I move as an amendment—

The procedure the Government proposes to adopt is that of fixing a quota of 50 for every one of the countries not on the scheduled list, and they proceed to establish a sort of floating quota of 1,000. My amendment is to delete that particular section and do away with that form of machinery, and substitute something to allow the Governor-General in Council in the case of any particular country to extend this quota of 50 wherever he deems it desirable in the interests of the agricultural, mining and industrial development of the Union. The Government would do that by proclamation in the “Gazette,” extending that quota. I consider, and I believe many hon. members do, that a better way of doing it than having this board. I cannot imagine anything more invidious than the work this board will have to carry out. They will have to allocate 1,000 amongst the rest of the world—so much for one country, so much for another, and nothing at all for another. In this particular case, there is no limit at all, and the Government, when satisfied that the needs of the occasion demand it, can extend the quota. Take the case last year of the influx of immigrants from Belgium and Holland in connection with the diamond-cutting industry. I understand there were 900 of them. The Government in future could, if they were not on the favoured list, extend their quota. Take the case of the Argentine, which is not on the favoured list. Supposing the trek Boers, 1,000 or more of them, decide to return to this country, the quota could be extended to any particular figure the Government desires. It is more favourable than what they ask for.

I move as an amendment—

My object in moving this, and I say it quite frankly, is that I do feel, because of the temper unfortunately displayed by the Minister and the lines he has taken in the matter, that there shall be some safeguard that the board shall be appointed for a definite period, because, if one is to judge of what might take place in the light of the Minister’s attitude on this Bill, I am afraid that while nominally we will have a board, in reality it will be so dependent on the Minister that in effect you might have no board at all, but leave it to the Minister. In order to make it, to some extent, impartial, it is desirable that the board shall hold office for a period, and that it shall be independent of the whim or the desire of the Minister. I want to assure the Minister that in spite of what took place last night I am not dealing with the matter in a party spirit. I want to improve the Bill. I am, however, prepared to retain Clause 2 rather than accept the amendment of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), because I can conceive that under that amendment not a single person would be admitted to the Union. It might be said that there was an agricultural depression in South Africa, and that no person could in consequence be allowed into the country. A similar statement might be made with regard to mining or industry generally, and the Minister might say “we are passing through a depression, and I am not going to allow anyone in at all”. I am sure that would be a distinct hardship. Under Clause 2 as it stands there may be an opportunity for the Minister to deal with the matter in a more reasonable way. The Minister referred to the position of the Afrikaans speaking people who are at present in the Argentine, and I can quite see that under the amendment of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout it would be practically impossible for the Minister to make arrangements to allow them to come into the Union. I have no objection to their coming into the Union, and I want facilities given to them. During the last few days I have had scores of telegrams from people who are at present domiciled in South Africa, and who want to know what is to be their position, and that of their children and relatives, after the 1st of May. Even in America, Australia and Canada, wherever there has been restrictive legislation, one principle has been recognized, and that is that as far as possible families shall not be broken up. Under the clause of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout it is almost impossible for people already resident in South Africa who want to bring out wives and children, or parents or near relatives, to get the necessary permission. Therefore I prefer the clause already in the Bill, because administered by a reasonable Minister, and I have no doubt that the present Minister will be reasonable, there will be some opportunities given to people already in the country of bringing their families and relatives to South Africa.

I must say that I was astonished at the amendment of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell). I concluded from the speeches and previous amendments of the hon. member that it was his intention to open the door wider for immigrants from the countries which were being restricted. His new amendment is diametrically opposed to that, and not only closes the door more to them, but will also keep out quite a number of persons which he himself would like to have in the country in some other way. If the amendment is passed, the Governor-General will be able by proclamation to exceed the quota of 50 for various countries, merely in the interests of agriculture, mining, or industries. If it is put that way, South Africa will, e.g., not be able to allow the farmers in the Argentine to come in as soon as the quota is exhausted. I want to leave that very capacity in the hands of the board of control to be able in such a case to exceed the fifty. Then there is a great number of people Who are British subjects by birth, and there is no reason to exclude them. They belong to the British blood, or the parents come from the countries which are not restricted, and we are keen on having them. The hon. member, however, is going to exclude them by his amendment. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) has already pointed out that under the unallotted thousand who will still be admitted, there will be many women and children of people domiciled in this country. Clause 3 specially provides that such women, children under 20 years, and needy and aged parents, or grandparents, can fall under the thousand.

Do you propose it?

It is in the Bill. The hon. member moves to keep all the people on the land, and I must say that I think that he has not read the Bill very well. His supporters would undoubtedly be astonished if I accepted the amendment in that form. The hon. member for Troyeville moved an amendment to appoint the board definitely for two years. I think it is undesirable because I have already said that I have the idea of appointing officials who are in a position of being able to decide particularly well, on that board; people who are outside of politics like the Director of Census, the Director of the Land Bank, and the Chairman of the Board of Trade and Industries. If there should happen to be a new Director of Census, the retiring director will still be on the board, and that would lead to absurdities. The Government may also require officials for something else, and must surely be able to transfer them from one department to another. The restricted time of service would make this almost impossible. It is therefore better for the Government to appoint the persons for a certain period, not exceeding a certain number of years. If the hon. member wants to put “two years” in the place of “one year” I am prepared to accept it. That will not cause great difficulties.

I quite agree with the criticism of the Minister of the Interior in so far as he deals with the minor children of persons in the Union. I had an amendment to deal with that particular aspect if the Minister would be prepared to amend my alternative scheme. I proposed to move, under section 9, a third sub-section which will exempt the wife or child under the age of 21 of any person who, at the commencement of the operation of the Act was in residence in the Union. That would meet the difficulty of the Minister in accepting my amendment. I cannot understand Clause 3. The Minister allows 50 people from these unscheduled countries to come in without any qualification whatever. They do not have to be of good character, readily assimilable, nor likely to be harmful to the economic, cultural or industrial welfare of the Union, etc. Fifty can come in subject to such regulations as the Minister may prescribe, but no indication is given of the characteristics those fifty must have. But when you come to the 1,000, they are only admitted under definite limits; that is, good character, assimilable, not likely to be harmful to the economic, cultural, or industrial welfare of the Union, etc., on the recommendation of a board.

I want to support the amendment of the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) if only because it is in the interests of the Minister himself. I also dissent from the view that the board should be composed of officials. It may sound all right, but I would be very sorry to be an official who is appointed for one year, or possibly less, because you will notice the reading of the clause—

I should be very sorry to be in that position and form part of an examining board for a period of 12 months, especially when we try to understand what was in the Minister’s mind when he drafted the Bill. You have to read Clause 3. I read it to get some idea of what the Minister was driving at in appointing a board of officials for 12 months. In the selection of this 1,000, every person so admitted must be: firstly, of good character; secondly, is, in the opinion of the board, likely to become readily assimilated with the inhabitants of the Union and to become a desirable citizen of the Union within a reasonable period after his entry into the Union; thirdly, is not likely to be harmful to the economic, cultural or industrial welfare of the Union; and, fourthly, does not and, in the opinion of the board, is not likely to pursue a profession, occupation, trade or calling in which, in the opinion of the board, a sufficient number of persons is already engaged in the Union to meet the requirements of the inhabitants of the Union. Now, with all these sub-sections 2, 3 and 4, giving specific qualifications and specific non qualifications which, in my opinion, cover the whole gamut of qualification and non-qualification, when you precede that with a concurrent qualification (sub-section 2) as to being readily assimilable, then we read into it considerably more than appears on the surface. What does the Minister mean? I could understand the position of the official if he had admitted a person not readily assimilable into the political life of the country, in the opinion of the Minister. I can well understand the position of the poor unfortunate official. Would be not get it? I do urge upon the Minister, in order to move suspicion from himself as to his motives, and, possibly, his actual acts of administration in advance, that it would be just as well if he agrees to the suggestion made by my hon. friend. Let them be appointed for two years definitely, and not to be removable except, of course, on the gravest grounds which would be reported to Parliament, and acquiesced in by Parliament, if those grounds were sufficient. There is another point in regard to this question of officials. In addition to the danger to the officials, the painful position of the officials, there is this question as to whether or not it is not desirable to have some representative of the general public on the board, more particularly that section of the public which is most likely to be affected by these restrictive measures. I am not going to move it. I merely suggest to the Minister that it is undesirable to have all officials. It is better to have members of the public on the board who are not affected from a political point of view by the Minister’s statement or suggestions.

That is quite possible under the Bill as it stands.

Yes, but the Minister indicated in his second reading speech that he proposed to appoint all officials. I think that goes without saying. It has been indicated clearly to the House that that is the Minister’s intention, and I submit that it is not desirable. There is another point as to the period of the appointment. Make it two years. You are doing no harm by it, and you are giving confidence to those who oppose the Bill. Let the Minister give an indication to the House that he is prepared to consider representatives from, at least, that section of those who desire to be the incoming public, and are most largely affected by the Bill.

I ask the Minister to explain how the board proposes to discharge the functions imposed upon it by Section (4). Under Clause 1, no person born in a country outside the Union can enter unless he is approved and has in his possession written authority to enter the Union. He cannot leave the ship unless be is in possession of that written authority to enter the Union. Under Section (3), when the selection board commences to function, apparently it has to deal with applications for leave to enter the Union, and it has to consider certain points, such as the suitability of the applicant, his occupation, his appearance and so on. That presupposes that the applicant is able to appear before the board. But he may not be able to reach the board. In fact, he cannot reach the board, because, under Section (1), he may not leave the ship unless he has already received written authority to enter the Union. I would like the Minister to explain how this is to be dealt with in practice.

I do not know why the hon. gentleman should lay it down that the Bill assumes that the board can only make its selection when the applicants have personally appeared before it. If that were required, it would make the work of the board absolutely impossible. The procedure, of course, is this: When applicants wish to come to South Africa, they must send in their applications to certain persons, among others, our representatives overseas, whether we send them directly or use the British consular service in the various countries. They send in their applications by way of filling in certain forms with the information required. Of course, our representatives overseas are in a position to find out more about these applicants, and they make their observations to us. All those applications, with all this information, will be sent to the board, and the board will select the best. This brings me to what the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) has said. I frankly admit that what he says is quite correct, namely, that we are going to select. I told the House in the second reading debate that with regard to countries under restriction, the whole basis of our immigration law is going to be changed, as far as the unrestricted countries are concerned. There is no change so far as the restricted countries are concerned. Our laws are not merely prohibitive, but restrictive. Out of a large number of possible immigrants we select the best. I think that is a sound position.

I am not satisfied with the reply of the hon. the Minister. It seems to be in contradiction with other parts of the Bill. Another section confers discretion on the board. The board must pass its judgment having regard to the principles laid down here. It appears that this board is never to see an applicant at all. It is, however, going to take upon itself this responsibility of applying these principles. First of all, for the information of Parliament, it must say that every person specified in the annual list is a person complying with the requirements of Section (3). The first requirement is that before the board may, in its discretion, admit any person into the Union, he must be a person of good character, and the board must be satisfied that he is a person of good character. It is a remarkable thing to learn now that the examination is to be conducted by post, and some unspecified persons are to prepare reports on applicants, whether they are in South America, eastern Europe, or in other parts of the world. The persons who may be nominated by the Minister, or are on the consular staffs, send in their reports, and the board may come to a conclusion in regard to each applicant whether he is a person of good character, not because they have any information of their own, but because they have been furnished with certain reports through a third party. Then the board must certify to Parliament that, in its opinion, the applicant is likely to be readily assimilable with the inhabitants of the Union. One would think that the board should have some slight understanding of the requirements of the Union if they are to act upon a written report sent in by some person, say, in Bolivia or Patagonia, that the applicant, in the opinion of that officer, is likely to be readily assimilable. We have this Bill reduced to this pass that Parliament may have a report put before it that applicant “A,” who was admitted to the Union, is a person who is readily assimilable, because, in the opinion of a gentleman living 6,000 miles away, and who has probably never seen the Union, be is a desirable person to admit to the Union. The whole thing becomes a perfect gamble. It would be simpler to give effect to the real intention of the Minister as now disclosed, to insert a new section to the effect that any person can be admitted if the board thinks fit. A further requirement specifies that the person so admitted must be one who, in the opinion of the board, is not likely to be harmful to the economic, cultural or industrial welfare of the Union. That is a rotund phrase, which reminds me irresistibly of the hon. gentleman’s pontifical manner—economic, cultural or industrial welfare! I take the case of a man who approaches an official in Patagonia, and that official reports that “A” is not likely to be harmful to the industrial welfare of the Union. The board will solemnly sit down and declare that an applicant, say, from Patagonia, “is not likely to be harmful to the economic, cultural or industrial welfare of the Union.” Then we come to the second requirement; the board must certify the applicant “does not and is, in the opinion of the board, not likely to pursue a profession, occupation, trade or calling in which, in the opinion of the hoard, a sufficient number of persons is already engaged in the Union to meet the requirements of the inhabitants of the Union.” The Minister should explain what value we should attach to the opinion of a board which so far from seeing the applicant, is wholly dependent for its information on the opinion of officers who have not the slightest acquaintance with conditions in the Union.

I support the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter). The House has affirmed the principle of the Bill, but do not let ns pass legislation which will make a laughing stock of us. It would be a physical impossibility for the board to establish direct personal contact with any of these applicants. In no case will the board ever set eyes on an applicant, because no applicant will be allowed to enter the Union. In the second place, no applicant is going to attempt to reach the Union until he has obtained his papers; so this will be a matter of correspondence by post.

The postal vote business.

It will be open to the same abuses, and bogus J.P.’s will certify that a man will not be an encumbrance. Take Lithuania, for instance. We have no representative in that country, and I should think that after this law, if we sent one there, he would be kicked out. Suppose an unfortunate Lithuanian peasant desires to come to South Africa, to whom is he to apply for a certificate? I suppose he would go to the British consul, who would have no knowledge whatever of South Africa. So the functions of the board are going to be usurped by British consuls and other people who are not officials of this Union. This would reduce the board to an utter farce. Having accepted the main principle of the Bill, we want to help the measure along, but the Minister’s explanation will not hold water. The board will simply function as a rubber stamp, and its members will simply be passengers, as there will be nothing for them to do, How is the board going to report to Parliament? Will it go through the solemn farce of certifying that certain applicants for admission into the Union complied with the conditions? It is a physical impossibility for the board to carry out, in a proper manner, the duties laid upon it. That being the case, we cannot allow the clause to go through as it is. I move—

I think the House is more and more getting the impression that some hon. members at any rate are not serious. The hon. member who has just spoken, speaks in an airy manner about postal ballot papers which were falsified—

I can prove it.

But if that is the case, if the hon. member knows who the persons are, why does he not report the matter to the police? If the hon. member knows of it he must surely have sufficient interest in the matter as a member of Parliament to see that no fraud is committed. This only shows how little in earnest that hon. member, at any rate, and certain other Icon, members, regard this very serious matter which we are engaged in and which is being followed with much interest in the country.

Why are you insulting us? Why do you not give any arguments?

In the first place this system which we wish to employ is followed by the country that hon. members have quoted as an example, viz., the United States. The United States formerly used the system which hon. members want to be introduced. Applicants who wished to come to the United States had first to go to Ellis Island to see whether they were to be admitted. A whole island was required for the purpose and everything was done at Government expense. There are only two possibilities; to follow the system which is here proposed, or to create an Ellis Island in South Africa. What, in any case, is gained by the applicants coming here? If the applicants from overseas, whom no hon. member of the House has ever seen before, were to arrive here by ship, and appear before the House, what possibility is there for the House to get better information about those persons to judge whether they are suitable for admission, than the information the House gets according to the system mentioned in the Bill?

Then the board is merely a farce.

I ask the hon. member and hon. members of the House whether they have ever heard of any appointment made here—I am not even speaking of the public service—in a school or a business where it is a rule that all applicants should appear before they make written application? If, therefore, it is desired that all applicants from overseas must first appear in person I think that some hon. members, and in particular the hon. member for Barberton (Col. D. Reitz) are not serious about the matter.

We have brought forward a perfectly valid argument proving that this board is going to be a farce and there is nothing for them to do. They will never see a single applicant.

What assistance will that be?

We say why have this board at all? A sergeant of police in one of these countries certifies a man is all right. That will have to go, and that is reducing the board to a farce. I would not like to sit on it. The Minister drew a wholly faulty parallel. Sometimes appointments are admittedly made by local boards, about local matters, without the applicants being seen by the board, but is that a fair parallel? Here they always have the opportunity of ascertaining from local people who the applicants are. When it comes to relying on Lithuania, Patagonia or a sergeant of police in Peru, it is a wholly different matter. Here is a matter of importance which affects the whole future of an immigrant and his family; we admittedly appoint a board which has no method of satisfying itself. The Minister charged me with flippancy—

The hon. member must confine himsef to the motion, that this clause stand over.

The Minister accused me of having made flippant charges with regard to postal voting, and I link it up with this motion, because the applications which come before this board will resemble postal voting.

interrupted.

I hope we will be able to prove the charges in the law courts one of these days. Has the Minister ever considered, and the point is germane, because he does not know whether the sergeant in the Argentine, say, or other official, who purports to sign, certifying the quality of the immigrant, is actually in existence. Has the Minister ever stopped to consider whether it is possible or not—[ ask the Minister of Justice to deal with it that if I sign “Piet van der Westhuizen,” who is absent, and sign the application form “John Wilkinson, J.P.,” nobody knows whether there is a John Wilkinson.

Are there such cases, or is it party tactics?

I am merely saying that such cases happen here, and how much more is it going to happen when a document comes from Lithuania, Patagonia and the other countries? Does the Minister of Justice realize I can sign an absent voter’s name? There is no risk attached to that.

How do you know?

It has been told to me by a man who has done it.

Give me his name and I will deal with it.

I ask the Minister to leave the question of prosecution out. I am not talking in the party sense; we are all interested in tightening up the law.

Then assist us.

I want to do so. How is the Minister going to trap a man who is absent? When the voting form comes back I will sign again. You may prove in court the signatures are faked, but you cannot prove who faked them. A postal ballot paper comes in, and you may suspect there is something wrong with it. How, during the counting, can you find out whether the voter signed that paper. I point this out, and I can assure the Minister that his postal voting clause does not hold water. If malpractices of this kind can be indulged in under a measure which the collective wisdom of the other side of the House was exercised upon, how is the same system under this Bill going to work with officials overseas discharging duties in connection with it?

There will be passports.

We are setting up a board, and the only possible way the board can decide is on information they receive from people they never see. I can quite conceive that if this Bill goes through, in certain ports in Europe and America, there will be quite a little industry in the faking of forms to be sent to the board.

I am sorry the Minister thinks that when one asks for information that is a sign of insincerity. I am anxious to simplify the procedure under the Bill. I understand that the real examination of proposed immigrants will take place in the places of origin. That, I think, is right, because it would be undesirable to put people to the expense of coming to the Union, only for them to be sent back again. I am not sure what are going to be the functions of this board. When I look at the next clause I find that if any person approaches the board directly or indirectly on behalf of a proposed immigrant, that immigrant will immediately be declared a prohibited immigrant. How is that immigrant going to get to the board, unless through someone who is in the Union? Say a resident here approaches the board on behalf of his own parents. Those parents may immediately be declared prohibited immigrants. There are thousands of people who are very much concerned about this matter. The Minister has told us he has practically got all the machinery ready. If that is so, I think he should be in a position to give a very simple exposition of the methods that will be carried out, so that the public will know exactly what will have to be done. If the Minister is not clear in his mind as to the methods to be adopted, he should agree to this clause standing over until he has definitely worked out the system to be followed.

It is a profound disappointment to me to find that all that has been done on this side of the House to make his Bill presentable has called forth a statement from the Minister that the members endeavouring to assist him are not in earnest. I am certainly very earnest in trying to point out something that seems to me to be important for one reason, if for no other, that one would like to see Parliament retain its reputation for common sense. Let us come to Section 2, sub-section (1) to see what the functions of the board are. The board is to be appointed for the purpose of selecting immigrants for entry. Then under sub-section 2 of Section 3, a return of all persons permitted to enter the Union during any calendar year, and the grounds upon which such permission is based, is to be laid on the table of the House within a month after the commencement of the first session of Parliament after the conclusion of that year. I do not think Parliament would have any opportunity of discussing the matter. As the clause stands, such a return would contain no information. Let me stop to consider what the forms which will be used will be. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister, if his regulation forms are ready, to place them on the table. What sort of questions are to be put to the immigrant by this supposititious sergeant of police in Patagonia? He has to send in a report which must deal with the good character of the applicant. What questions will this energetic sergeant put? “Are you a person of good character …. ?”

“Are you a good Nationalist ?”

I have no doubt his political views will be questioned.

“Are you assimilable?”

No, we are coming to assimilability later on. I assure hon. members this is no laughing matter. This is a serious project fresh from the legislative brain of the hon. the Minister. Surely he will not mind my testing the problem. The sergeant of police will go further. He will ask, “Have you been convicted; do you go to church on Sunday morning; what are your political opinions?” How is he to establish good character? Imagine this conscientious, highly-paid, and intelligent board of immigration—the rubber stamp board, we will call it—receiving the report of the sergeant of police from Patagonia.

You think there should not be a board at all ?

Well, that would be a blessing, but we will take our blessings one at a time.

You would like the Bill to go altogether?

As I say, we will take our blessings singly. It might be a great advantage to let the board go. Imagine this board dealing with paper 1 of the Malan international immigration examination. Let us picture these conscientious, highly-paid and intelligent gentlemen when they are receiving the report from the Patagonian sergeant and are called upon to exercise their own discretion. They are not going to be satisfied with a mere verbal answer to the question; the good judgment and integrity of the sergeant will come under review. Perhaps the applicant might have been the sergeant’s brother, or one of his creditors. The board will stultify itself in this way: “We have an application from ‘A,’ whom the intelligent sergeant of police has certified, and we, ‘B,’ ‘C’ and ‘D,’ hereby certify to Parliament that he is a person of good character.” Let us suppose that Parliament disagrees with that. Now the question arises as to whether any reliable information has been received about “A,” excepting that the sergeant of police said he was a good fellow. We pass on to examination paper No. 2. This will be headed, “Capacity for assimilation.” This is the next question the Minister has to deal with; I suppose the form will embody a question on the point to which the applicant will reply, and the question will be, “Are you likely to be readily assimilated with the inhabitants of the Union?”

I think the Minister ought to pay the House the compliment to give a reply to these very pertinent questions which have excited the interest of the House—the interest of both sides—because we want a really good Bill. Therefore, with no apologies to hon. members opposite or those behind me, nor to the highly vocal eleven who objected to the Bill, I say that if one allows a piece of legislation to go through the House which has no meaning at all for Parliament generally, that would be ridiculous, even for a lawyer. We will assume the Bill goes through the formalities of first and second readings, and the committee stages. Parliament generally is supposed to know what is meant by every word and line in every Bill it passes. Here there is a board set up. Both sides of the House we have members who are anxious to know how the board will fulfil its functions. I have intervened to ask the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) to give us fuller information in order that we may be satisfied that the functions of the board will be performed in a practical manner.

I move—

I should like to ask which is the question now to be put?

The motion of the hon. member for Barberton (Col. D. Reitz), that Clause 2 stand over.

I want to point out some of the difficulties of this examination system, because, quite frankly, I do not think it is a practical one. I am dealing with the question of assimilability. I want to know what form this is to take under Clause 2 (b). The question that must be put by the sergeant of police is how far the applicant before him is likely to be readily assimilated with the inhabitants of the Union. When that question is put to the applicant, what will he say? He would say: “You know me. Tell me something about the inhabitants of the Union.” That is a natural question. You must remember that he is thousands of miles away, and is undergoing this examination, which is a very important matter to him. It is not a laughing matter. He will naturally say to the sergeant of the police: "What are these inhabitants of the Union? Are they Europeans or non-Europeans? Are they Bantu or Cape coloured inhabitants? Are they some of those who are called northerners, or are they the more liberal southerners of whom I have heard?” What is the sergeant of police to reply? What will the Minister tell him in his private instructions? After all, here is an applicant asking the most natural question. Is he to be told of all the sections of the inhabitants of the Union with whom he is supposed to be able to assimilate? I ask the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. J. F. T. Naudé), who moved just now for the application of the closure, if this is a matter of no importance? The applicant will be asked: “Are you likely to become a desirable citizen of the Union within a reasonable period after your entry?” The applicant will say: “Well, look at me,” and the board will say: “The sergeant looked at him,” and Parliament will say that the board has it from the sergeant that the applicant is a desirable citizen. A statement of these absurd questions illustrates the type of legislation which the committee is asked to place its seal. Clause 3 might be headed “Degrees of harmfulness.” Is the applicant likely to be harmful to the economic, cultural or industrial welfare of the Union?” If the sergeant were supplied with a copy of the year book, and were able to digest its 1,000 pages, he might be able to help the immigrant. I am puzzled about it, and the question will have to be considered when we come to part 3. I can understand the humble Patagonian sergeant telling the applicant that if he had, say, £20 in cash, he might not harm the economic foundations of the Union, or, perhaps, injure its culture. An applicant for admission to the Union may be considered from two points of view in addition to the others. Is he likely to be harmful to the industrial welfare of the Union, is he going to make money or lose money? A part of the examination of the applicant must be conducted in Patagonia and the remainder in the Union. First the board will have to receive a report from our Patagonian sergeant.

There are no sergeants in Patagonia.

They are all generals, like Creswell’s army.

With the report of the sergeant before it, the board has to decide whether this applicant 6,000 miles away is likely to change his calling. Then we come to the gem of the examination paper. The applicant may have satisfied the sergeant in every possible way in which sergeants should be satisfied, and he may have a reasonable hope that he will pass the examination, and accordingly sends in his application paper to the Chief Immigration Officer at Pretoria. This is where the Minister, with a refined sense of humour, dashes away the cup from the applicant’s lips, because the Minister provides in sub-section (3) that if an applicant approaches any member of the board either directly or indirectly, he will never be admitted. Imagine the ridiculous result. The applicant, having passed the examination of the Patagonian sergeant and paid the fees, approaches the board through the Chief Immigration Officer. But that official rules that under sub-section (3), as the applicant has thereby approached members of the board either directly or indirectly, he will not be permitted to enter the Union. This is the new law we are asked to pass !

I make a serious appeal to the Minister to give to the House and to the country some simple statement, so that we can understand how an intending immigrant will be able to enter the Union. Although some members seem to be amused at the speech of the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter), he has effectively shown the difficulties with which intending immigrants may be confronted. In effect the clause might mean that, although we are told that a thousand people are to be allowed to enter the Union in addition to 50 from each non-scheduled country, in reality no one will be allowed to come in unless they happen to be Afrikaans-speaking people from the Argentine.

Is the Minister not going to give us the courtesy of a reply to these very serious questions which were raised in no spirit of levity? The Minister should either tell us he does not know the answer, or give us his reasons for not replying.

The last time the Minister spoke he informed us that the provisions under Section 3 were taken from the American immigration regulations, but what is practical under the American law may not be practical here. Some months ago three liners steamed at full speed across the Atlantic for Ellis Island, each endeavouring to be first so as to ensure that their passengers might have a better chance of appearing before the immigration board answering, perhaps, the very questions contained in this Bill. But we are not making it possible for our immigrants to be segregated, and to appear before the immigration board so that the board itself may decide whether their character, assimilability or culture is likely to compete with our own. I seriously suggest that these posers which have been put by the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) are questions which Parliament has the right to expect should be treated seriously. The Minister may have a perfectly good answer to the hon. gentleman’s question, but if so he has kept them to himself. The Minister is relying on a large measure of support from this side of the House to carry this Bill, and I would very much like to assist him. But I must be assured that the conditions are reasonable. It is no answer for the Minister to point out that the conditions have been taken from the American law, because he has assured us and the committee is relying on his assurance, that there is to be no Ellis Island here. I would very much like the Minister to intimate what it is this board will have to do. Take the committee into his confidence, and tell us how it is to satisfy Parliament under the four or five respective heads in Section 3.

I do hope the Minister is going to break his silence. I had the inestimable privilege of working in close contact with the hon. gentleman for four or five years, and found him invariably courteous. I am surprised to find him so different to-day, which I regret very much; I will put to him that it will be infinitely better if he will give a straightforward reply, how much he may resent the criticism levelled against himself, and, at any rate, give some suggestion to the committee. He would get along a good deal more quickly and be more forward than he is to-day with regard to this clause. Judging from the Minister’s conduct, it is a very happy thought, or lack of thought, that he did not include, as one of the examination questions, “are you polite?” because at once this individual would say: “If your standard of politeness is that of the Minister who drafted this Bill, I am afraid South Africa is no place for me.” The Minister does not know precisely the course of events in regard to these series of examination papers placed before candidates for the” Union Matric.” The Minister cannot conceive the course of events the candidate is going to go through. The thing is top-heavy and practically impossible. I am suspicious that, in the main, this clause is designed to keep people out, and not get people in. The Minister is, in effect, desirous of consummating his intention of allowing only 50 immigrants in in any one year, and does not propose these 1,000 prospective entrants to come into the Union; and I suggest that it is drawn up in this complicated fashion, so that none of the 1,000 will come in. Will the Minister be prepared to consider a request from these benches, at all events that the wives and families and the aged parents be permitted to come in, irrespective of the quota. The Minister would not split up a family.

I take it that the Minister and his department know how this clause is going to operate, and will affect intending applicants. If the Minister knows that, he can have no possible objection to telling the committee how he is going to work it. If he does not know, am I entitled to say to the Minister that the only object of the clause is to bluff the public of South Africa, or is it intended to be an open-door policy for the Afrikaans-speaking people of the Argentine ?

I move—

I move—

The object of this clause seems to be to prevent persons from approaching any member of the board directly or indirectly, and it seems to me that there is an offence created by the person who approaches the board or a member of the board. It is clear that an offence is created, but there is no provision made for a penalty. The clause goes on to say that the person whose admission is sought shall not be permitted to enter the Union under sub-section (1). It is also clear that the person on whom the penalty is to be inflicted, as provided for in this clause, is the person whose admittance is sought, and that seems to me a peculiar policy. The person who really commits the offence of approaching the board, whether he does it honestly or dishonestly, is allowed to go scot free, but the person whose admittance is sought may be punished for something he knows nothing about. Therefore, I think that the board provided for under the Bill should have the option. As the clause reads now, the board has got no option at all. If any person approaches a member of the board, then the person who seeks to enter is debarred from entering. I think that would be a very great hardship. We must not only think of making laws for honest people. There are people who may think it desirable to keep a certain person out, and they might go to a member of the board directly or indirectly, and the very fact that they have approached a member of the board will prevent the person seeking to enter from entering. The board will have no option. They cannot go into the case, and consider whether the person who approached a member of the board was honest or dishonest. We should amend the clause and give the board the option. I hope I have the right conception, and that the Minister will accept the amendment.

The amendment suggested should provide the acid test of the Minister’s mentality in regard to this Bill, in that-the amendment makes passably reasonable what is on the face of it utterly unreasonable. Up to now the Minister has showed no disposition to listen to a word of advice or criticism from this side of the House, though I can remember at the opening of the debate he said he hoped the matter would be discussed in a non-party manner. If you take the clause itself, it is midsummer madness. It says: “If a person approaches any member of the board directly or indirectly on behalf of any other person, the person whose admission is sought shall not be permitted to enter the Union.” So that if I hear an enemy of mine is entering the Union, and I do not want him to come in, all I have to do is to go to the board. That would not merely give discretion to keep him out, but would automatically close the door against him. I have never seen anything quite so futile as this in my public experience. I have heard of vicarious punishments before, but I should be astonished if we put on the statute book legislation entailing vicarious punishments of this kind. The hon. member for Cape Flats (Mr. Chiappini) has sought to soften some of the futility of this section by putting in the words “the board may decide that,” but I think the clause is not capable of suitable amendment, and I therefore move to delete it. I would say a word about sub-section (3). Not one of those 1,000 people can be admitted unless he can comply with the cumulative requirements of sub-sections (1), (2), (3) and (4); then there is the alternative section dealing with wives and children. The points are: good character, assimilability, etc. In sub-section (3) we read, he must satisfy the board that he is not likely to become harmful to the economic, cultural and industrial interests of the Union. I quite understand if someone says a prospective immigrant is harmful to its economic welfare. He might be a capitalist, and so, in the opinion of my hon. friend (Mr. Madeley), would be definitely harmful. He might be a trade union leader, and, therefore, in the opinion of the hon. the Minister of Defence, equally harmful. But I would like the Minister to tell us how he proposes to rule out someone as being harmful to the cultural interests of any inhabitants of the Union. I should be most grateful if the hon. the Minister of Defence, when I sit down, would solve this problem. I cannot understand how such a negative reading of the clause can be approved; I could quite understand it if the board were to encourage persons likely to be helpful to the economic, cultural or industrial welfare of the Union, but I cannot understand the clause in its negative form. As I understand it, a jazz pianist might be refused admission on the grounds that he was harmful to our cultural welfare.

Quite right.

My hon. friend says quite right. A writer of serious works might object to Mr. Edgar Wallace on the same grounds: it is all a matter of opinion. How can you evolve a concrete test to decide whether or not a person is harmful to our cultural welfare. I move—

I do not join in the general commination of this clause. One knows in public life that boards are subject to tremendous pressure and influence of various sorts in order to get their ends served. I think it is desirable to have a protective clause of this description. I do not agree with it as it is worded, but it is essential to have some precautions against improper influence. I, therefore, support the clause generally. Regarding sub-section (3), and the motion of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), as to its deletion, I support this the more readily because I also support the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Flats (Mr. Chiappini). It does seem to be an extreme form of vicarious-punishment to prevent someone coming in because someone else has intervened on his behalf. If a man has an enemy, and does not want that man to come here, he is likely to go to the board and say: “Let him in, he is a fine fellow, and a desirable, highly cultured gentleman.” On the Minister’s standard he might get a testimonial from the Minister of Labour as to the culture of the applicant. He might say: “A very fine fellow indeed; likely to fit in. He is highly cultured, and has got everything to fulfil, every particle and tittle, all the requirements.” They might say they are most anxious to get such a man here, and they might say: “For heaven’s sake, let this man come in,” but they do not want him to come in. Under the Minister’s Bill that is inevitable, and for all time that person is debarred from coming in. I appeal to the Minister favourably to consider the amendment that has been proposed.

I will define my attitude on the two amendments. First of all, I refer to the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Flats (Mr. Chiappini). I accept it, for I think it is an improvement of the Bill. I think that what he has brought forward is sound. I will also accept the other amendment. I think it is best if we put power into the hands of the selection board that that power should, as far as possible, be well defined. For these reasons, I am accepting the two amendments.

I am glad that the Minister has saved me the trouble of moving one of the amendments. But I should like the whole of that portion which refers to cultural welfare deleted. I want to move an amendment which I hope the Minister will accept—

Those are the words dealing with assimilability. The paragraph will then read—

I move this amendment because I think the Minister will agree that the objection which obtains to utilizing the word “culture” is, I think, as applicable, or probably more so, to the inclusion of this proviso. Who is going to define “assimilability”? What do you mean by it? If the lion. Minister means that they will not merely become adaptable to the conditions in the Union, but that they will be prepared to intermarry then a good many of the points put forward by the hon. member are essentially applicable. The question will arise when you talk of assimilability in the sense of intermarriage, whether you mean that the proposed applicant is prepared to inter-marry into the Afrikaans section of the population, the English section of the population, or with the coloured people of South Africa, or whether, like so many of the inhabitants in the past in South Africa have done, he is prepared to intermarry with the native in order to develop a coloured population of South Africa. That is a serious question. I cannot conceive that the Minister can contemplate that that should be the effect of assimilability. If it means that according to him it means that the clause in fact will be a mere blind. So far as the community which I represent is concerned it would close the door to them because they stand for purity of race. We should have some definition in the clause as to what is meant by the word assimilability. It is means that these people are going to adapt themselves, then I submit taking that test, a very large section of the people on whose behalf I am speaking in this House, are essentially assimilable. Unless you are prepared to put in a definition as to what you mean by the word assimilability you will not be doing a service to the intelligence of the people of this country.

I think the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) in discussing Clause 2 and incidentally Clause 3 of the Bill, introduced strong arguments why this paragraph should be amended. As the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) has suggested. I am surprised that nobody has brought a dictionary into the House this afternoon. We have had words like assimilable and assimilability and heaven knows what. I am sure many hon. members will confess that they do not know what those words really mean and how they are to be applied. I hope the hon. Minister will accept the amendment. Who is to decide who is assimilable? As has been pointed out, it may be somebody abroad who has never been in this country, and who does not know the people or the conditions of the people, and does not know to which section the word assimilability will apply. It may apply to the natives, the Bantu, the Zulus, the Nationalists, the South African party, or the two sections of the Labour party. I should like the hon. Minister to say whether he is prepared to accept this amendment or not.

I am willing to take up a reasonable attitude, but when an amendment is unreasonable, it is unreasonable to expect me to accept it. The amendment of the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) is not reasonable. The use of the word “criminal” is in conflict with the general principle of the Bill and the whole intention of the Bill. As I explained on the second reading, the whole principle of the measure is that we want in this country people who can be readily assimilated within a reasonable time. That being so, what is there wrong in laying down that this board should keep this point in mind? It is in conformity with the whole spirit of the Bill.

Did that principle obtain when it was decided last year to admit 1,379 Lithuanians and the other immigrants into this country? Did the Minister ask his representative overseas to enquire if these immigrants were likely to assimiliate with the people of the Union? Again, what is a “reasonable” period? Then what is to be done with the immigrant who does not assimilate within a reasonable time? I do not say the Minister is unreasonable, but that somebody at the back of him is very stupid. What opportunity will Parliament be given to enquire into the question of assimilability! The Bill is so full of silly suggestions that it will be impossible to carry it out.

I thank the Minister for agreeing to accept the two amendments moved from this side. My amendment has been introduced only in the spirit of trying to improve the Bill. I am entirely in sympathy with its main objects and any criticism I have made are dictated solely by a desire to help. This Clause 3 will probably create more difficulties for the lawyers than any other clause in the Bill. As to sub-section (3), why should not members of the board be approached by a husband on behalf of his wife or a parent on behalf of his child, so as to secure their admission to the Union? I cannot see why representations cannot be made in the ordinary way to the board, and I am sure if corrupt or undue representations are made, the board will be able to take the necessary steps on its own initiative. If the Minister insists that some such clause is necessary, I suggest—

The hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) suggests that a more appropriate wording would be, “with the authority of”. I want to support the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) in moving for the deletion of the words he did. It is almost impossible to know what the clause means, for the reason you cannot say who are the “inhabitants” of the Union. This Union has some 6,000,000 or 7,000,000 people in it, and less than 2,000,000 are Europeans, of all sorts and descriptions, and I submit it is putting an almost impossible task on the board to say what immigrants would be readily assimilable with the inhabitants of the Union. The Dutch word is “vereenselvig” which I understand means “identify”. Is it an exact equivalent of the English word to “assimilate”? We do not know whether the Bill will be signed in the English or the Afrikaans version. If he is likely to become a desirable citizen of the Union, that is all you need ask. These words are so elastic that the board will not allow a man in who is completely unassimilable. Then would the Minister look at sub-section (5), the proviso? The persons there mentioned should be admitted without a quorum, and should not be required to run the gauntlet of the board at all. If a citizen of the Union has a child, wife or aged parents, they should not have to run that gauntlet. The Minister should take this sub-section out, and put it in section 9, the exemption clause. This particular subsection is causing a good deal of heartburning amongst the Jewish people of South Africa, as they say they cannot bring out their children from Lithuania; they have to approach the board, and they are not allowed to approach it. We do it in the case of the Asiatics. The children and families of Asiatics already domiciled in South Africa are allowed into South Africa by virtue of their being the children and families of these Asiatics. But we say here that in the case of Europeans they shall not be allowed to come in, except as part of the 1,000 and that 1,000 may have been exceeded; and subject also to the approval of the board.

I would like to support the suggestion that sub-section (3) be deleted. A potential immigrant should be allowed a legal representative to approach the board which already has been made so unapproachable that an applicant can never appear before it in person. The board will make of itself a disembodied entity that nobody can approach it, and that seems to me to be carrying the matter too far. Why is it morally wrong for an applicant’s lawyer to appear? What is there wrong for an applicant’s lawyer to present the applicant’s certificate and testimonials before the board, in the event that he is inadequately represented by consular representatives? If the board is to be of such poor character that the fear is they may be bribed, it is only one argument in favour of not having the board at all. Then the Minister ought to give us a better definition of assimilable. Every hon. member will recall to memory the numerous occasions people have been called unassimilable; even the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan and the old Unionists have been called so.

So they are.

Some have changed their views.

Well, these recalcitrants are at any rate citizens of the country. I shall be very sorry to see what would be the result if these unassimilable old Unionists were to leave the country.

We are not going to send the Opposition out of the country, although they are unassimilable.

I am not joking. We have it from the Prime Minister that a very large percentage of the white population are not assimilable or assimilated. It depends, apparently, on their political beliefs. We must insist on a clearer definition of the word “assimilable”. I should be very sorry to have the Minister of the Interior sitting in judgment as to whether a citizen is assimilable or not. Sub-clause (5), as it stands, will part a mother from her children and a father from his sons. It would be like Uncle Tom’s Cabin, where the negro slaves were parted from their relatives under cruel conditions. The relatives of persons domiciled in the country, when applying for admission, will have to appear before the board and run the risk of being turned out by the board. It is conceivable that the board may stop the children of persons living in South Africa from entering. The machinery devised by the Minister is crude in the extreme, and may well produce injustice in a number of cases. I do hope that the Minister will give us his definition of assimilability. It would go on record for all time, and clear the air. I have been longing for fifteen years to have a Nationalist definition of assimilability. Even I have been excluded. I believe I am on the black list. Joking apart. I do think we are entitled to this definition I Have asked for.

I think there may be some misunderstanding about the meaning of subsection (3). I take it that the Minister does not intend that nobody shall be allowed to approach the board on behalf of an intending immigrant. I take it that what is intended is that individual members of the board shall not be pestered with direct or indirect applications of all sorts and kinds.

But the greater includes the lesser.

The board is a body which, I take it, can properly be approached.

If that is the intention we should recast the clause.

I move—

It would then be clear that the board, as a board, could be approached. I cannot imagine any objection to anybody putting forward reasons to the board why an intending immigrant should be admitted, but I think it is desirable to have some form of protection for individual members of the board who may be approached in all sorts of ways. I suggest the insertion of the words “individual members of the board.” Otherwise, some person who wishes to prevent an intending immigrant from coming in, may approach an individual member. With these words inserted I think the board could easily manage to deal with a case of a member being approached in bad faith. With regard to the amendment of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) respecting wives and families of men residing in the Union being admitted, I hope the Minister will agree to it.

With regard to the point just raised by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) I think we should add, and I move—

I merely give this suggestion to the hon. Minister because it is clear to me there might be complications. If a man came forward to try to damage the applicant’s character these words would cover his case. I hope the Minister of the Interior will grasp this point and accept an amendment to that effect.

I just want to make a few remarks in connection with the arguments of hon. members. Firstly, with regard to the remark by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) with reference to the use of the word vereenselwig in the Afrikaans translation for the English word assimilate. I do not think there can be any actual objection to it. It is one of the principles which arose at the start on introducing the Bill that every nation should have the right of keeping its population homogenous. If we could use the word homogenous then the word vereenselwig is quite appropriate for anyone who comes from abroad. I think that it is a better word than the word “aanpas” which is suggested by an hon. member.

Is assimileer not a good Afrikaans word ?

No, it is a corruption of English.

A point which was considerably criticized is that the board could not be approached by persons in their own interests or those of others to come into the country. I think that the clause, as drafted, includes not only the individual number of the board, but also the board itself as a whole, and I think it will be best to leave it as it stands. Hon. members must not forget that the way in which the application is to be made is laid down by the regulations. The way is indicated by the Bill, and I just want to call hon. members attention to Clause 8, paragraph (e) of the Bill, which provides—

What is the use of making regulations prescribing the way in which application must be made to obtain admission if we at the same time allow anyone to act contrary to the regulations, and go personally to the board or request an interview with the board. He would therefore get an advantage over the other applicants who do not have the opportunity of personally advocating their cause. I think it is only fair to all the applicants that a definite rule should be laid down and that everybody should observe it. If we leave the way open for friends, acquaintances, and other persons to receive the members of the board or the board as a whole with all kinds of requests, the lives of the members of the board would be intolerable. If we appoint such a board we must properly protect the members of it. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr, Duncan) had experience of this when he was in my place, and I, myself, had a similar experience, but that is nothing to what the board will have if we allow interested persons to make requests in person.

The Bill does not say that the Minister cannot he approached.

If he is pestered the Minister can point out that it is not in accordance with law to approach him.

I still hope that the Minister will so frame the clause that an applicant will have the right to approach the board as a board. The Minister says that the board will be flooded with requests. That may be, but our courts suffer in the same way. I know from personal experience that individual members of the board will probably be terribly pestered, and I agree that they should be protected. The board, however, exists to investigate claims and to examine the evidence. If we adopt the principle of creating a board then his work must also be done by the board. Otherwise we might just as well say that the courts might save a lot of time by hearing no evidence. It would be a great convenience to judges and magistrates to decide merely in accordance with the papers on the merits. We pay the members of the board a high salary and they will not be able to do the work properly without having people before them. I agree it means more work, but it is an elementary principle with us that when anyone asks something from the Government he has the right of approaching the Government personally, or through a representative. I cannot see why we should vary this, otherwise the board will get very vague information. All information they get will practically be from some sergeant of police or stationmaster overseas, and that seems to me insufficient. In certain cases I can imagine the board themselves coming to the conclusion that the applicants will not give sufficient information, and that they will want to see the consul of the Argentine, or of Lithuania, or a local persons to get more information. In the magistrate’s courts of lowest jurisdiction a person has the right of calling witnesses, and he cannot depart from that elementary principle of our law.

May 3 remind the hon. Minister that he has not replied to the representations made to him in regard to sub-section (5)? Our suggestion was that sub-section (5) should be deleted now for the purpose of being reinserted in Section 9, which would have the effect of allowing the wife and children or parent of a citizen of South Africa to enter the country, not under the restrictions of the quota, and not with the leave of the board. I am certain that many thousands of citizens in the Union of South Africa are looking with anxious eyes to what we are doing in this House this afternoon. I have told the Minister that under our previous legislation in regard to Asiatics, we said that whenever Asiatics were excluded from this country, we would always admit the wives and children of Asiatics actually domiciled in this country. It is unthinkable to me that in this legislation which we are now passing, we should treat the inhabitants of any European country or the inhabitants of Lithuania to be more precise, in a less generous manner than years ago we were prepared to treat the Asiatic inhabitants of this country. I dare not move sub-section (5) out, because, if I do so, and it is accepted, no provision whatever may be made for those people. I can only move it out with the consent of the Minister and on the common understanding that it will be put in again under the umbrella of Section 9. It will give these people the right of entering this country, not subject to the quota or by leave of the board. Supposing the quota of 1,000 is exhausted in the first nine months of the year, and a Jewish citizen with a wife and children in Lithuania wants to bring them here. He cannot do so, because the quota has been exhausted, and Section 3 forbids him to approach the board and say that he wants to bring his wife and children to this country. I hope the Minister will realize that that point is one of considerable importance. The Minister must appreciate the difficulties created by Section 3 as it is now. But the Minister is sound when he says he cannot allow a board of this nature to be bandied about by individual applicants in their individual capacity. The difficulty, however, still stands. The Minister said that the machinery for applications to the board will be described in sub-section (e) of Section 7, which prescribes the manner in which applications shall be made for permission to enter the Union in terms of Section 1. Does the Minister not see, as the matter now stands, that there is a direct conflict between sub-section (3) and sub-section (e)? Sub-section (e) says that if any person approaches any member of the board, either directly or indirectly, then that person may not enter. Sub-section (3) says that regulations may be made which prescribe the manner in which the application may be made.

The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan), who has more knowledge of the law than I have, said that the clause ought to be construed differently to the way hon. members are inclined to interpret it. He thinks that it is provided here that individual members of the board cannot be approached, but that the board, as a board, can be.

It is very vague.

To remove the ambiguity I am prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville, and to insert the words “individual member of” before “board,” so that no individual member may be approached. I want, however, to point out that in any organization there are fixed rules as to how a person must approach a superior person. Any member of the public service cannot at any time go to the Minister to submit his case, but must ultimately go to the Minister through his superior in the recognized way. Any court—and this is a court—cannot be simply approached by any person at any time. Rules have been laid down as to the way in which people must approach the court. For this reason the board will be able to make regulations as to the way in which it can he approached. As for the other points about the women and children, I think that if I accept the proposal that they should be allowed in freely that the Bill would, to a great extent, be rendered useless. When we, at a later stage, come to another clause and the amendment by the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge), I will explain the matter, but I want provisionally to say that I cannot accept it.

What about the Indians ?

I think that we are all very sorry that the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), who was Minister of the Interior at the time, drew the provision in that way. It was, however, an agreement we had to comply with, but the House knows that we made an arrangement with the Government of India, even if not at once, to gradually reduce this stream, and it is becoming less. I do not think we ought to quote this as a precedent for the insertion of a similar provision in this Bill.

The Minister this afternoon, as I understood him, has virtually admitted that in respect of the amendments I have moved on the question of “assimilability,” that the word is liable to misunderstanding. Surely if he cannot accept the amendment as I have moved it, to delete that portion altogether, he should satisfy himself that a person can become a desirable person. That should be the main object, to secure desirable citizens. If he cannot accept that, surely he might consider the desirability of accepting the simple translation of the word which appears in the Afrikaans copy of the Bill. I am informed by an hon. member who is well qualified to speak, that the word used in the Afrikaans copy means “identify.” I have no objection to say that anyone coming here shall identify himself. In fact I am most anxious for it. All those who feel with me in connection with this Bill have always been most anxious to identify themselves with the requirements of the people of South Africa. It is a matter of very considerable controversy as to what assimilability really means. A great German writer has devoted considerable attention to this point, and says that, according to one theory, it means racial homogeneity. Surely the Minister does not expect that, for he would not like South Africa to develop as some of the southern States of America are developing. That being so, why not use a simpler word? The Minister should either accept the amendment, or use the word “identify,” so that immigrants will know that it is expected that they will become good citizens and good South Africans.

I could not accept the amendment.

With regard to the admission of women and children, the Minister made an extremely unfortunate comparison, for he compared immigrants from Lithuania and elsewhere with undesirable Asiatics.

I was replying to an argument.

It was a very unfortunate comparison. We are dealing with citizens of the Union who are already here, yet they are classed with undesirable Asiatic immigrants. The fundamental difference is that the sub-clause deals with relatives of a citizen of our country, although the Minister may not like him, but the fact remains that be is a citizen. He may have been a citizen for all his life, and went to the Argentine, Lithuania or Russia, and married there; he may be on the voters’ roll, and a member of Parliament, for all we know. Under this clause he is told,” I shall be very sorry to allow your wife, mother or children to come in.” I think it would be a very serious mistake.

I should like to support this appeal. I do not think the Minister really appreciates the extraordinary harshness of the decision to which he has come.

This is to allow them in.

To allow them in under conditions and restrictions which may keep them out. If the Minister wishes to let them in he should do so by accepting the amendment. Under this clause the wife, children and other dependents would be admitted only if they fall within the thousand and are approved by the board, and the conditions of this section are complied with. I do not think it is human, fair and proper that the entry of the wife and children from abroad should be subject to these restrictions. Take the case of our own poor families who years ago migrated to Angola, Patagonia, or the Argentine. A persons may himself be entitled to come back, but his wife and children, under the provisions of this section, may be prevented because the quota has been exhausted. As to people coming from any of these countries from eastern Europe, you may have a man who is thoroughly approved, who has settled in this country, is a decent citizen and has become a British subject, and: then has not the right to bring his wife and children here unless they fall within the 1,000 quota, which may be exhausted. I ask the Minister not to harden his heart in a case like this—a case of right and of simple humanity. We must not take up the view that these people are not easily assimilable. I remember when I was away in Europe, reading a speech made by the Prime Minister in Johannesburg, who made a special point of it that our Jewish fellow citizens are more easily assimilable, and identify themselves more readily with the older population of this country, than do the British people. He made it a special point of distinction between the two sections of the new population of this country.

I certainly said they identified themselves, and they were amongst our best citizens.

I am speaking simply from memory. I do not say it in criticism. I simply use it in argument to show that not many months ago the Prime Minister was under the impression that these people were not unassimilable, and are not of such a heterogeneous-character, not so entirely different from the people of this country that they cannot identify themselves with it. The Minister of the Interior, in this Bill, seems to take up a different standpoint, and to have a different outlook, not the outlook of the Prime Minister; at any rate, not that which he had several years ago. I think we should not judge harshly in these matters. It is for a young country like ours to be fair and generous. We are an empty-country. We go on the assumption that the father and the husband has been admitted into the country as a proper citizen, and he has become a citizen of this country. Why should we restrict the entry of his wife and child? I would ask the Minister not to overdo the business. I think this is overdoing it. This is a case for a concession, and, in view of that, I do not accept the decision of the Minister as final. I do not think he has done himself justice. This is a matter for further consideration, and I hope the Minister will agree to consider it, because it does from the point of view of humanity and ordinary sound policy require-careful consideration. I hope he will assure the House that before we get to Clause 9 he will take the matter into further consideration.

I would like to ask why a wife or child or parent of a person domiciled in the Union is put into a different class when the quota under Section 1 is full. Before the quota is full they have to be in possession of a written permit before they leave their home. That barrier may be a very considerable one. Once the quota has been filled, no application to enter can be considered except from relations of persons who are domiciled in the Union, i.e., who have been resident here for a period of three years. That is an illogical distinction to draw. Under sub-section (3), no such matter can be considered by the board at all, unless, in respect of the parent, wife or child of a person domiciled within the Union for three years. But why draw a distinction between the two classes? I do not know if the regulations provide for a waiting list, but I take it they will; but it will mean that there will be a glut of these applications. I ask the Minister to accept an amendment under Clause 3 (b); whether he will not establish an order of priority to enable wives or children or parents to come in from those countries from which have come the largest number of emigrants in the last few years. Those from eastern Europe are going to more numerous than from any other part of the world. Priority for people within that category could easily have been given. I want to propose an amendment by which there will be created an order of priority after establishing a priority of countries, a priority in the consideration of these applications based on the number of their citizens that have entered South Africa.

You already find that under Section 7 (a).

But that is to be defined by the Minister. I want to determine priority of countries. I move—

This does not take away from the board their rights under Section 3, but prescribes the order in which any quota under that section is to be made available.

Seeing that the question under discussion is whether you are going to allow a man’s family to enter the Union in addition to the 1,000 quota, and seeing that it is the wish of certain members here to consult American practice in this matter, I move—

Does the hon. member move to report progress and ask leave to sit again ?

Yes, I move—

Motion put and negatived.

Those of us who have been sitting rather mute on these back-benches have been trying to follow the legal-minded gentlemen who have been debating this question at length. Some of us have very strong convictions so far as this Bill is concerned. We want to know where we are heading. For that reason we think we should like to ascertain what happens under the American quota. Is the American quota based on the basis of male entrants, and not families? If that is so, then perhaps there is some justification for the new line of thought that has been taken. But if our quota is to be on the basis of 1,000 entrants, and you allow families as well, on the basis of five per family, that will give us 5,000. That raises a very great question, that some of us would like to give some consideration to. If that is not so, then I say that some of us who are sitting here have found some difficulty in following the arguments this afternoon, because the voices of hon. members do not carry to the back. I think as conscientious members of this House we want to know exactly what is happening. As we do not hear very well, I think the leader of our party will grant us that. Before amendments are put, we want to understand the position, so that we do not follow blindly.

You have been doing that all afternoon.

I think that is a fair statement of our position, and I think the hon. leader will grant us that.

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

When the House adjourned, I was seeking information as to the nature of the amendments, as it is very difficult for backbenchers to gather what is going on in front. During the dinner interval I have been able to satisfy myself as to the position. I wish to express my appreciation of the attitude of the Minister in accepting the amendments by the hon. member for Cape Flats (Mr. Chiappini) and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell). The fact that a man resides here and his family live in another country is not ideal, humane or right, and any law which is based on the principle of dividing a family is harsh, and will not reflect credit on the House. I share my leader’s attitude in this; if we do not understand the position we must get the information we desire. I hope mercy will not be strained if the Minister considers this aspect of the amendment, to deal with these people on the basis if humanitarianism. An argument based on sentiment and what is morally right, cannot be confounded. There might be a little boy in eastern Russia, and his father in this country; can we say we should keep these people divided? I hope the Minister will have in his mind his little son. It is from these ideals that Nationalism springs.

I move—

This is necessary because the word “domicile” is defined in the Bill, and it refers to someone who has been resident in South Africa for three years. Thus, if “domicile” remains, it would exclude the people who have been living here permanently less than three years, and their wives and children will also come under the clause. I hope the House will have no objection to accepting it. In connection with what has been said here this afternoon and also to-night, in connection with the entry of wives and minor children of people established here, I want to point out a few things. In the first place, there are other countries that have had a little experience in this connection. The United States of America worked a long time after the immigration laws there were made more strict, under a so-called “gentlemen’s agreement” between America and Japan; an understanding, according to which, the Japenese have the right to allow the wives and minor children of those who were domiciled there to come in. When one looks at the figures of the Japanese population in the United States, one sees that, owing to the opening thus allowed, that population increased so tremendously that America found that the prohibition of the entry of Japanese in consequence of the opening so allowed was practically useless. Eventually they had to close the opening. We know that this led to pretty serious dispute between Japan and America. America found that a large section of the Japanese in America used the opening to allow immigration on a fairly large scale. We should not like to find out to-morrow or the day after that the whole object of our legislation is being made futile by such a concession. Moreover, I think that the emphasis placed by certain hon. members on sentiment is a little misplaced and unnecessary. The Bill, as drawn, makes very considerable provision for the entry of wives and minor children. In the first place, under the quota of 50, families will be kept together as much as possible, and if there are people who are domiciled here and want their families to come in, then, no doubt, as much preference as possible will be given to such families over those who have as yet no families here. I have in my hand the provisions which will probably be contained in the regulations, and No. 1 states that preference will be given to (a) wives or unmarried children under 21 of persons domiciled in the Union or permanently resident here. As many family connections as possible will, therefore, already be borne in mind under the quota of 50, but then there is still the unallotted quota which is controlled by the board. It is objected to on all sides that it has been fixed at a thousand, and it is said that that is too high. We put it so high for the very reason of giving the wives and minor children an opportunity of coming in. Hon. members will understand that if we do what is asked, we shall possibly have a tremendously large immigration, because the 50 allowed for every country will contain no family inasmuch as the family connections will have the right of coming in under the law. They will make no application under the quota, and the 50 will, therefore, be strangers that will come in from each of the countries without family connections. Moreover, the families will not come in under the 1,000 either because they will have the right to come in. The effect will, therefore, be, if we leave the Bill as it is, that if a large number of wives and children are brought in, they would affect the number which might come in otherwise under the law. In other words, it will be at the expense of strangers who would otherwise come in. I think that this is very fair and, therefore, we fixed the number at 1,000. I think that sentimental considerations are being too much emphasized.

We appreciate quite clearly the difficulty with which the Minister is faced, but I think the arguments he has addressed to the committee on the question of the admission of wives and families are directed at a proposal which is much wider than that which has actually been made. We are not claiming that a man should be allowed to come in after the commencement of this Act and then ask that his family should also come in without being included in the quota. I quite see the Minister’s argument that if a man wants to come to this country from any of the restricted countries, he must either be satisfied that his family will also be admitted, or he will have to wait until they can come in under the ordinary regulations. What we are putting forward is that the man who is here now, and on whom the door is suddenly to be barred on the 1st May, the man who is settled here, but has left his family on the other side—

There are very few.

Exactly. There are very few, but the Minister tells us we shall be flooded. These men may have to wait for years for their families before they can get in. Why not accept the position that these people have been admitted here as citizens, and allow them to get their families and wives here without having to submit to the quota restrictions? Surely it is a small thing.

They can come in before the 1st May.

Can they? Does the Minister know what it means for a family in those distant parts to pack up or dispose of their belongings and come to South Africa? It takes a little time. When we come to Clause 9, we propose to move an amendment which will exempt from these restrictions the wives and families of permanent residents of the Union. I would like the Minister to give the matter consideration, and see if he cannot accept it.

The suggestion that has come from the other side of the House will defeat the object of the Bill. If we are going to allow these people to come in, and then allow their families in, what is the object of having the quota? The point that has struck me is that it will be easy for these people to evade the regulations, if we are going to allow that. I won’t go as far as the hon. member for Barberton (Col. D. Reitz), who said that most of these immigrants are a lot of scoundrels. He told us about that friend of his who is a sergeant in the police in Patagonia, and about the institution for the faking of applications. That was a crude attempt on the part of the hon. member to satisfy both sides. He has affirmed that he is in favour of the principle of the Bill, and he has reaffirmed it a number of times, and, after saying that, he does his utmost to nullify the principle of the Bill. Let us see how these people might get round the regulations. What evidence are we going to have that these friends of the hon. member for Barberton—I am not talking about many of these people who we know are very fine people and very honourable, but I am referring to the friends of the hon. member for Barberton—what evidence shall we have that these people in Hamburg and other places will not behave as the hon. member says they will? Shall we have any evidence that these men are actually married to the women they want to get in as wives? We shall have no evidence except the staments of the hon. member for Barberton’s friends in Hamburg or in Patagonia. Some of these people may not be married at all, and some may not have been married so that you could notice it. The hon. member’s attempt to alter the provisions of this Bill is very crude, especially when he wants to allow people to make use of the methods he so strongly condemned this afternoon.

I am afraid the hon. member who has just sat down (Mr. Sauer) did not quite appreciate the point of the hon. member for Barberton (Col. D. Reitz). The hon. member for Barberton—I think I am intelligent, I may be flattering myself, but I claim it—was tracing an analogy between the situation that might arise in Hamburg and the last general election with postal votes, and the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sauer) did not appreciate the point evidently. I want to urge the Minister to reconsider the whole position upon three grounds. The first is humanity. A good deal has been said about sentiment; sentiment is the main spring of our life throughout the world. We call it patriotism, affection, love for our fellow men, or family ties. I am sorry to hear hon. members inclined to jibe at sentiment and sentimental arguments. The second ground is that of common decency, and the third is one which should be understood by all—an economic ground. In regard to humanity, I do not think we can possibly appreciate this situation unless we place ourselves in the position that these unfortunate people will be placed in. I appeal to the hon. the Minister to put into practice what he has probably preached to his congregation time and again—although he has abandoned his profession, let him not jettison his principles—“Do to others as you would they should do to you.” I want the Minister to try and remember that we are dealing with men and women. How would you like it if you were in another country—it is difficult to conceive, I know—and separated by a law of a country, presumably Christian, from those whom you love most dearly. The argument of the hon. member (Mr. Sauer) casting reflections —assuming the possibility that immigrants are coming into this country with women to whom they are not married—is a shameful insinuation. Moreover, it is easy to prove whether a person is married or not. Why, we take the hon. gentleman himself on trust; but the Minister can easily demand the marriage lines of these people. My experience of the poor unfortunates who come from Lithuania is that they often lose very vital papers, and it is more difficult for them to prove that they are married than for the Minister to disprove it. On humanitarian grounds, do not keep a man separated from his wife or children, or even from his aged parents. I am surprised to find we have people who claim that they are religious and go to church every Sunday, and that these people are prepared to pass such measures and to jeer at an honest expression of sentiment. On the first ground, then, I appeal to the Minister to withdraw his embargo. The second point is that of decency. Here we have the highest court of the land. What are going to be the most inevitable consequences, if you keep this man’s wife or children away from him? It is an indecent situation for the man himself on this side, and his wife is faced by economic conditions that make one shudder to think of. Have we not the right to ask the Minister to consider this phase of the question to keep family life sacred and decent? Has the Minister of Finance considered this question? Is it not probably inevitable that every man who has got a family elsewhere will make sacrifices to keep them in decency and comfort, and that man’s money made in South Africa will be circulated outside South Africa? I have no hesitation in asking all hon. members to support the view proposed by my hon. friend the member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge).

I have only one suggestion to make regarding wives and children of men overseas. It may be said by the Minister that he cannot allow the door to be kept open indefinitely for them. I ask the Minister to consider a suggestion that for three years he should allow the wives and children of those domiciled in this country to come in without any of the restrictions of the quota. The Act has come suddenly; it has not been foreshadowed, and people suddenly wake up to find that the door has been closed; that they are no longer able to bring out their wives and children. We put it in an Act of Parliament that they can only come in at the discretion of a board. So that it is left to the discretion of the board to say that a man and his wife shall forever live apart. A man may never see his children so long as he remains in South Africa, and they in the country of origin. That is a barbarous way to legislate. I will try to show the Minister that we are not unreasonable in this matter. We want to try and help him make the Bill a reasonable measure. I therefore suggest that for three years, at any rate, the drastic provisions under this Act shall not apply to the wives and children of people already resident here. I do not make the same appeal in the case of parents. After all, they stand on a different footing from wives and children. I say this: that the Minister should be reasonable in endeavouring to meet the strongly expressed wishes of members on this side of the House, and that, for three years, he should allow the quota clause not to operate in regard to wives and children. These people will then know that in three years, if they have wives or children overseas, they must make arrangements for them to come to this country and there will be no restriction on them coming here during that time. I cannot understand anybody getting up in this House and arguing that women might come into this country who are not really wives. Does the hon. member who made that suggestion think that the Minister and his department are so futile that they have not adequate machinery for telling who is a true wife or who is not. They have been working these immigration Acts for years past, and she would be a pretty clever woman who entered this country in the guise of a wife when she was not a wife. I repeat again that we accept practically all the principles in this Bill, but we are keen on seeing that it is put into force with a minimum amount of hardship.

I have heard the Minister from time to time say to the committee that he has based his Act upon American legislation and he attaches great importance to the experience of America in framing immigration laws. It is worth while noticing that in the American legislation passed between the years 1921 and 1924 an exception was made in respect of aliens of the age of 18 years who are children of citizens of the United States. Then I notice that in connection with the quota, exemption is given to the wives and brothers and sisters under 18 years of age. We see here from an examination of this law, that the practice of the United States is very much on the lines of what the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) has said, that it would be a barbarous and inhuman provision to separate fathers and children. The hon. Minister has said that some of these may be introduced under the first quota of fifty under section (1), but I think whether section (1) or section (3) be applied it still leaves the whole question in a very unsatisfactory position. There is such a simple solution. It would be possible to adopt the suggestion of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) and introduce an exemption in Clause (9) of the Act whereby all those persons who, before the first of May, 1930, are separated from their wives and children or from their parents, would enjoy the right to bring them into the Union without the application of the provisions of this Act. That is a simple and humane provision and one which will be greatly appreciated. If the hon. Minister attaches all the importance that he says he does to American legislation, why not adopt this proposal that is put before him ?

In regard to this question of making provision for the wives and children of people domiciled in the Union, the attitude taken up by the Minister and his friends behind him is surely an amazing attitude. We have listened to mouthings about civilization and the ethics of Christianity and one is amazed to hear the expressions of opinion and of obstinacy such as we have heard from hon. members on the other side of the House. It simply makes one feel that it is not surprising, in spite of all the talk about Western civilization, that the people of this country have brought about the state of affairs they have when we have some 600,000 coloured people in South Africa. I draw the Minister’s attention to the amendments I have moved to the clause under consideration for the deletion of that portion of paragraph (2) of subsection (b) which deals with the question of assimilability. The Minister has not told us what his definition assimilability is. I submit that if he retains these words in this clause it will be possible for him, whatever may be his pious intention, to prevent anyone from coming into this country. If that is the intention why not do it at once and say that South Africa has sufficient people within its borders to cope with its native problem, and that we do not want any more immigrants? Therefore, I ask the Minister does he intend that, and if that is not his intention then what does he mean by “assimilability”? Does he mean homogenity from a racial point of view, for he knows that he has a majority and that our friends opposite will object to developing a homogeneous nation. On the other hand, if he means identity of interest and outlook let him say so, for I am certain that the immigrants and their families will identify themselves to the fullest extents with the aspirations and needs of the people of South Africa, although I hope they will have a higher ethical standard than that of some hon. members opposite.

I should like to consider something, and if I see that its effect is not to nullify the object of the Bill I should like to meet hon. members as far as possible with regard to the entry of wives and minor children. Let me first say that I feel that a distinction must be made—if we are going to distinguish between people who are already in the country when the Act comes into force and persons who have come into South Africa after that date. Those who come here after the Act coming into force will know that their wives and children must come under the ordinary quota, and they may possibly have to wait months or years before they can send for the wives and children. I feel, however, that the persons who are already established in South Africa are in a somewhat different position, and I want to take something into consideration. I am not prepared to say tonight that I will accept it, but I want to consider it. If I decide to accept such a thing as I am now about to explain, then there will still be an opportunity for me to make the relative amendment at the report stage. What I am thinking of is this, that persons who are established in South Africa when the Act comes into force, and who have wives and minor children overseas, shall have the right for three years—as suggested by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell)—to enter South Africa unrestrictedly. After the three years the special compromise will cease. Then, however, I want to consider something else as well, viz., whether under the circumstances we ought, during those three years, to reduce the unallotted quota from 1,000 to 500. It was put as high as that specially to make provision for the wives and minor children of those who were in South Africa, and if we allow them free entrance for a period of three years it is a question whether the unallotted quota should remain so high. I want to consider the things together, and if I find that there is no interference with the object of the Bill then there will be a further opportunity of making the relative amendments at the report stage.

Is the clause to stand over again ?

No, that is not necessary.

We are all thankful to the Minister for the olive branch he has held out, and along the lines of which he has spoken I think a speedy issue lies. We cannot, however, wait for his decision until the report stage, as the matter will arise for discussion in section 9. I suggest if we reach Clause 9 to-night that progress be reported to enable the Minister to have an opportunity of going into this matter again, and as to-morrow is private members’ day the Minister will have until Monday to consider the point. Otherwise, those of us who feel that the measure is illiberal and unsound will feel bound not to allow Clause 9 to go through without raising the point again. I withdraw my amendment to delete the whole of the sub-section in view of the fact that the Minister has accepted two amendments to it.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Coulter put and negatived.

Question put: That all the words after “be come" in line 57 to "to become” in line 59, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause,

The effect of this clause is that the Government can by restricting the issue of passports effectively prevent any person from entering the Union. If we passed this clause, it is competent for the Union Government to revise the whole of its arrangements with any other Government, and to make a reservation which would enable it to say that if any passports are presented for endorsement, they must be presented to some person nominated by the Government. It would be possible for the Minister to say that he would not recognize any passport unless it is visaed in the High Commissioner’s office, and he could effectively check any immigration into this country. I want to move an amendment to make this point perfectly clear, that these powers defined by section (6) shall not be used to exclude from the Union persons who may hold passports which are issued to them by any government within the empire. In other words, we carry out logically the exemption which the Minister indicated by the first item in the schedule. The amendment I propose is—

This gives no greater rights to any such immigrant to enter the Union, but it means that the power of Clause 6 cannot be exercised arbitrarily to exclude any person who holds a passport from any government within the empire. I can see no reason why the Minister should object to that. Otherwise the Minister can, by his mere motion, prohibit the nationals of any country from entering the Union.

I do not know whether I quite understand the hon. member, because I do not quite know what his object is. Does the hon. member mean that anyone in possession of a British passport coming to this country should be admitted and his passport recognized by us? I cannot quite understand what exception the hon. member wishes to make for persons from other countries within the British empire. Does he mean the visa of such persons?

If we take Clause (c), it reads as follows—

I want to add another clause to extend Clause (c). I want to insert an amendment whereby wherever a passport is issued by any other Government within the British empire, the special endorsement should not be necessary. That is a benefit we enjoy on passports issued by the Union Government. We have not to take a passport here to any official if we want to go to Australia in order to secure endorsement. This power which the Minister wishes to take means that where a passport is issued it may be made of no effect unless visaed at the High Commissioner’s office; it does not mean that such a person is exempt from the provisions of the Immigration Act of 1913, but it does allow him to travel to any other part of the empire without any restriction being placed on him.

I want to point out to the hon. member that his amendment is quite superfluous, for the reason that he asks no visum on any passport issued within the British empire. We included that provision because the demand for a visum did not come from us alone. If we have to demand no visum, there must be reciprocity. We ask from some countries of the world no visa of the persons that come from there, simply that they in turn do not demand any visa of our subjects. That, however, is a special agreement, and if one of the countries inside the British empire should some day say: “Look, we demand a visum from South Africans,” why then should we allow their subjects in without a visum? It is purely a matter of reciprocity, and therefore the amendment is unnecessary.

I would like the Minister to give an assurance that he will not depart from that existing practice.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 7,

I move—

As the principal Act is referred to in this Bill, I think the hon. Minister will accept this amendment without question.

I have no objection to the amendment, but I only want to say that it was contained in the original Bill, but the legal adviser deleted it because, in his opinion, it was unnecessary, as it went without saying that the regulations may not conflict with the principal Act. If, however, the hon. member would like to have it in, I have no objection to it.

I think the whole principle of this clause is hopelessly bad. At the same time I do not want the Minister to commit himself to anything foolish and I want to move—

As the paragraph stands at present, after securing a permit and an individual comes to South Africa, provision is made for cancellation under certain circumstances. The amendment I originally tabled was altogether too wide, but these words that I have moved to delete will remove the undesirable effect. If a man comes here as a trader and later becomes a farmer or a manufacturer, it would be possible for the Minister, as the clause stood, to cancel his permit. I am sure that I need only give one illustration to this House to show how ridiculous such a position would be. Supposing that the Minister had only come over recently to South Africa and occupied the position of a minister of religion. He may have come along and said, “I am a minister of religion,” and he would get a permit on that basis. Having come over, he then becomes a political editor, and then he subsequently becomes a politician. In a case of that kind it will be possible to cancel the permit given to the minister. I am sure that he does not desire such a ridiculous provision to be inserted in this legislation.

It is quite obvious that the whole intention of this Bill is to deal with the case of a person who, prior to his arrival in the Union, changes his occupation. He may come in as a tailor, but before he arrives he becomes a butcher or a grocer. That difficulty will be met by inserting after the word “or” the words “prior to his arrival in the Union.”

There is another case you want to meet.

What is the other case ?

An immigrant may be coming here to join the commercial class. It is quite possible that when he comes here he is not going to join the commercial class but take up some other occupation. That is all a blind. They begin like that, but in a few months’ time they have changed over to some other business. It is to prevent that sort of thing that we have this clause. I would point out that what we have laid down here is that the permit “may” be cancelled. Regulations in regard to this matter will be made, and it remains in the discretion of the Minister to say whether the permit shall be cancelled.

But the Minister never knows where the man is.

The point that is sought to be safeguarded is already provided for. It says, “If an immigrant belongs to a different class to the class he has stated.” If he states he is going to be a dealer and he really belongs to the trading class, that is provided for. It does not matter if he starts peddling or hawking a few weeks after he has arrived. The fact is that he belonged to a particular class which he stated when he came in. I am speaking of a case where a person comes along as a peddler and he afterwards changes over. A man may be here for years and, under this Act, may then have his permit cancelled. I think the requirements of the Minister are covered by the other portions of this paragraph.

I think there is another defect in this sub-section. Do we realize the extraordinary and drastic power which the Minister seeks to confer upon some officer in charge of the administration of these regulations? It says that the Governor-General may make regulations not inconsistent with the Act providing for the cancellation of permission to enter the Union under this Act. Who is to cancel that? Apparently, some administrative officer who sits down, possibly with untrue information before him. Acting, no doubt, with the most perfect of good intentions, he has statements before him made by persons ex parte who have not been subjected to cross-examination, whose information, and statements even on oath, are not communicated to the person concerned. We propose by this subsection to confer upon that officer, probably the chief immigration officer of the Union, the right to say to that person, “I cancel your right to be within the Union.” That may happen after such a person has been five years in the Union. He may be a man with a large business and with a family and important connections in the country. The chief immigration officer, who understood from the man’s record that he came here to be a general dealer, now finds that he is a farmer five years after his arrival as an immigrant. It is reported to the officer that the man has gone in for the noble and ancient profession of farming, and this regulation, passed in its present form, gives the officer power to cancel his permission to remain in the Union and makes the man a prohibited immigrant. I want to move an amendment. After the word “cancel,” I wish to insert the words “by order of a competent court.” Can you imagine anyone coming to South Africa under this Bill when he is told that at any given moment, if, through the exigencies of trade he changes his occupation, his permit may be cancelled? He may become a member of Parliament where before he was a clergyman or a farmer, or an artizan. Years after he has entered the Union some person sitting in a little office in Pretoria can tell him to get out of the country, causing him to sacrifice his assets. Imagine that being proclaimed abroad as being the policy of the Government of South Africa. I remind the hon. Minister of Finance that he perhaps will be addressing an international body at Geneva this year, when he may hear a good deal of this modern Act of Parliament. Imagine that gentleman standing up in that body to defend a clause of this kind. I take it one step further. An immigrant may come in and have brought a large amount of capital with him into the Union. He may have lost it in farming in the Free State. I am told that for the time being one of the easiest ways in the world to lose money is in farming in the Free State.

Not only in the Free State.

Judging from the farming speeches we have heard in recent months, capital is very easily lost in the Free State. I am sorry to hear that that applies to other parts of the Union of South Africa. Imagine such a thing happening to a man coming out and putting his capital into a business and losing it in competition with the superior brains of the Union. He may come out as a general dealer and then go in for something else. He may have lost his money and has taken up a humble position possibly at a salary of £10 a month. The chief immigration officer can say to him, “You have gone over to a different class to the one to which you said you belonged. You told us five years ago you were a general dealer and now you are a humble clerk or an artizan. I have come to the conclusion you should go out of the Union.” If this is to be done, let it be done in the light of day, with all the safeguards of the publicity inherent in our legal procedure. I move—

I think that the last part of this sub-clause (f) to which the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) objects will in any case be difficult to administer, and that it would be better to delete it. There is, of course, a danger, but we must take that risk. If actually wrong information is given, the person can be prosecuted. I will therefore accept the amendment of the hon. member for Troyville. I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter). The hon. member must remember that provision is made in the principal Act for the cancellation of permits for persons who come into the Union. It is not expected in the principal Act that the department should go to the court to have such a permit cancelled. That would make the administration of the Act impossible. The authority for cancelling the permit will be the same authority as issues it, or the Secretary of the Interior on instructions of the Minister or the board. In any case provision is made for an appeal to the appeal board, that is clear enough in the Bill.

Amendments proposed by Mr. Nathan and Mr. Kentridge put and agreed to.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Coulter put and negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 8,

We wish to include within the sphere of the Bill, the mandated territory of South-West Africa. I therefore move—

The Minister’s amendment shows how illogical the whole position is, for he is obliged to distinguish between one mandated territory—Palestine—and another mandated territory—South-West Africa.

The hon. gentleman has evidently forgotten that it is altogether different in the case of South-West.

I am pointing that out. Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 9,

On the motion of the Minister of the Interior it was agreed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

I move—

If hon. members will refer to the main estimates for 1929-’30, they will find that Parliament authorized an expenditure of £30,317,000. The additional sum now required on revenue account is £222,000, which will make a total appropriation of £30,539,000. There are, however, savings on the existing estimates, which are not available to meet the additional expenditure which I am asking the House. The amount of £289,000 will give us a revised estimate of £30,250,000, or some £60,000 less than the sum originally provided for. The additional supply, as hon. members will see, is made up under four principal heads. The first important one is pensions. Unfortunately, it has been found that old age pensions have absorbed a much greater amount than this House provided for when the estimates were framed. Claims have been coming in so that on the 9th of January last we had 48,039 old age pensioners on the roll, at a cost of £1,207,000, which does not include some 659 alien old age pensioners, for whom provision is made on another vote by the special authority of the House. They do not fall Under the Act, arid their claims are considered by the Pensions Committee, and a special Act was passed to include them under the Pensions Bill. The next vote which requires a considerable sum is under provincial administration, and we find there is an under-estimate of 1319,364 in the case of the Cape Province, and of £13,217 in the case of the Transvaal, owing to more children having to be brought into the schools than was originally estimated. Under defence, we are asking the House now to sanction an additional £77,400 mainly for the replacing of unserviceable ammunition—wartime ammunition which has since been declared by the experts to have become unserviceable and must be replaced to keep up the amount required in our standard stock. Then there is £28,000, post office, mainly for salaries, some £10,000 and £14,000 in connection with the conveyance of mails by the Railway Administration which is an old outstanding question between the railways and the post office. The salary vote is increased as the result of the expansion of the work, Then there are various other votes requiring several small amounts, which it will be more convenient for me to deal with in committee. When we come to the loan vote, hon. members will see there we are also having considerable savings. We have an additional vote of £321,000, while we have had savings of £559,000. In connection with telegraphs and telephones, construction work has been speeded up, and, seeing that we are continuing to do this sort of work, it would be inadvisable to disband the workmen we have on this work, and, accordingly, an additional amount is asked for to have the work continued, but that will mean a smaller amount devoted to next year’s programme. Under land settlement, there is £65,000 asked for, the purchase price for the Kandover estate in Zululand paid by the Minister of Lands. There is an amount required of £200,000, being additional for the Land Bank, and £25,000 for loans to tenant farmers, the scheme being inaugurated some years ago, where we advanced comparatively small amounts which were made to bywoners for the purchase of draught animals and breeding cattle, so that they could remain on the land. It has worked most satisfactorily, and most of the advances have been repaid. We have made provision for a further amount to carry on the scheme. As far as revenue is Concerned, I do not want to discuss that now, and it will be dealt with when the budget is-before us, but at this stage I may say that we shall probably close our accounts at the end of the year with a small surplus.

seconded the motion.

That last statement of the Minister, I must say, is the most cheerful part of his whole subject. We are very glad to hear that we are going to close the year with a very small surplus, and it is quite a novel experience for the Minister to have only a small one. That makes us more critical with regard to the Estimates of Additional Expenditure he is asking from us.

It would have been better if it had been a small deficit.

It would have made for more care. I only want to refer to one or two items. I would like to know from the Minister whether he is in a position to say definitely what the permanent cost of the old age pension scheme will be. The estimates made so far have been short of the actual amount required. Then I would like to refer to the grant to the Frobenius expedition of £5,000. It is always pleasant to see the Government encouraging scientific“research, but when I contrast the ease with which this gentleman—Columbus, I believe, he has been called —secured this money with the great difficulty that any South African scientist or research body has in getting funds to carry on scientific work, I think I must agree that he was a Columbus. He must have been astonished when he found a country in which it was so easy to get a handsome grant from the exchequer, almost as much astonished as Columbus himself was when he set foot on the new world. The Minister will, I hope, explain to many of our South African people who are engaged in research work, and who are alive, how it was that this grant was made, and at the same time satisfy the memory of those who are no longer alive why he discovered this gentleman as Columbus. What this gentleman discovered was not so much archaeology in South Africa, but a person from whom he could extract with ease a sum of £5,000. With regard to the grant of £200,000 to the Land Bank, it should be remembered that the Land Bank is gradually building up capital from grants. It has a capital of something over £10,000,000, and a reserve fund of £660,000. Cannot we now say definitely that we have given the bank sufficient capital to enable it to carry on its work in the country? I think there should be some finality in regard to the capitalization of the Land Bank. There is one matter which is a matter of principle which I wish also to refer to, and that is the order that has gone forth that civil servants of the Union formerly belonging to the Transvaal are to be compulsorily retired at 55. We know that the law gives the Government the right to retire civil servants from the Transvaal establishment at 55, and gives the civil servants a corresponding right to retire at 55, but it has been clearly understood that this right of the Government to retire these civil servants at, 55 would not he exercised in the case of men who were efficiently, discharging the duties of their posts.

On which item is the hon. member speaking?

On the items set down.

Nobody has been retired.

That £132 is in connection with the retirement of the auditor-general, and the other amount relates to an officer of the defence force—two specific cases.

If I am not in order in referring to the matter, I will leave it.

I remember a similar occasion to this a year ago when the Minister of Finance with a note of pride in his voice—

He is always very modest.

I remember the rafters of this chamber ringing when he announced that the accumulative surplus he was handing over to loan funds for a period of two years was in the neighbourhood of £3,000,000. This year he tells us in a weak, deprecating voice that he hopes to have a small surplus. I would remind the hon. Minister that the expenditure has gone up this year by £1,600,000.

The hon. member cannot go into that now.

I am explaining that there has been an increase on the Estimates of £1,600,000.

If there is a new Vote then the hon. member may discuss policy in connection with it, but he cannot go into the matter of expenditure generally.

The Minister tells us that this inflation of expenditure is due largely to the pension vote. We find that vote has now reached the sum of £3,502,000. The increase in this particular instance is due to an increase in old age pension. I looked up the figures of the expenditure forecasted when the old age pension Bill was introduced, and I find it was £800,000. The system began on the 1st of January last year, and after a year’s working 48,000 people are receiving the old age pension, and the amount expended represents the increase of 50 per cent. over the figure which the Minister gave us for the first year. Does not that show that the Minister had not fully probed the matter in framing his estimates. Surely an increase of 50 per cent. is unreasonable. Now I wonder where this pension business is going to end. If you add the expenditure from the railway and provincial administration, it is nearly £5,000,000 a year. I want to say that the present situation does demand that the most rigid economy should be exercised and that additional expenditure should be closely scrutinized.

I would like to refer to the vote of defence. I expect we shall receive full explanation later on but I understand that this item is required for replacing old stock—ammunition, and I think it was old war stock. Presumably this stock has been held for many years and one is tempted to ask why nothing has been written off before. Surely the whole amount has not become unserviceable all at once. Are there any other items of unserviceable stores to be written off? I can imagine nothing more embarrassing to the Minister of Finance than to be suddenly required to find some £70,000 or £80,000 to replace stores which ought to have been written off during the last eight or ten years.

I should like to ask the Minister of the Interior about a point touched upon by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan), viz., the grant of £5,000 to Prof. Frobenius in connection with his investigation and drawings. I think that every member who takes an interest in South African history and the research into it will appreciate the importance of the matter. I have, however, heard that the things will be placed in Cape Town, and I should like to know from the Minister whether they will be placed in. Pretoria or Cape Town. I hope the Minister appreciates the importance of this question. We curators of the Museum at Pretoria feel that they actually belong there. While we highly appreciate the work of Prof. Frobinius, I want to point out that during the last five years we could not get the showcases that we required.

The hon. member cannot now go into that.

I am speaking of the grant of £5,000

The hon. member must keep himself to that.

I should like to refer to the investigation which has already been made in the past by other men in this country, and the question is where the things are to he stored.

That is not under discussion now.

I am speaking about the £5,000. and what is concerned with it. The work of Prof. Frobenius was exhibited in Pretoria in the museum there, and as £5,000 is being given to Prof. Frobenius for his investigation or drawings and the work was done in the Transvaal—

The hon. member must confine himself to the £5,000, and not advocate other things.

I am keeping to it. We appreciate the investigation, but feel that other important work has been done in the past, and the preservation of the results should also be provided for.

I am rather sorry to hear the hon. Minister criticize on the old age pension more particularly from the point of view that the Minister had exceeded his Estimates by 50 per cent. Well, we know how these things happen; it is often found that a forecast has to be exceeded. I think the estimate was not too bad in the circumstances. After all my criticism takes quite the other form. I believe the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) will agree with me, if he tells the truth, which he always does. I suppose you will object to my criticizing the policy, but, in passing, I should like to say that we are by no means satisfied with the individual amounts of the pensions being paid. I want to plant it in the mind of the Minister of Finance in the hope that he will water it well, and allow it to grow. I should like to ask the Minister to inform me what is the policy surrounding the registration of citizens. The information I had about the matter was this. Young fellows go to register and at the time of registration they are asked certain questions, of which they are ignorant. I must enter a protest against what is going on. These lads are deceived; they are asked what they would like to join—

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but he is out of order.

A large number of citizens inadvertently have selected their corps and they become enrolled. Is that the cause of one of these increases ?

This increase deals with one specific amount, to replace unserviceable wartime ammunition.

It is ammunition, not ammunition fodder ?

What is all the ammunition for ?

Perhaps it is for another strike. I think I am on safe ground now when I deal with this increased amount the Minister is requiring to hand over to the Land Bank. I know I was treading on thin ice before. I think the Minister of Agriculture is somewhat involved in this case in a secondary degree. I am inclined to the belief that the Land Bank sometimes acts either on the advice of the Minister of Agriculture or against it. At all events, his advice is sought and, as the result of consultation, probably action is taken. I wish to bring a specific case of extreme hardship to his notice, which, I think, he is ignorant of.

I think hon. members should deal with these specific items when we are in committee, then I shall be able to inform the hon. member that, so far as the Land Bank increase is concerned, it is due solely to the increased capital of the agricultural credit societies. The whole policy of the Land Bank cannot be discussed under this item. I think hon. members should defer that criticism until they are in committee.

I am well aware of that. I am not traversing the whole policy of the Land Bank. I am taking umbrage at certain acts of the Land Bank in precisely the form in which the Minister proposes that this amount shall be used for, namely, agricultural credits. I shall deal with the case of Pomona, East Rand Co-operative Society.

That is wrong. The hon. member cannot deal with it here.

If the Minister states that it does not come under this item, then, Mr. Speaker will rule me out of order as he has certainly done before. There is a new item, “Additional Money to be voted to the Posts and Telegraphs,” I think I shall be in order in referring to it. I was asked the other day, in a very resentful tone, by the Minister of Railways and Harbours, when I was daring to criticize the Railway Department, to establish what I had said. I said that the conditions of the workers under the Pact regime were worse than they were under the S.A.P., and that is not saying very much for the S.A. party. I was asked by the Minister, in a resentful tone, to establish that. I propose to establish it Go one branch—the additional amounts for the post and telegraphs, salaries, wages and allowances. I want to know whether the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, plus the Minister of Finance, plus the Public Service Commission, have agreed in a consultation as to the development of a request put forward by myself, when I was the authority, to have included, in this amount, an increase of the salaries of the night telephonists of the Union of South Africa. I do not know whether the Minister knows of the matter at the moment, but if he does not, he can consult his advisers and let me know in his reply.

I can tell the hon. member what the increase is for.

Let me also tell the Minister what it ought to be for. I made strenuous efforts which were unavailable.

The hon. member knows he is out of order.

I am sorry. I will deal with the matter in committee.

I hope I shall be more fortunate in keeping within the bounds of the orders of the House than the hon. member who last spoke. I wish to refer to the additional amount of £50,000 which is being voted for old age pensions. I think we will all agree that this is new expenditure and it is expenditure well worth having in this country. We are delighted to see it. I should like to know whether the Minister proposes to bring in any amended legislation in order to check certain anomalies which come under the Act and which members will more or less gather from the Auditor-General’s report.

The hon. member cannot refer to that matter now.

On a point of order, is it not a fundamental principle that when the Government is asking for money, the House has the right to air any grievances ?

That could be done on the general Estimates, or on part appropriation.

Seeing that the increased expenditure is due to bad estimating, cannot we criticize the Minister?

The hon. member will have full opportunity of discussing that when the partial Estimates come before the House.

I am not at all sure what it is one can discuss in debates on this measure, but in view of the continuous calling to order of hon. members of this House of long standing, if I do commit a breech of the rules it must be laid to my inexperience. The Minister is asking for increased funds for pensions. I understand a new departure has been made in regard to certain old age pensioners who are housed, I think, in the only old age infirmary in the Cape Province, which is under the control of the provincial council. The paupers and indigent old men and women who are inmates of that establishment have for 12 months past been the recipients of old age pensions amounting to £2 10s. a month.

That is the result of legislation already passed.

No, sir. It has always been the case that these pensioners were granted £2 10s. per month. Now I understand the Treasurer’s department and the Minister of Finance have, in consultation with the Provincial Administrator, departed entirely from the intention of Parliament to pay these inmates an old age pension, and now the whole of these pensions is paid to the Provincial Administration. I want to know why the Minister has departed, I was going to say deprived, the inmates of the reward Parliament has said they should be entitled to, withdrawn their books and vouchers and handed them over to the Administrator? I want to know if the Minister is aware that this is causing much serious concern not only amongst these old people but also to charitably disposed people generally who visit these institutions and supplement quite considerably the benefits which a charitable provincial administration gives. I think it is quite a wrong policy. If you like, allow any person to, receive his old age pension arid charge one-half of it or 80 per cent. to the Provincial Administration, which gives them a home and three meals a day.

I think the hon. member will realize this is a matter of policy.

It is not an approved policy, but is an entirely new departure.

I do not think it has anything to do with the increase here.

Why not? I do not know. Only the Minister can tell me. Surely, if one is to be prevented from ‘making any observations we might go into committee straight away without discussing the motion to go into committee.

I notice a new item of £400. inspection charges on wool export, and I want to know what that is for. I thought that every wool farmer was paying 1s. a bale levy, which a large section of wool farmers strongly object to. What they object to is that this levy is being imposed on farmers who clipped their sheep after the first of January. I see there is an increase in the amount for locust destruction; in fact the amount is doubled, though I understood last year that the Minister of Agriculture, through his locust officers, had killed all the locusts. Have the locusts increased, and if so, where have they come from? If you refer to the discussion on the estimates last year you will find that the Minister said that all the locusts had been killed, and that there would be no necessity for further expenditure. I notice on another item that defalcations have increased from £1,500 to over £5,300. I should like the Minister to explain what these defalcations are. This increase looks very suspicious.

Who has got it?

That is what we would like to know. I would also like to refer to this item of £5,000 proposed to be granted for the Frobenius expedition. Surely there are men in this country who are capable of making investigations of the same nature as Dr. Frobenius has made. It is a most unpatriotic thing to import a man from outside when we have just as good men in this country. I am surprised at a Nationalist Government importing an investigator. Does Dr. Frobenius speak English? Can he speak Afrikaans? I would like to know whether he is bilingual? Has any report been placed on the Table of the House from Dr. Frobenius? Before we pass this vote we should have a report, and members should be acquainted with the work Dr. Frobenius has done. I should like to know also whether some of the exhibits, the results of his investigations, will be sent to Natal? The people of Natal are entitled to have a share, and Cape Town should not be the only town to have the benefit of these exhibits.

I must say that I sympathize with hon. members that the field of criticizm has been so limited, I can assure them that it is not my fault. Perhaps the true cause is that the Treasurer has succeeded in keeping down expenditure during the last financial year to such an extent that there has been nothing that hon. members can criticize. I do not think we have had the experience in any previous year that the "final expenditure will be very much less than the main appropriation for the year, and I do not think I have had on previous occasions to ask the House for so small ah amount for supplementary estimates. Hon. members have launched criticizm against the increased expenditure on old age pensions. Let me say, of course, that this is an amount which has to be paid under a statute passed by this House. It was based on a report of a committee on which both sides of the House were represented. We had no information to go on as to how many old people there were, or what were their means. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) asks when we shall reach finality. We believe the further increase in expenditure will be about 4 per cent. There was a census taken to find out how many old age pensioners would come under this scheme, but there must have been many old people who filled in their forms incorrectly. People sometimes are very loath to give information which Government departments want, and for some reason there was a big discrepancy between the numbers originally estimated and those who finally made application, and I am afraid the country will have to be prepared cheerfully to carry that burden. The hon. members have criticized the vote to Dr. Frobenius. Very strong pressure was brought to bear for this grant in the cause of science. I have no doubt my hon. friend, the Minister of the Interior, will be able to satisfy the House as to whether that grant was reasonable and in the interests of the country. The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) raised a point about funds required in connection with the wool export levy. That sum will be recovered. Ninety per cent. of the farmers asked for this levy and, I understand from my hon. friend, the Minister of Agriculture, that the levy will be imposed on all wool shipped after a certain date and the amount which will be disbursed here will be eventually recovered from the levy itself. I think the expenditure under that head has been considerably reduced. The hon. member also raised a point about defalcations. I am sorry to say that happened in Johannesburg where a clerk on the staff of the Supreme Court embezzled this amount. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice will be able to give the House more information than I can on the subject. The whole of the amount fie asked for is the result of the one act of this official. I hope the House will now be prepared to pass the motion.

Motion put and agreed to; House to go into committee to morrow.