing to keep two books. During the war there was a shortage of paper, but I think the Minister can very well keep two sets of books now in order to register Europeans and nonEuropeans separately. He declares that he is doing this in practice. Why this refusal then to accept our amendment? It will improve the Bill because the Minister will not always be holding office. He is on the point of taking his departure, and we may have in his place a colour-blind Minister, and if we get a colour-blind Minister what is going to be the position in connection with the registration of Europeans and non-Europeans? What is going to be the state of the registers? But in the second place what state of affairs will arise in connection with mixed registration? As the hon. member for Losberg has stated, everywhere where Government offices are being erected separate entrances are being built for Europeans and nonEuropeans. That being the case why should the Minister decline to accept this amendment? I cannot imagine that the Minister should now be so obstinate as to say: You are pleading for separation; I am going to carry this out but I do not want to take it up in the Bill. That is an indication of something being concealed that they wish to remain hidden, so that they may be able to placate the other section of the community by saying: Yes, we also stand for separation but we have framed it in this way so that we may satisfy the other section. I want now to make an appeal to the Minister. This Bill would probably have been through if the Minister had not shown such obduracy over this question. The Minister should nevertheless be reasonable. When a sensible amendment is presented with a view to the improvement of the Bill I fail to see why the Minister should not accept it. He says that he is following this course in practice, but he declines to lay it down in the Bill. I hope that the Minister will meet us and that he will make this alteration in the Bill.

I never expected my old friend the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) to cast suspicion upon my motive.

Not suspicion; I only want it in the law.

It is in the law. Read the Bill. Clause 3 says—

And he may not.

We have had that out, whether “may” meant “shall” or whether “shall” meant “may”. One of my friends over there is going to raise the banner again, but that is not the point. The Minister may appoint so and so as employment officer in respect of any specified class of workseeker, and this repeats that ….

What does that mean; must he keep separate lists?

I wish the hon. member would allow me to make my points in my own way. My hon. friend is so impulsive. It is stated in the clause which we are now considering that every employment officer, i.e. the employment officer to which I have made reference—

1. (a) maintain a register of all workseekers under his jurisdiction.

That is in respect of the class, and the class goes further than hon. members have mentioned. The amendment talks about Europeans and non-Europeans. Those are the two sharp distinctions my hon. friends draw. The class of workseeker includes infinitely more than that. There are Europeans, coloureds, natives and Asiatics, and under the Bill in respect of all those classes he must keep a separate register and he must have a separate’ office.

The smokescreen that the Minister has projected will not help him. It is amusing to witness the Minister’s struggles, but it will be of no avail him quoting a section to save him from this amendment the hon. member has proposed. What is the present position? The Minister may appoint an officer to register a separate class. He does not need to do this, he is not obliged to do it. It is left to his discretion. The hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) has stated he wants to move this amendment and to oblige the Minister in any event to keep separate lists for Europeans and non-Europeans. I trust I am doing the Minister no injustice in putting it in this way, because this is correct. If the Minister ’does not want to he does not need to keep separate lists. He cannot get past that. Supposing now that the Minister was in favour of colour separation—which he is not in practice—then one could still have entrusted this to him. But suppose we have a Minister in his place who is so liberal in his views that he is out and out in favour of Europeans and non-Europeans associating together. Then he can apply Clause 3 as the Minister has it here, and he will not need to keep separate lists; hence this amendment. Why is the Minister afraid of having clarity? When he was in the Pact Government, or when at any rate he was a supporter of the Pact Government he never raised any objection to a provision being inserted in any legislation to the effect that there should be separation between Europeans and non-Europeans in the mines. He had no objection to that.

That was for the mine manager’s certificate.

Whether it was for that or something else it was for separation, but the Minister is now marching backwards like a crab. South Africa is not going back. South Africa is going ahead. My hon. friend has lost step in the march of development. He is now a liberal with no faith in the maintenance of colour separation. What is the meaning of Clause 3? If it is wrongly administered it implies that the names of Europeans and of natives will all be mixed up. There is nothing to stop it. You will have “European” and “natives”.

That is not what it means.

Are you going to register the natives for employment Yes, the Minister is going to register Europeans and natives for employment.

On separate registers.

Where do you find that?

Here.

No, there you have “may” not “shall”. With the appointment of an officer you have a register. The Minister may appoint an officer by notice in the Government Gazette and then a separate register will have to be kept. But if he does not appoint an officer it does not follow as a matter of course. I make an appeal to the Minister. Is it not necessary to make this matter as clear as possible, that in any event there must be race separation? The hon. Minister will have to agree that as it is now there does not need to be race separation in every case. I should like to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that South Africa has already made considerable progress along this road. The Minister now makes the statement—he is taking shelter behind that—that in practice we have separation but that we must not include it in the Bill. But the Minister will remember that in our liquor legislation and in other laws a differentiation was made between Europeans and natives and even between Europeans and coloured people. We did this in his legislation. What objection can the Minister have to that? For him to make the statement that in actual practice this course is really being followed and that in consequence we should not introduce it into our legislation constitutes no argument whatever. The old argument has always been that as far as the natives are concerned no residential separation is necessary because natives and the Europeans do in fact live apart from each other. That argument did not really cut any ice, and then Parliament came along and said that segregation must be instituted and that it must be laid down in the legislation. Now the Minister comes and he pulls back. He does not now want to follow what has been confirmed in South Africa by means of legislation. I should be very interested to hear what the public have to say about this. The majority of our workers are poor people. What will they have to say when they discover that their names may possibly figure on the same list as those of natives.

And coloured people.

Yes, and coloured people too. But I understand that hon. members on the oppsite benches are not really so very concerned as far as Europeans and coloureds are affected; they merely believe that one day this must be put right, but they are sensitive about natives and Europeans. In this respect the Minister is leading them up the garden path, because there is a provision here under which it is possible the names of Europeans and natives may be placed on the same list. Now I throw down a challenge to the Minister to go to the Transvaal and to the Free State, where popular feeling is so strongly in favour of separation, and to say from public platforms that he has refused an amendment that would have laid down that Europeans and natives might not be placed on the same list. Let the Minister tell the public in the Transvaal that and he will soon see how he will fare at these meetings. It will be of no use to him to tell the public that this course will be followed out in actual practice. They will put the question to him, why did you then refuse to insert this in the Bill.

I shall also go out to Moorreesburg and tell them there.

The Minister is welcome. I should, however, give him this warning that he will get a resounding motion of no confidence. This argument that in practice separation is respected and consequently it is not necessary to place it in the Bill is an argument that is out of tune with South African sentiment. Our churches are separate.

The separatoin is in the Bill.

Where?

I read it a minute ago.

If the Minister is referring to Clause 3, that does not save him.

Look at the appointment of an official.

In some cases you will have separation, but not in all. If the Minister is not going to appoint an official what is the position? Maybe the Minister does not appreciate the consequences that flow from his action.

He says in practice the officials do it.

Therefore I am unable to understand the inconsistency that has been revealed by the Minister. The hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. Fouché) put the question to the Minister why he was apprehensive about the insertion of this amendment in the Bill. It is not going to offend anyone. It is old-fashioned to state that you will offend the native when you lay it down that there should be separate lists for Europeans and natives. That is also an antiquated standpoint to adopt in reference to the coloured people, because the Government, of which the hon. Minister is a member, instituted the Coloured Advisory Council and he himself effected separation between Europeans and non-Europeans. There we have the Coloured Advisory Council that was created by them to look to the interests of the coloured section of the community. They are something apart. It shows an old-fashioned outlook to say that you are apprehensive about wounding the susceptibilities of the natives. Look at the Voters’ Roll. The Minister will see that the Europeans occupy a separate section and that the coloured people have their own section of the Voters’ Roll. Why then is the Minister seized with fear? The natives are in an absolutely separate book; if he is not afraid of that why should he be afraid to have two lists where unemployed persons are concerned? It will not entail more work. [Time limit.]

Do I understand the Minister correctly that he takes his stand on Clause 12 (1), reading—

Does he mean to suggest that the word “class” refers there to colour.

Yes, Europeans, natives ….

No.

He has asked the question, and I am replying. It refers to European, coloured, native and Asiatic.

No. When the words “class of workseeker” are used here, class refers to one thing and one thing only a class of workseeker in the sense of his being a labourer or mechanic or any other type of worker. I am sure if this matter were to be laid before any court it would be interpreted in that way, having regard to the tenor and the purpose of the whole Bill, which is mainly registration. It is perfectly clear you register different classes of workers according to the type of work they do. It has nothing whatever to do with colour. It stands to reason you are going to maintain a register of mechanics, a register of carpenters, and so on, and, if there is any doubt—which I submit there is—why not remove that doubt by stating here the word “class” refers to race or colour? I wish to associate myself with other members on this side of the House in this regard. I do not know whether in this matter the Minister is speaking as a socialist. We know the socialists and their friends the communists do not make any distinction of colour. Is he speaking now as a socialist or as a Minister of that Government representing the United Party? If he is speaking as a socialist whose distinctions of colour are not so clearly marked as by other Parties the time is ripe for the members sitting behind him, many of whom hold the same views as we do regarding separation to sit up and take notice. Am I correct also in assuming the Minister further bases his argument on Clauses 2 and 3, because he seemed to indicate there was no difference between the employment of the word “may” and the word “shall”. Surely the Minister knows one is permissive and the other obligatory. If not, why are both the words “may” and “shall” used in Clause 2? It is perfectly clear here—

The word “may” there is permissive. He may or he may not, as he feels inclined, according to the state of his liver. Further down, however, it says—

There the juvenile workeseeker is referred to, and we note that in one case it is “may” and in the other “shall”. It is clear that Clause 12 (1) has to do with a class of worker having regard to the type of work he does and this is in conformity with the whole tenor of the Bill. The time has arrived for the Minister to forget that he is a socialist and to remember there are members on those benches who feel exactly as we do, and I would like to remind the hon. Minister that if he follows reports in the Press he will find that a large section of the people who followed the United Party at the last election today see the necessity of having a clear differentiation in these matters between European and non-European.

I am very sorry but I am not at all inclined to accept the Minister’s assurance. In the Government of today we find three political parties. When the Minister tells me that his policy is a policy of separateness, the Minister should prove to me that that is a fact. I am convinced that the Minister is unable to prove that those three parties have accepted the policy of separateness. He cannot produce the constitution of one of /those Parties and say: “This is the policy of separateness as outlined in this constitution.” He is unable to do that. We on this side of the House advocate separateness and we can show our constitution in which this principle is clearly laid down. How can a Minister come along and say that it is their policy? When the hon. member for Morreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) got up and reminded the Minister of the fact that in the days of the Pact Government he advocated separateness in the mines, the Minister was very quick to interject and deny it. He said that that was only in connection with blasting certificates. The Minister has now abandoned his point of view of those days. There can be no doubt about that. Does the Minister close his eyes to the dangers threatening South Africa? Does he close his eyes to the fact that never before have we had such an urge among non-Europeans and especially among the natives, to obtain equality with the Europeans, as we have today? The Minister now comes along and positively refuses to provide that there shall be separateness as far as the registrar and the bureau are concerned. Is that the way in which the Minister is upholding the principle of separateness? The Minister comes along and maintains that that is his policy. He wants to set our mind at ease. He says that, whilst in his own Party you find people who will have nothing to do with the colour bar and he has to satisfy them and the Minister knows it. For that reason I maintain and I agree with the hon. member for Moorreesburg that the time has come for hon. members on the other side to face the matter squarely and to realise in what direction they are going. The Minister maintains that it is his policy. Why does he not incorporate it in the Bill so that the world outside can see what he wants. The Minister is now getting annoyed and fidgety. That won’t help him as far as this matter of separateness is concerned. The Minister should not believe that he can make this side run away as far as this matter is concerned. We are determined and the bulk of the European population, English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking want to see separateness applied. If the Minister really wants to satisfy the public and if it is his desire to settle this matter to the benefit of South Africa and South Africa only, then his only way out will be to accept our amendment. Then we shall know where we stand. The Minister said that he is prepared to go to Moorreesburg and announce there that he does not want separateness, not a separate register and no separate bureaux. I even want to challenge the Minister to come to the Witwatersrand and tell the European workers there that he is not in favour of separateness. If he advocates that policy there he will receive motions of no confidence all over the Reef. The Minister cannot prove that his actual policy is one to promote separateness. If he is honest in his intentions—which I accept—he should realise that tomorrow or the day after another Minister may happen to be in his place, a liberal, an even greater liberal than he is, and what will the position then be? What right does the Minister have to maintain that there will be a separate bureau, when that is not laid down in the Act. I, therefore, want to ask the Minister to realise that the whole of white South Africa wants to have this matter put right and I appeal to the Minister to give up his obstinate attitude and to accept the amendment proposed by this side.

I appeal to the Minister to be a bit more accommodating and to accept this amendment. If the Minister refuses to accept it solely because it is proposed by this side, then his refusal is based on Party considerations only. Lip service will not do. We have moved the amendment because one continually comes across European girls who assure us that often only on account of economical need they accept work in factories where no colour bar is being maintained. It is only necessity which forces them to it. Usually such people who are in need come to the labour bureaux. What is the reason why those bureaux place so few of these people in factories? Just because there is no separation between Europeans and nonEuropeans. I therefore want the Minister to realise fully that, if he refuses this amendment and thinks that the plea of the Opposition is only nonsense, he acts in conflict with the feeling of the very large majority of the population. We want to encourage racial pride and racial honour and our amendment goes in that direction. I shall therefore be glad if the Minister will accept the amendment.

Do I understand the Minister states that Section 12 makes provision for separate bureaux and for separate lists?

Yes.

And do I understand correctly that the Minister bases that upon the wording of Section 12 (1), which is—

1. (a) maintain a register of all workseekers ….

I am sorry the Minister interprets it as he does. I do not blame him. Probably he thinks so quite honestly; but he must bear with me for a moment while I take him back to Clause 2 (1) which deals with a specified class of work —

The idea is that the Minister may declare any specified class of work to fall under the operation of the Act. Even amongst the builders you can take plumbers or electrical wiremen, and by proclamation in the Gazette you can make them subject ….

That is obviously impossible, to pick out all the sorts.

No, but you are given the power to do so, and when you talk about a specified class of work it is quite clear it has nothing to do with the colour of the workseeker.

Read paragraph (3) of Clause 2.

Well, it reads—

In other words he may say: “I am going to make this Bill applicable to a specified class of workseeker” (let us say the engineers); “I shall make it applicable only to the European engineers”. I am prepared to accept what the Minister says, that he intends to keep separate registers and to have separate bureaux, but he must not argue that the Act makes it obligatory for him to do so.

It does, under Section 12—“specified work”.

Yes, it is specified in Section 2.

And it is specified here.

If the Minister does not wish to take my advice he can go to the law advisers.

I have done so.

If they tell you Section 12 gives you the right to discriminate between colour classes they are telling you what is not correct. That is plain to any unprejudiced person who reads it. The Minister has the power to specify any class of workseeker to which the operation of this Act will be applicable, and in doing that he can differentiate between the colours, but when once he has proclaimed a certain work as a specified work, it is finished. If he does not differentiate he can only keep one register. It is doubtful whether it would be legal for him to have two registers on two bureaux. If the hon. Minister wishes to carry out his policy he must accept the amendment, otherwise he will be unable to do so. He can only keep one register or one bureau, and I want to give him the power to keep more than one. If he persists in his attitude he will find he is incorrect. I am absolutely sure that the interpretation I have placed on it is what the legal advisers will tell him and what the draftsman will tell him. He should not look upon the amendment as some sort of success which I or anyone else has had, but it is brought up just because we want the Bill to be a success. We want it to be conducive to finding employment for people. We want it to be of assistance to the country. Of course, I cannot force the Minister to accept the amendment. There is no good telling him he will fall out at the next election, or that he will not be a Minister. In any case I take it that is what is going to happen. If he does not accept this amendment he will not make it a workable Act. If he wants to seek legal advice I am prepared for the clause to stand over.

No, there is no doubt about it.

Let the Minister force it through; but he must not come into Parliament again and tell me he is in favour of separateness. I will not believe him.

We thought that we could give the Minister the benefit of the doubt and that perhaps he had not understood the position. Now, however, it has been explained to him in his own language by the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren). He therefore can no longer say that he does not clearly understand the position. There are lawyers on the other side and they give the same interpretation to this clause as the hon. member for Swellendam did. One of these lawyers sat next to him and he clearly indicated that the interpretation of the hon. membetr for Swellendam is perfectly correct. We therefore are now faced with two interpretations, the one from the Minister and somebody there in the corner, and the other from the lawyers on this side of the House and also on the Minister’s side of the House. To that extent, therefore, there seems to exist a doubt, and why cannot we get clarity in the matter? Surely, it is a sound principle to have clearly worded legislation. I want to put this pertinent question to the Minister. Is he prepared or is he not prepared to accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Swellendam to let his clause stand over so that he may have an opportunity to obtain further information?

No, I have not. I have all the information I require.

I want to put the matter once more to the Minister. There is only one motive why the Minister does not want this clause to be clearly worded. He wants to have the opportunity to give a double interpretation of it to the people outside and he wants to have that opportunity for political purposes. I also want to tell him why he wants that opportunity. He does not know how soon this Parliament is going to adjourn and then he and his Labour Party will find themselves outside the Government. They joined the Government only on account of one thing and that was to see the war through. That reason has now fallen away. That was very clear from the salvo of attacks on the Government over there which has lately come from the Labour Party. They cannot stick it any longer living together. With or without an application there will be a divorce and once the combination falls to pieces the Minister will be dependent upon certain communist elements in the country which advocate a policy of equality. He wants to draw them to his ranks and for that reason he does not clearly state in this clause that there shall be separateness. If he wants to draw a certain number of Afrikaners to his ranks he can, on the other hand, say that separateness can be applied under this clause and that is the reason why he does not want it clearly worded. It is not only clear that this is the Minister’s motive, but by a process of elimination we can say that it is the only remaining motive. I know the Minister and I know that he is not so very obstinate. No, behind all this there is a scheme for which this provision must be used. The Minister envisages the struggle that is coming and he is busy to put his strategy in order. I still want to ask the Minister the following question. The Minister maintains that under Clause 12 he is able to make provision for separateness. In this provision it is laid down that an employment officer can be appointed in respect of every class of worker. His explanation now is that classes may mean classes according to colour. I now want to take the Minister back to Clause 2 (3). There we find that the Minister within a certain area may specify classes of workseekers. It says there that “the Minister may, in specifying any class of workseeker, apply any method of differentiation he may deem advisable”. That means that he can differentiate for any reason which he may deem advisable. He may deem it advisable to differentiate according to colour but he may also deem it inadvisable and the Minister’s successor may perhaps purposely deem it inadvisable.

He also will deem it inadvisable.

Yes, this is only a smokescreen to create a wrong impression amongst the people. It is quite obvious that these clauses when read together, give the Minister power to differentiate on account of colour, but nothing is laid down that he must so differentiate; there is no indication that he must make provision for separateness. The Minister’s argument is absolutely unsound. No person in his sober senses can say that Clause 2 (3) compels the Minister to specify classes according to the colour of their skin, and if he does not specify them according to colour and if under Clause 12 he has to appoint an employment officer for every class, then it means that separateness is not being applied under Clause 12. Take a village such as Boshof. Is the Minister going to appoint two or three employment officers there, one for Europeans, one for coloureds and natives, etc.? Have we ever seen a more ridiculous provision in our laws? He will not do it. He will simply appoint one official there to do the work. He does not intend to appoint more officials there, and therefore that official cannot apply separateness if this amendment should not be accepted. We know of hundreds of villages where the position is similar. Our amendment intends to provide that where one registration official is appointed he will have to keep two registers and that separteness will thus be put into practice. We do not want one register beginning with Piet van der Merwe and that the next name will be Jan Adoons. Why is the Minister unable to agree to that? No he wants it to be vague. There is a sinister scheme at the back of his mind why he does not want to do it. I have explained it fully. In every field separateness is being applied more and more today. When a new post office is erected or a new Magistrate’s Office, provision is made for separateness. In connection with new works a line of distinction is being drawn everywhere and it should now be clear to us why the Minister does not want clarity on this point in the Bill.

If I understood the Minister correctly he says that his right to have separate bureaux and registers is based on Clause 12 (1), which reads as follows—

1. (a) maintain a register of all workseekers under his jurisdiction ….

Yes, that is so.

Then I want to make a bet with the Minister. I do not wish to give him a lot of money because that is not due to him, but I want to tell him that I am prepared to pay the expense of taking independent legal opinion from one of the leading counsels in Cape Town. If I am wrong I will pay the expense. If the Minister is wrong he must pay it, but then at least one would expect the Minister to alter it. The Minister says his legal advisers tell him that he is right. I want him to take an independent opinion in Cape Town from legal counsel.

Surely our law advisers are independent.

There is a difference between a practising barrister and one who works for the Government. The practising lawyer has to back up his opinion in court, and if he is wrong he gets no more work. One employed by the Government just does his best but takes no risk. That is an argument I have heard used hundreds of times. I was looking at the native representatives but they all seem to have gone home. I was wondering whether the Minister made a promise to them.

I did not.

When I went out to have tea a moment ago they were terribly upset because this matter was brought up. I thought the Minister had made a promise to them. If he has not, I do not know. I do not wish to refer to the Minister’s obstinacy, because an obstinate man is not always a strong man. But I feel that I am not bringing up this matter because I want to make political capital out of it. If he does not accept my amendment he must realise that all the gentlemen opposite will be bound, and if political advantage is taken of this the people in the country can say that members opposite do not want separate areas.

That will not be true.

You will have to stand the consequences. The Minister cannot adopt an irresponsible attitude. It is no good members opposite saying later that they do not agree; they have to stand or fall by it. I think most of them appreciate that that is the position. Now I want the Minister also to appreciate what he is doing. He is pushing his supporters into a position where they have to back him, and they will have to stand the political consequences at a later stage outside. These things are published in the Press and political capital is made of it, and rightly so, because we on this side stand for separateness. The hon. Minister cannot say he stands for it and then still persist in the attitude he adopted today and propose something in the Bill which is adverse to it. We will divide on the matter but I want the hon. gentlemen opposite to appreciate that in these circumstances they take responsibility, if they vote for it of being charged with agreeing with it.

I came in a little while ago and I listened very carefully to the arguments advanced here. This side of the House wants to make sure that in terms of Clause 12 there will be one register for Europeans and a separate register for nonEuropeans. That We definitely want—that the register shall not be a mixture of European and non-European names. The contention of the Minister is that as a result of Clause 2 the register which will be drawn up in terms of Clause 12 will have to be separate for Europeans and non-Europeans. I must honestly say that I have carefully scrutinised Clause 2 and also this Clause and that I cannot understand how any legal adviser can contend that in terms of Clause 12 separate registers will have to be kept. If in terms of Clause 2 the Minister makes the law applicable in certain areas to different classes and if he groups Europeans in one class and non-Europeans in another class, then of course separate registers will have to be kept in terms of Clause 12, because in that case separate employment offices will also have to be appointed for the different classes. One official will then be the emplyoment officer for the European class of workers and he will keep a register for European unemployed only. But where do you find in Clause 2 that the Minister has to specify separate classes of workers according to the colour of their skin. It nowhere says that he must do so, and neither, does it stipulate that he must indicate the separate classes. He may now tell us that it is his policy to do so. The question is not what he is going to do but what any other Minister who may succeed him is going to do. Suppose, for instance, that in terms of Clause 2 a Minister is going to specify a class in Pretoria as cabinet makers. That does not apply to Europeans only and neither to coloureds only—the class is that of cabinet makers. That will mean that Europeans and non-Europeans will all be included in that class of cabinet makers. If an employment officer is appointed for that class, then his appointment is in respect of all cabinet makers whether European or non-European, and in that case he cannot keep separate registers in terms of Clause 12 because there will be no separate employment officers. That to me is as clear as daylight. Under Clause 12 he can only differentiate between European and non-European if he has already done so under Clause 2 and Clause 2 does not compel him to do so as far as the classes are concerned. If the Minister tells us that it is his policy to do so, well, then it may be his policy to specify separate classes for Europeans and non-Europeans under Clause 2, but that may just as well not be the policy of his successor and if the latter refuses to do so we cannot force him to do it because the law puts no obligation on him to do it. The Minister will perhaps also tell us that in a place like Boshof it is practically impossible to specify separate classes for Europeans and non-Europeans and to appoint two employment officers for these classes, namely one for the Europeans and one for the non-Europeans. Having said that, he is powerless under Clause 12 to keep separate registers for Europeans and non-Europeans. I have often heard it said that one should not be obstinate. If the Minister honestly tells us that it is his policy to keep Europeans and non-Europeans separate under Clause 2 and to specify them as separate classes, what possible objection can he have against incorporating this amendment in Clause 12 so as to leave no room for doubt? That will not harm the Bill. That cannot make the application of the law more difficult, for he tells us that that is his policy. If that really is his policy how on earth can there be any objection against accepting this small amendment to Clause 12. Then he will avoid this long discussion and all this bad feeling and these reproaches of obstinacy which are being thrown across the floor of the House. Parliament can work so smoothly if people only want to be a little more accommodating and will consider and try to realise the point of view of the other side. How smoothly would the legislative machinery be running then. But when a Minister simply refuses and causes a prolonged debate here, time is being wasted and afterwards feelings become unnecessarily heated. The Minister can sometimes smile so charmingly in this House and pay such nice compliments. Is it impossible for him to be a little bit more charming this time? He is a much more pleasant person if he is a little bit more friendly and accommodating. Then he is also a much better Minister, and his legislation will be much better. This amendment cannot harm his Bill but can only improve it and it will merely enable him to apply better what, according to his statement, is his policy. Why then be so obstinate? I want to appeal to the Minister to view the matter in this light and to accept the amendment.

This principle is a very serious matter to us. It is a principle which deeply affects the life of the worker. It affects the entire relationship between Europeans and non-Europeans and for that reason I want to appeal very earnestly to the Minister to accept this amendment. The fact is that the policy of a country is reflected in the legislation of that country and not in the promises and verbal undertakings of a Minister. The Minister may make a promise dozens of times but the fact is that it does not appear on the Statute book. As the Bill reads now it is quite obvious that no court of law in this country and no legal man of name will interpret it as prescribing that a difference be made on the basis of race or colour. These words are not open to that interpretation and as they stand here it means certain classes of workers including both Europeans and nonEuropeans and no court of law can put a different interpretation on it.

The hon. member is now repeating arguments which have been used before.

I only want to emphasise that we want to clarify the position in this legislation.

But the hon. member should not repeat arguments which have already been put forward.

It is our duty to protect the European workers. The European workers look to us to secure this protection for them; and not only they, but we also have our duty towards the non-European workers. Today feelings in this country are of such a nature that we have to proceed very carefully and very judiciously in regard to legislation and particularly in regard to legislation affecting racial questions, in order to prevent clashes taking place between European and nonEuropean groups. That is the reason why it is of the utmost importance that our legislation shall be very clear and distinct. European workers and non-European workers must receive proper protection and our machinery must be so devised that the least possible friction will be caused between the European and the non-European workers. When we look at existing conditions we notice that in Pretoria we have already had the case of Europeans and non-Europeans having to go to the same office, resulting in clashes and serious threats of trouble. If we pass legislation of this nature without amendments we only increase that possibility of clashes occurring. It has repeatedly been said here and I cannot but emphasise it again that this proposal does not mean a slap in the face for the non European worker but that it will only mean that we shall prevent friction. It is the policy of our people as such that European and non-European must be kept in their separate spheres.

The hon. member should not now repeat all those arguments

The people fell that way and we have to demand from the Minister, even if we have to repeatedly do it, that he should give effect to the policy of separateness which the people demand. To us this is a very serious question, a vital question, and the Minister should comply with the we want to clarify the position in this Question put: That the words “a register of all” in line 60, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Clause, Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—59:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowker, T. B.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

Cilliers, H. J.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Davis A.

De Kock, P. H.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Friedman, B.

Gray, T. P.

Hare W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henny, G. E. J.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

McLean, J.

Madeley. W. B.

Molteno, D. B.

Morris, J. W. H.

Oosthuizen, O. J.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Wanless, A. T.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Williams, H. J.

Tellers: J. P. Fourie and J. W. Higgerty.

Noes—30:

Bekker, G. F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Le Roux, J. N.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. L.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Mentz, F. E.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Potgieter, J. E.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wilkens, J.

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

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendments dropped.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 13 put.

I move—

Agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 16th May.