I move—

seconded.

I move—

I hope this will meet the difficulties of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) and other hon. members. I think that entirely eliminates South African magazines and South African newspapers, although an article or an advertisement in a periodical publication would be subject to prohibition.

How do you define “foreign”?

What is “publication”?

Publication embraces any form of dissemination. I may add that I have considered the question of adding the word “foreign” before “book”, but I am afraid that may lead to difficulties in this way, that the court will then be called upon to distinguish between a pamphlet and a book, and one can conceive circumstances where that will be almost impossible.

Of course, for the purposes of a statute, you can put in anything you like. If you look at sub-section (8), lines 45 and 46, you find that the definition will not fit in with those two lines.

I think this amendment is certainly an improvement, because it avoids all doubt as to whether he can stop the publication of a newspaper of South Africa; the amendment makes it quite clear he cannot do that. I would suggest taking out” book” altogether. Is it wise to institute a censorship of books? After all, it is not everyone who can write and publish a book. As far as I am concerned, this amendment removes the principal difficulty I have about the clause.

I am going to ask the Minister whether he is prepared to consider two other amendments. I move as amendments—

I think the Minister will agree with me that without these two words a great deal of the efficacy of this provision will go by the board. Of course, it will be very embarrassing if, in the future, the Minister has to remove the Prime Minister from a particular district because he has published a “black manifesto”, but that, of course, is a matter for the Minister himself! I do submit that my amendments would widen the net in a reasonable fashion if the Minister would accept them.

I support the hon. member who has just spoken. Cartoons have a remarkable effect on public feeling. I need refer only to the cartoons published during the Great War, such as Raemaker’s and others, which had a very great effect.

May I say that although I have my own ideas of the motives of the hon. member, as to what he hopes this will lead to, there is no reason why the net should not be made as wide as possible, and I accept these two amendments.

Amendment proposed by the Minister of Justice put and agreed to.

May I put it to the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) that it would be better to add the words “picture or drawing” to the word “cartoon”? It may be something which is not a cartoon.

I do think there is something in what the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) has said, and perhaps the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) will accept his suggestion.

Yes, my amendment will then read—

Amendment proposed by Mr. Lawrence put and agreed to.

Sub-section (11), as amended, put and agreed to.

On sub-section (12),

I move—

The Minister is asking this House to give him powers which will constitute him a dictator If we give the Minister these powers, Mussolini will have nothing on him. Whenever he is satisfied that any person is promoting feelings of hostility among Europeans, or among any other section of the community, he may, by notice addressed to such person, prohibit him from living in any area. The clause is couched in the widest possible terms, so that an area might comprise a whole province. The Minister might, the day after the Bill becomes law, write me a letter saying that he does not think my presence in the Cape Province is for the public good, and that I must absent myself. This confers a power of banishment upon an individual. It is an extraordinary power. Does the Minister think that the state of affairs to which he alluded in his second reading speech is such that he should be given a power of this sort, so that he may, whenever he thinks fit, banish a person altogether from any province in the Union? The Minister is asking for something which the state of affairs in the country does not warrant. I tried to point out yesterday what a difficult task the Minister is taking upon himself, and how often opinions differ as to what is, or is not, calculated to promote feelings of hostility between the races. Again and again the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Brown), for instance, has done what he thought was the best he could do in the interests of working people, and yet in the eyes of some of his fellow-workers his action has appeared to be a deliberate attempt to stir up class feeling and to bring about a revolution. There was a difference of poles asunder between the two views. Yet, in a case like this, the Minister asks us to constitute him, a party politician with very definite views on the native question, a gentleman who once expressed himself to the effect that if he had his way no native would be allowed to drive a motor-car—to constitute him a dictator with sole discretion, and the power to banish. There should be the most serious abjection to give such power to any individual. There is no appeal against this. With regard to the minor matter of a pamphlet, there is an appeal, but in this most serious matter the Minister takes this power to himself altogether, The only way in which his judgment could be upset is where malefides could be proved, and we know that that could never be proved. So that the position is without appeal, without any sort of redress, we are proposing to hand over to a single individual, a party politician, a man with very definite views on the native question which are not accepted by many people in the country, the power to say “You are, in my opinion, stirring up trouble between black and white, and you must go.” Why have not the natives the right to combine in their own interests, and to be led by people who think they are being wrongly or harshly treated in this country? Much more harm will be done by provisions of this sort than any good which may be effected. I appeal to the Minister to agree to a less offensive way of attaining the object it is proposed to attain by means of this particular clause.

I wish to move an amendments—

While I associate myself with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) with regard to the provisions of this clause, and with the general remarks by him, at the same time I hope, if the Minister is not prepared to withdraw this clause, he will accept the amendment. The idea is that some sort of warning will be issued to people concerned before the deportation orders are issued and acted upon by the Minister. After all I take it that the object of the Bill and of the clause in particular is to maintain peace and to prevent the agitations to which the Minister is, at the moment, taking exception. The Minister is asking for extraordinary powers, as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has pointed out—-powers which I think the Minister will agree should not, in the interests of the community, be exercised except in very extreme cases. It seems to me, after a Warning is issued that the Minister has his eye on a particular area, and particular people, it would in nine cases out of ten have the desired effect of reducing that area or those people to any rate public silence as the Minister wishes. I submit that if this amendment were accepted and warning were issued the result would be that in nine cases out of ten it would not be necessary for the Minister to exercise the extreme powers given to him in this section, which, in the general interests of the community, and in the light of the general moral effect on everybody, should only be exercised in very extreme cases.

Dealing first of all with the remarks of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell), there would be much more force in the arguments if it were not for the fact that this House has already entrusted powers infinitely more far-reaching under section 1 of the Native Administration Act, to the Governor-General, which has made the Governor-General the supreme chief over all detribalized natives in the Transvaal, Free State and Natal, which means that the Governor-General—and in practice, the Minister —can not only exclude a native from a certain area, leaving him the rest of the Union to settle in, but he can take any native from any portion of the Union and place him in any other portion of the Union for the remainder of his life. That is a power the House thought necessary when passing the Native Administration Act in 1927. Therefore, so far as the Free State and Natal are concerned, this section gives powers which are much weaker than the powers conferred under the Native Administration Act, but it does give these powers as regards black and white. The Governor-General in council cannot deal with the white man under this section. If this section is passed, then the Minister—I will deal later with whether the power should be conferred on the Governor-General—the Minister would have powers less extreme than those granted to the Governor-General, but he will have them in the Cape Province, and in dealing with black or white. In regard to whether this power of excluding an agitator from a certain area should be entrusted to the Governor-General I would be prepared to accept that if it were not for the following sections which call upon the Minister to furnish reasons for excluding a person from a certain area. It is obvious the Governor-General could not be called upon to give reasons. That is why I am not prepared to consider transferring the power from the Minister to the Governor-General. If the House were to agree in the light of the subsequent sections to provide reasons, that that sub-section should be eliminated, then I will be prepared in section 12 to alter “Minister” to “Governor-General”, As for the amendment by the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Waterson) I do not think it is fair to any area that it should be branded by proclamation in the Gazette as a disturbed area. One can well understand what the consequences would be in overseas countries, with regard to tourist traffic, etc., if a particular area is proclaimed as a disturbed area; but the point is, what this section has in contemplation is to exclude the agitator from a peaceful area before he creates a disturbance; so that the amendment proposed is diametrically opposed to the sub-section, and therefore I cannot accept it.

This sub-section shows to what absurd lengths some people whose outlook upon general affairs is somewhat prejudiced —even if they are firmly fixed in the saddle—will go. The most astounding part of it is that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs and the Minister of Defence, and hon. members— I will not include the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Brown) whom I congratulate on having come out as he did; but the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. McMenamin) and the hon. and very retiring member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Shaw).

Shaw has paired against the Bill.

Well, I am glad to hear it. We are gradually getting into the consciousness of these people. That only leaves the hon. member for Boksburg, the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs and the Minister of Defence. The astounding part of it is that members like this who stood against the original Riotous Assemblies Act—

The hon. member must confine himself to the section.

I am pointing to the enormity of the action of certain people.

The action of certain hon. members of the House has nothing to do with the matter.

May I refer to the inaction of certain hon. members of the House? They are superlatively inactive. I know that the Chairman is astounded at the inaction of hon. members who are prepared not only not to oppose this section but to support it, but it seems hopeless to appeal to the Minister of Justice and to hon. members on that side, and one can only appeal to their interest—prospective or present. Now their present interest is in favour of the Bill. Their prospective interest should be opposed to the Bill. I want to say this to hon. members on that side of the House. They are supporting this Bill in the belief, consciously or unconsciously, that they are there for all time. They are not going to be there for all time.

Yes, we are.

Oh, what a prospect for South Africa !

Order. The hon. member must discuss the sub-section of this section and not the Bill as a whole.

I am dealing with the subsection. I suggest to hon. members that it is the very easiest thing in the world for this not quite so reactionary party on this side of the House, to seize the reins of Government bye and bye, which is inevitable sooner or later, and, say, the hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) expresses his views, he might easily be subjected to the operation of this sub-section by his own party, judging by what he said the other day on the Budget. I regard his speech as a statesman-like effort, or getting in the direction of statesmanship. His own party looked very much askance at him. Under this clause it will be possible, under the present regime, for the Minister of Justice to kick him out neck and crop.

They won’t do that.

No? He might have some private arrangement with the hon. Minister. It is quite easy for anyone, even for the most inoffensive member, say, the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Col. M. S. W. du Toit) that a future Minister of Justice will have him kicked out of Pretoria (West) just as he is on the verge of winning the victory in a future election, and the other individual opposing him, presumably a South African party man, who might be even one of these fearful socialists, such as myself, will be given the victory because the hon. gentleman has been kicked out neck and crop from the constituency he is contesting. It is the easiest thing in the world to fall foul of a cause like this, and of a prejudiced Minister of Justice. I do urge upon hon. members that this extravagant exercise of power, or the request for extravagant powers, is something which should not be granted. The only consolation is that it will probably act like an overdose of poison. You have so outraged fundamental justice by this sub-section that the spirit of the people will completely rebel against it. If you ever attempt to put it into practice, they will rise, almost as one man, and you will not have merely an agitator up against the whole of the Bill, the man that it is inclined to prejudice, but the whole of those whom it will prejudice, and it will make this entirely inoperative. In a way I welcome it from that angle. I would rather it was stronger from that angle, but it seems to me, from my own sense of justice, of what is due to the Legislature of this country, that is ourselves, of what is due to the courts of justice of the land, and what is due to fundamental justice, that I am forced to rebel against putting on the Statute Book of this country such an iniquitous provision as this. I hope it will be rejected.

I am sorry that the hon. Minister refused to respond to the appeal of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) to drop this provision in the Bill even at this late hour. I hardly thought he would, and it is quite clear that he intends to stick to this provision. I have stated my objections to his Bill, and I do not propose to repeat what I said on the occasion of the second reading. I want to refer, however, to what the hon. Minister said this afternoon in justification of his attitude in retaining this provision. The hon. Minister referred to the fact that in the Native Administration Act there was a much more far-reaching provision giving the Governor-General power to deal with natives, and he relied upon that to justify the retention of the provision in this section. That is a concrete example of the danger of departing from sound principles in dealing with matters affecting the liberties of the subject, because every step taken in departure from the sound principle of entrusting the courts with power to deal with the liberty of the subject, is a stepping ground for a further departure at some future time. We have a case in point. The Minister of Finance comes to the House and gets power to prohibit the importation of wheat. That fact was used by the Minister of Justice, in the proceedings of the Select Committee on this Bill as an argument to justify him in coming to this House to ask for powers to interfere with the liberty of the subject. This House gives the Cabinet power to deal with natives in special circumstances, and that is relied upon by the Minister as a justification for coming to this House for further powers to deal not only with natives, but also with Europeans. If we concede this to-day, the same process will be followed on some future occasion. The only sound way to deal with this matter is to rely upon the rule of law, which has been the safeguard of the liberties of the people of this country, and for the House to set its face against any tendency to hand over the liberties of the people to the administration. It is quite clear that no appeals of that sort will have any effect on the Minister and he will insist on this clause going through in some form or other. I should like, however, to move two amendments to remedy the great hardships which may be affected by this clause. I move—

The effect of this amendment will be to give the person who is to be excluded from any area, reasonable notice that he has got to go. It will give him time to settle up his affairs and make his arrangements, and will protect him against the danger of being seized without warning in the middle of the night and put across the boundary of the area in which he is. Then I want to move a further amendment—

The effect of that amendment will be to limit the period for which a person being dealt with under this clause may be kept out of the particular area referred to, otherwise the position will be that the Minister, by his own decree, may keep a man out indefinitely and for a period which is entirely in the Minister’s discretion. I wish to limit this power of the Minister for three months. I suggest that three months will be ample time for the Minister’s order to be of effect. It will be sufficient time to allow the excited and hostile feelings which may have been aroused in the area to subside, and will allow the offender, the person prohibited, to return after that period when things have quietened down in this area.

Don’t you think the date ought to be changed—make it 1930 B.C.

I fear that the last speaker, and also the one before him, did not consider the position we are faced with in what they said. It is now proposed that the Minister should allow a person a certain time before he is removed. He may do a tremendous amount of harm in seven days. He is further to be allowed to return in three months. The position may be a hundred times worse in three months, and such a proposal is surely entirely unpractical. The hon. member recently said that he, himself, if this Bill were passed, would walk down Adderley Street with a very troubled and anxious heart. If that is his feeling, then he must have a very bad conscience in this regard. We must not forget that we are dealing with native troubles and with people who cannot be measured by our ordinary standards of civilization. The Minister has indicated what far-reaching powers have already been granted to the Governor-General, and just because in South Africa we are faced with a position which cannot be judged by the usual civilization standard we must take extraordinary action. I am very sorry that we cannot debate the amendments of the hon. member for Mowbray (Mr. Close) owing to the ruling from the Chair, because otherwise we should be able to convince the country of the absolute ineffectiveness of those proposals.

The hon. member cannot discuss the proposals.

I do not want to go into details, but I say that if we could have had proposals from the other side which would provide a different way out of the trouble the Minister would certainly have accepted them with both hands. No one welcomes the granting of such drastic powers, but there is no other way out, and the Minister must be able to take immediate action against any disturber of the peace in a quiet area. The Minister has already replied on the amendment of the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Waterson), but I just want to know who is responsible for the Afrikaans text. It says here that the Minister can take action in a “busy” area. If there is a big nagmaal in a village, the people say that the village is very busy; then the Minister would be able to intervene in connection with the church festival. However unpleasant it may be to take such drastic steps, we still feel that it is necessary in the particular circumstances of South Africa. Neither the present Minister nor a future one will act like Mussolini, because, in any case, he will be responsible to this House.

I enter my most earnest and solemn protest against this clause, which is repugnant to every one who has any regard for the principles of justice and civilization. We have been told of nothing which will justify our absolute surrender of our rights of liberty and freedom of speech. The hon. member for Winburg (Dr. N. J. van der Merwe) has told us how sorry he was that the House had not an opportunity of discussing my amendment. I wish we could have had that opportunity, and so tested whether the rule of law is so obsolete and so useless as the hon. member seems to think. I wish to register my most deep and solemn protest against the fatal powers the Bill will give to the Minister. He is not a Mussolini, and future Ministers of Justice are not always going to be Pirows, but for all time we are going under this measure to entrust to the Minister of Justice for the time being the most absolute and arbitrary rights over pensons’ liberties and movements. The people affected will not only be natives for whom some persona think anything is good enough, but people of our own flesh and blood may be exposed to harsh and unjust treatment. Can the hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) say that we are justified in entrusting such far-reaching powers to one solitary individual—powers which may affect every man, woman and child in the Union, no matter to what race they belong? The Minister, by this Bill, is branding the whole of the people in the Union, and is putting a blot on the statute book.

The hon. member cannot discuss this now

I am talking about this clause, and I wish to show why the amendment should be accepted, and how the whole of the clause should be totally rejected. The whole of this clause, and the consequent clauses following it. As the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Roper) most rightly pointed out, here we have another proof of that pernicious method, that once we set a bad precedent in our statutes, it is quoted as if it were like holy scripture. I happened to be on the select committee, and voted against that particular clause. We are just as strongly and as determinedly against these revolutionary methods of dealing with our vital principles of civilization. I appeal to the Minister to get away from this state of affairs. We are getting back to the feudal system—to the days when the feudal barons, when one man had the power of life and death over individuals. What other principle of legislation are we going to introduce in this country if this is carried? What cap be held hot to be justified in the way of a further extension of these autocratic powers, if this power, as contained in this clause, is given to the Minister? I appeal to every man who sits in this House, and every man outside, with regard to the course we are permitting ourselves to pursue, and if we pass this clause we will have passed a thing which is not only a blot on our statute book, but irreparably will do most moral damage to the principles of our civilization.

I share the regret of the hon. member for Mowbray (Mr. Close) that his amendment cannot be debated for the reasons which have been stated by the hon. member for Winburg (Dr. N. J. van der Merwe). With reference to the amendment of the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Roper) I think the hon. member for Winburg is right when he says there is a certain amount of danger in our not being able to act quickly enough, but when, on the other hand, I remember what powers are given to the Minister under sub-clause (4) to prohibit any person from attending a meeting, then I think that is not unreasonable to allow seven days, because then he can make his arrangements during the seven days for leaving the area. I am, therefore, prepared to accept the first amendment, but I cannot accept the second one. As the hon. member for Winburg has already explained, it would be impossible to give effect to that amendment. I think that the hon. member for Wynberg forgets that all documents in connection with a prohibition of a person from remaining in a definite area must be laid on the Table. It is, therefore, impossible for a man to be kept out of an area for a lifetime. That would not happen, but if it 1s provided that he is kept out of an area for three months, then he knows that the three months pass, and then he may start again stirring up the people in the area, and, as we have the guarantee the House can go into the matter, there is no necessity for this amendment, and I cannot accept it.

I think that the hon. member for Mowbray (Mr. Close) is going very far when he questions whether we have any feelings of justice. I just want to tell the hon. member that we are just as fair-minded as he is, but our feeling is not opposed to the natives who are stirred up by other individuals. My fairmindedness goes so far that I want to protect the natives against such people, and, therefore, I feel that the time has come to grant this autocratic power to the Minister. If the hon. member can suggest a different way, I shall welcome it, but that has not been done. It has clearly appeared from the speeches that we have to do with abnormal circumstances. Therefore, it is necessary for us to give this great authority to the Minister. I admit that they are great powers, but we must do our duty and protect the natives, because, although hon. members opposite think that they are the only ones who protect the natives, I can assure them that we realize our responsibilities, and want to protect the natives. I quite agree with the sub-clause, and I am certain that the public also support the Minister. If the Minister should abuse his powers and should do the things that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) mentioned, then the feelings of justice of the public will immediately be aroused, and the Minister will very soon be brought to book. There is, therefore, no danger of the Minister going too far.

I am rather surprised that the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Roper) is wasting the time of the committee in moving amendments to a clause about which I can only say I agree with the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Brown), who said yesterday, most emphatically and sincerely, that this is a Bill which cannot be improved and amended; and therefore any attempt to move an amendment to a clause of this kind is merely a waste of time. I am glad to see, in spite of what the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) has said, an aspect which is forcing itself more and more on hon. members. I notice, with a certain amount of pleasure, that even the Minister of Defence and the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, have fled, and are unable to give even their feeble moral support to the Minister of Justice. I hope they will also flee from the division when it comes about on this matter. I am trying to visualize how the provisions of this clause will be applied by my hon. friend, the Minister of Justice. Anyone who knows the opinions of the Minister knows they may be very capricious, as we have had cause to notice in the House, and if in his opinion anything is done which is calculated to create hostility between the European and other sections, persons may be deported from any particular area. “Area” may mean anything; it may mean Cape Town, where the House is established. I can quite visualize the Minister, who has not only shown contempt for justice but for Parliament, when a debate is going on, on the question of native franchise, giving us a repetition of Pride’s Purge. I can see the amalgamation between the Natal Jingoes and sugar growers. But the Minister may go even further, and finding that he has not excluded enough people he may say, “Take away that bauble, and take away the members of this House.” Even the Minister may not have the courage to exercise that power, but he has that power under the clause as it stands. I view this clause with a great deal of nervousness from another point of view. Take our friends on the other side of the House, and my own case, and that of many others who have always believed and preached a white South Africa. I visualize Mr. Burton sitting as Minister of Justice. I admit it is rather a far-fetched probability, but supposing he was sitting there in the place of the Minister of Justice when we are having a general election, and when hon. members on the other side of the House and members of the Labour party are going about preaching a white South Africa, Mr. Burton would be in a position to deport everyone of the parliamentary candidates preaching their point of view from their constituencies until after the election. Naturally they are creating hostility. If we have an election on the native franchise, the same thing might apply. Alter natively, the Minister of Justice would be in a position at the present moment, if an election were being held to-day, and the Native Franchise Bill were before the country, to go to candidates who are supporting the extension of the native franchise, or who is opposing the Prime Minister’s Bills, and say to them, “I am going to deport you from this constituency until the day after the election, because in my opinion, by reason of the fact that you are opposing the Bill of the Prime Minister, you are creating hostility between the native races and the Europeans. I can conceive of an election being fought in which 50 per cent, of the candidates are deported from their constituencies. This is not far-fetched. There is no need for the Minister to account to a court of law or to Parliament. There is no need for him to account to anyone; he has only to account to his conscience, and I do not think his conscience would trouble him very much. That is how the clause can be applied, and if that is the power we intend to give to a Minister, then the sooner we turn around and say that we will do away with Parliament altogether the better it will be.

I am sorry the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) thinks I have been wasting time in moving amendments.

The amendments have no value.

Then the hon. member does not understand the amendment which I moved and which the Minister accepted, for it goes some way towards mitigating the blow which may descend on the Minister’s victims. I can assure the hon. member that the amendments I have proposed do not reconcile me to the principle of the section. The Minister pointed out that the names of the persons dealt with must be placed upon the Table of the House at the ensuing session, and concluded that that was sufficient protection against abuse. That is no great safeguard, because it might very well be some months after persons have been dealt with before Parliament meets, and even when the new session commences it may be weeks or months before a debate can take place, so that the unfortunate victim may be kept out of an area for an inordinately long period of time. I may also point out that if my second amendment were accepted, and the limit of prohibition were made three months, there would be nothing to prevent the Minister from issuing a fresh prohibition after the return of the individual, if when he came back he began his evil practices over again, the Minister would be entitled to issue a fresh prohibition against him, and keep him out of the area tor another three months. I submit that it will be a wholesome thing to impose a limit of three months upon the Minister’s power to prohibit in this way. The objects aimed at in this clause can be adequately secured by agreeing to a limitation of three months, such as I suggest.

I wish to say a few words with regard to the outlook, as I see it, under this clause. British justice, in Britain and in every British dominion, is based on the Habeas Corpus Act. I can see that under this Bill that Act will be set aside. Under this Bill the Minister will be able to secure the arrest of any person on a charge that he, the Minister himself, lays. The Minister will give out the punishment. He will be the prosecutor and the judge and the executioner. It is entirely against the fundamentals of British justice.

What are the fundamentals?

The Habeas Corpus Act, which says that you have no right to take my body without taking me before a magistrate or a judge of the country within 24 hours.

We have had that experience.

All the more reason why my friend should agree with me. The hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Roper) said very plainly that this clause was handing the liberties of the people over to the Administration. That is true. I say to the Minister that this law— no matter what may be the opinion of the Minister and his supporters—will interfere with the cherished liberty of the people; with something that people have suffered for in years gone by, and if you do that you will not achieve your objective. On the other hand, you will so much righteous cause for indignation and especially through the possibility of some Minister coming into power who may make this subversive of ordinary common decency. The Minister is a man who will, I am certain, carry out this law as he wishes, and I do not think we should have any complaint against his administration. But all individuals are not alike and it is conceivable that some succeeding Minister may have a temporary aberration; may step off from the ordinary sanity of the individual, and he may do a great deal of damage and injustice before he is pulled up by his colleagues. No persons should be dealt with without having the right to come before a magistrate or a judge. The hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Roper) says he wants to give everyone seven days in which to prepare their affairs before being sent out of a district. But they can take you out of the district in which you were born; do you realize that? You can lock people up but you cannot deport them from the country in which they were born, under international law. Therefore is it right that we should deport our citizens from one area to another? You tear a man from his family and from his business, you make it impossible for him to live in another area; you leave his wife and family unprovided for. If a man has to be removed, remove him and put him in gaol. I feel we should approach this matter from the point of view of the big issue. This is Parliament and the voice of the people, and if the country is prepared to hand over to an individual the right to take a person and dispose of him in any way, they may just as well be his judge and executioner; then that state of affairs is going to have exactly the opposite effect of what the Minister seeks to achieve.

Amendment proposed by Minister of Justice, and first part of amendment proposed by Mr. Roper, put and agreed to.

Second part of amendment proposed by Mr. Roper put and the committee divided:

This sub-clause is designed to give some measure of protection to the unfortunate person who has been ordered under the previous sub-section to leave an area. He may ask the Minister for his reasons for ordering him out of that area, and the information on which the Minister was induced to issue the order and then the Minister must supply his reasons and “so much of the information which induced the Minister to issue such notice as can in his opinion be disclosed without detriment to public policy.” I submit that the words I have quoted constitute a most dangerous part of the clause because it gives the Minister power to withhold the whole of the information upon which he may have acted, if the Minister is prepared to say that the information cannot be disclosed without detriment to public policy. This provision may be the cause of the very greatest hardship, for the Minister has power to banish a man on the strength of a police report, and the Minister may withhold the information with which the police may have furnished him. The person concerned would be in an absolutely hopeless position, because he may have been removed on wrong information, and he may not even know the information on which he is being turned out. We are not suggesting that the present Minister is likely arbitrarily to withhold information on a mere pretext, but we are providing for the future, as the measure may be on the statute book for years, and we do not know what Minister may be in control in a few years’ time. I can understand that on grounds of public policy it may be inadvisable for the Minister to disclose the sources of his information, but there can be no objection to disclosing the facts alleged against the person concerned. I move, as an amendment—

The Minister would then be obliged to give his reasons for deporting a man, and a statement of the facts alleged against him upon which he was induced to issue such notice.

I think the hon. member will agree that it is a principle which has been accepted as far back as the 1913 Immigration Act, and in the provinces even before that, that the executive is entitled to act on information from certain sources overseas with regard to people who are prohibited from entering the country. I do not think the hon. member would suggest that in this particular type of case, and knowing the men we have to deal with—elements from overseas in respect of whom, naturally, we should receive reports from certain sources— that we should ignore these reports. The Minister may have very definite information as to a man’s career overseas—why should we ignore them? Such information obviously could not be disclosed; it is received from various channels which I need not specify, but it could not be made public by way of a written statement to the person affected. As regards local information, that would be of two kinds. You would have information which takes the form of a complaint by an informer, and the law makes such information absolutely privileged. I could not disclose it if I wanted to. So the only information which would remain would be local information not falling under the ruling given in Tranter’s case. In most cases, no doubt, that information would be given, and the Minister may be quite open to substantiate his reasons in writing. That is as far as the practical side of the case is concerned. As regards the amendment, I think if the hon. member goes into the position he would find that it would be exceedingly difficult to give facts without disclosing their source. I regret I cannot accept the amendment, because I am afraid it could serve no good purpose.

I can see the difficulty with regard to certain sources of information from oversea and elsewhere. The Minister knows perfectly well that his information is with regard to crimes, but here he creates a crime by having acted on that information and making an order; the order is disobeyed, and it is a crime.

The Minister said he would have difficulty to give the facts without disclosing the source of information. I really cannot see the difficulty. It seems to me it is one thing to say” So and so was addressing a meeting at such and such a time, and used certain words,” and it is quite another thing to say “he was heard by such and such a person to say such words.” In one case you are disclosing facts, and in the other case disclosing the source of information. After all the Minister will have a skilled staff at his disposal, and he will have his own legal ingenuity as a check on the ingenuity of his subordinates. He will be able to frame his statement of facts in such a way as not to indicate where his information has come from. I cannot see there is any substance in the difficulty the Minister feels. The hardship that may be inflicted if this sub-section stands unamended is a most serious one, because information may have been given to the Minister that one of these agitators used certain inflammatory language at a meeting, say on the parade. The person accused may be able to prove an alibi, or that the words alleged to have been used by him were used by somebody else, or that the words alleged to have been used were not used, but other words somewhat similar, and not the words charged against him. One knows from experience, from what goes on in the courts, how easy it is to make a mistake with regard to words used in ordinary conversation, and that it is easier with regard to words used on a public platform by a person addressing a crowd of other persons. It is a common experience that a witness says a person used certain words, and another witness may be called to say that he did not use these words at all, but different words, which were misunderstood by the person giving the information. And yet, under this clause, he may be absolutely deprived of any knowledge as to what he alleged to have said, and therefore deprived of any power to satisfy the court or the Minister himself that he never used those words. I am moving this amendment with an eye to sub-section 18, because that is a possibility that should be taken into account—the possibility that a man may be able to prove that the information made against him is lying or incorrect, whereas it will obviously be impossible for him to prove the mala fides of the Minister. I appeal to the Minister again to consider this suggestion of mine and to accept it with a view to giving a person dealt with the right of knowing what it is he is alleged to have done.

The hon. member for Albert (Mr. Steytler) said he was prepared to entrust that power to the Minister, because if the Minister acted unjustly the country would not tolerate it and would call him to account. Not only are there the obvious difficulties to which the hon., member for Wynberg (Mr. Roper has drawn attention, but the roan who is charged ought to know what the charge is that is made against him, and have an opportunity of dealing with it. Not only will he not have the opportunity, but he will have no opportunity of making the facts public, and nobody else (Will have that opportunity. For the public not to tolerate the acts of the Minister, it will first have to know what the alleged acts of injustice are. I do not say this of the Minister, but of any Minister who may be in charge.

Question put; That all the words after “notice and” in line 33, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause.

Upon which the committee divided:

If a person who is ordered to leave an area does not leave it, he may be removed by any member of the police force. I think the Minister will agree that the members of the police force require to be authorized. I think there ought to be some written authority in the nature of a warrant, and I propose that the words “duly authorized in writing” be inserted. I hope the Minister will consider that.

“By a commissioned officer” and then I will accept it.

Yes, by a commissioned police officer. Then another slight amendment I suggest is that—

I will accept the first amendment. As to the second amendment, which I think is proposed for the purpose of avoiding clumsy wording, I do not know whether that object is entirely achieved by it.

I move—

I do not think the amendment of the hon. member is really an amendment at all.

I think it would be a great improvement, and the words “to be removed” will make it quite clear.

I move—

in order to make it clear that he can only be removed after conviction.

No, I do not agree.

It means, if a man refuses to comply with the order, he is guilty of an offence. With regard to the power of removal by a police officer, this should take place only as a secondary consequence of the conviction. I want to have it clear that that is the intention. Otherwise, we should have the Minister giving an order, the man refusing to go, and then the police officer taking him away on his own account. Thus you will have a curious state of affairs.

I am afraid that is quite out of the question. Any person will have to be removed when he disobeys the Minister’s order. If the Minister has to wait until he is convicted, it leaves the door open to appeal to the provincial division and the appellate division, it would nullify the proviso contained in sub section (12).

Amendment proposed by Mr. Close and the first part of amendment proposed by Mr. Roper put and negatived.

Second part of amendment proposed by Mr. Roper put and agreed to.

Sub-section (14), as amended, put and agreed to.

On sub-section (16),

I move—

Is that not a drastic power to take? Does not the Minister leave an undesirable emigrant, who has been convicted, under a previous sub-section of attending a prohibited meeting? The man may attend out of curiosity. He appears before the magistrate, and may be fined a nominal sum, but the mere effect of that conviction makes him a prohibited immigrant, and he can be deported from the country. Surely this is very drastic, and it ought to be exercised only where there have been repeated offences of this kind. I propose the amendment—

so that the Minister is only at liberty to deport a man if he has been convicted more than once.

I am sorry that I cannot accept that amendment. I realize, of course, what the hon. member has said, but the difficulty lies in this. There are some 500 or 600 known Communists in this country at the present time. It would be an easy thing to ring the changes by these various agitators by agreement amongst themselves, and you could have several hundred first convictions before you could put into operation this deportation clause. But recognizing that it is a very drastic power, I propose the following amendment—.

In line 56 to delete the word “Minister” and to insert the words “Governor-General”.

Of course, if the hon. member does not want that amendment, or he thinks that it does not improve the section, I am quite prepared to drop it. That makes it formally and definitely a matter of Cabinet responsibility, and it is quite an adequate safeguard.

Is it not the Cabinet collectively that is responsible now?

Yes, it is a Cabinet responsibility, but only in very glaring cases. The Cabinet would not consider each individual case. In this case, however, as the result of my amendment, it would consider each individual case. There is a further point L want to add. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) stated that anybody attending meetings out of curiosity would be a prohibited person. That is obviously not so, unless you can show that that somebody knew of the prohibition and attended the meeting in defiance of it.

I hope the hon. member will be able to make this my concession to the just suggestion of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan). I do not think it can do any harm to the Bill.

Amendments proposed by the Minister of Justice put and agreed to.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Duncan put and negatived.

Sub-section (16), as amended, put and the committee divided:

I move— That sub-section 17 be deleted.

I thought that by inserting this sub-section I was to some extent meeting the trade union point of view, but I find that my efforts in that direction have been a failure. On the contrary, the trade unionists seem to think that the clause is something in the nature of a calumny, because it mentions trade unions and not other associations.

They thought it was a trap.

Anyhow, they felt it was invidious that they should be mentioned and that other associations, such as agricultural societies, should not be mentioned.

Sub-section negatived.

On sub-section (18),

This sub-section purports to give a person who is affected by an order of the Minister the right to go to court and to apply to have the order set aside, but, in order to do that, the person concerned has to prove that, in issuing the prohibition, the Minister acted mala fide or capriciously, or that he was actuated by improper motives, or that he failed to bring his mind to bear upon the subject matter of such prohibition. Thus it will be seen that the unfortunate person has not the faintest chance whatever of upsetting the order, as it would practically be impossible for him to prove that the Minister acted mala fide, capriciously, and so on. If a Minister did In fact act mala fide or from improper motives, it would be simple for him, under sub-section 13, to frame his reasons in such a way as to make it absolutely impossible for his victom to obtain any redress at all; so that if the present sub-section is not amended, sub-section 13, although it purports to Be a safeguard, is perfectly useless. I hope the Minister will agree to the following amendment—

A person may be deported on information supplied by the Minister which may turn out to be utterly false. The amendment leaves the person concerned the right to apply to have the order set aside if in fact no feelings of hostility were caused. The amendment will also safeguard the ordinary common law fight of a man to have his grievance dealt with by a court of law. If it were shown that the Minister had committed an error of judgment, that could not be urged before a court as the subsection stands, because an error of judgment is not mala fides.

I am afraid there is no possibility of accepting that amendment, which would mean that simply by filing an affidavit any person affected could force the Minister to disclose all the information he had, and if the Minister’s information is based largely on information which cannot be disclosed, you will have the affidavit of the man who is affected, on the one side, and the statement by the Minister: “I have the information but cannot disclose it,” on the other. He would invariably succeed in his application. There would be a Supreme Court trial and a clash of affidavits. It fits in with the view the hon. member takes of the Bill, but not with the view taken on this side.

The clause as it stands is thoroughly bad. It simply invites a conflict between the judges and the Government’ of the day. Supposing the Minister makes an order, the man goes to court and asks the judge to say that the Minister is acting mala fide, or is actuated by some important motive. What is going to be the position if the judge comes to that conclusion, if a member of the executive Government has been actuated by an improper motive, and the order is set aside? You bring the judiciary of The country into conflict with its executive, which is a thing you should avoid as far as possible. Let the Minister act, and take the consequences of public opinion., It would be a dangerous thing to ask the judiciary to give a judgment on this and to say that the Minister was actuated by improper motive? or acted maliciously.

Amendment put and negatived.

The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) has convinced me that this clause does not meet with general approval, and under these circumstances I move formally—

I desire to support the Minister’s proposal; for the first time, we have an honest proposal on this Bill. I disagree with the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) when he speaks of a clash with the judiciary. I cannot conceive any individual who is affected being advised to go to court, because he would not have a hope of succeeding. The only object of this provision was to make it appear that we are still giving certain relief without any relief being given. The Minister is to be congratulated on his sterling honesty in the matter.

Sub-section (18) put and negatived.

I move—

The whole justification of this Bill is that it is an emergency measure. The Minister of Defence and the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs will be glad to see some way out of the difficulty. There must be a large number of people who have felt that the conditions of the country are such that an emergency measure is necessary, but do not feel that these drastic steps are necessary. I want the committee to adopt the proposals in a form which will indicate to the country at large that, in the opinion of the House, they will agree to the provisions only as an emergency measure.

I put the proposed new sub-section.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, would you mind putting the amendment in both languages, or, at all events, put it to the committee in the language in which the amendment has been put. There are hon. members who cannot understand the other language. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) voted against a proposal, because he did not understand the language in which it was put.

I wish to point out that the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) voted against the proposal to report progress, not because he did not know what the motion was. He was quite aware of it.

I think it will be clear to the committee that I have put all the amendments in both languages, and when I put the question, I generally put the one in Afrikaans and the next in English. I follow that principle right through as far as I can.

Proposed new sub-section put and the committee divided:

During the debate on the Railway Part Appropriation Bill, I raised the question of the extension of the Cape sewerage system into Table Bay harbour, and again on the Budget debate I raised the question, and suggested that the Minister of Railways should make some announcement. I understand that this is a recommendation that the adoption of this section of the report will authorize the extension of a pipe sewerage line over certain Crown lands. I do not think it is in the interests of Cape Town that the amenities should be so jeopardized by the extensions of the present sewerage system, which is at present emptying itself around our coasts and in the vicinity of this House. I do not think that any single member of this House who has walked or driven along the sea front in and around Mouille Point right at the gateway of Cape Town, can fail to appreciate what is likely to be consequent upon the extension of this present sewerage system. I have no hesitation in stating that it is a blot on the amenities of Cape Town. Words have no power to adequately describe what a menace to life and health it is, or the disgusting state of affairs that prevails as a consequence of the present sewerage system in that particular area. I do not want to be guilty of sensation, but I do know that a person must be deprived of almost every physical sense to be able to countenance the present arrangement, and under this recommendation, under clause 2, in effect it will mean an extension of the present system, and as far as my information goes, it will probably be an extension by some 200 percent, of the present sewerage system. I definitely asked the Minister of Railways and Harbours some time ago if he would inform this House what steps were being taken by his department to explore the conditions likely to be introduced in the event of this extension of the sewerage system. I have received no reply from the Minister of Railways, but I think the Minister must be aware of the report of the various engineers who probably are doing it to satisfy the Cape Town Municipality. Let there be no mistake about this thing. When one is in an inland centre this particular sewerage refuse must be destroyed by scientific processes. Every inland centre has adequately To maintain the most efficient engineering appliance that scientific skill has given us. We are told that it is a very valuable product and can be utilized with great effect upon the land. If it is necessary for inland centres to adopt a particular way of dealing with this particular problem why should the fact that Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, or Durban who have the sea as their area, in order to save a few pounds, be allowed to dump this particular refuse into the sea? I am quite prepared to talk to the town council, but the town council would probably be actuated by the saving of a few hundred thousand pounds. Is this House going merely to endorse whatever recommendations the city council are prepared to put up to them by a majority report? I am not concerned with the report the city council has put up. I invite the attention of every hon. member in this House thoroughly to appreciate what is likely to be the consequence of the extension of this sewerage system, and to ask each member if he is prepared seriously to give a blank cheque to the Cape Town Municipality, with his eyes open, in order to save a few thousand pounds, to extend the disgraceful state of affairs which presently exists as the result of the present sewerage system? I am saying that inland centres are forced by virtue of the fact that they have no sea in which to dump this refuse, to adopt other ways and means of dealing with it, with ultimate advantage to the area in which the sewage farms are created. It is possible to create such a sewage farm in Cape Town There are two sections of Cape Town opinion. I do not know, nor do I want to suggest to the House, that there is a large minority or a small majority in favour of one scheme or of another scheme, but I do feel that every member of this House is aware that any extension of the present system is not likely to improve the social amenities of that area. I think if the Minister of Justice had read, or any member of this House had read, or the Minister of the Interior had read, the various affidavits filed in an action, seeking some months ago to interdict the municipality of Cape Town from using the present system, he would not be found ready to support this present scheme. I move—

I hope the hon. member will not insist upon this motion. Surely it is not for us here to discuss whether it is better for the municipality of Cape Town to have special machinery to destroy sewage or not. That is a matter for the citizens of Cape Town and the town council. It does not affect us at all. What we are dealing with is this, that the municipality has a pipe line, which is a nuisance at Mouille Point, only 300 feet away from the sea. They ask us to give them permission to use certain of our land which is between the municipality land and ours. All that they ask for is that we should give them permission to lay their pipes over that land. They say they want to extend this pipe line 2,400 feet into the sea, so that the smell will not be a nuisance to residents at Mouille Point. The only thing that Parliament has to consider is, can we allow them to lay the pipe line over the small piece of intervening land or not? Whether it is necessary to have special machinery to destroy the refuse or not is not a matter for us to decide. We must either refuse to allow them to lay the pipe line, or permit them to do so. It seems to me that we are not here to consider the best system of sewage disposal for Cape Town. That can safely be left to the municipality and the citizens of Cape Town. If they have decided that this is to be done, I do not see how Parliament can object to it.

I see the hon. Minister’s difficulty. I see that you are granting this land on certain conditions to be arranged by the Government. In arranging these conditions with the Health Department I suggest to the Minister that one of the conditions should be that the Cape Town Municipality should have permission to lay the pipe line over Government land, but the municipality must make provision to stop the nuisance that has been going on for some time past. I only want the Health Department and the Government to take a hand and give the citizens a little assistance by imposing such a condition as I have suggested. I hope that the Government will see to that when the time comes.

Motion put and negatived.

Recommendation put and agreed to.

On recommendation 19,

There are quite a number of cases in which the select committee recommends reductions in the allotment price of land. I should like to know if the Treasury is consulted about these recommendations as we are being asked to write-off quite a large amount of public money.

The Treasury is always consulted.

Recommendation put and agreed to.

Is the Minister going to reply?

He has replied.

On recommendation 24,

In this case, a further recommendation in the allotment price of the holding comprising the Spitzkop settlement at Ladysmith is recommended to be made from £18,620 to £14,984. An exhaustive explanation should be made of the grounds on which these reduced prices are recommended.

I have so often explained these cases—they are all of a similar nature. The farms were bought for returned soldiers at the end of the Great War and the prices paid for the land were far too high. The result was that the majority of the soldiers left. Either you have to reduce the price or all the settlers will leave, and then we shall have to sell the land. We don’t want to chase the settlers away. This experience is not unique to South Africa. In Australia they have written down the value of soldiers’ settlements by no less than £3,000,000. Before reductions are recommended, I send the Land Board to go into the matter.

Are each of these cases the same?

Yes.

Recommendation put and agreed to.

On recommendation 47,

On what basis are the farms re-valued? I have a case in mind where, after re-valuation, the holder was able to sell the farm at a higher price than that at which it was re valued. Such cases were reported to the House before the Minister took office.

I would like to explain this; also for this reason, that this case differs from the others. These farms were bought when the works at Hartebeestpoort were under construction, and then it was decided, after the works had been completed, to establish a probationary settlement under Act 38 of 1924. According to that Act, these probationers undergo a period of training for three years, at the end of which they get the land. Prior to the probationers’ period the land is ploughed and fenced and houses are built for them—the land is made ready for them. The committee of control pass out the probationers who are suitable as settlers. Then the Land Board steps in and has to allot the land, because the committee has no power to do so under the Act. The board also puts a valuation on these different holdings. What happened here was that the Land Board inspected the holdings, which are approximately ten morgen under irrigation—some are larger—and it allotted these farms in 1927. They valued the land at what is proposed now, but at that time, as hon. members know, tobacco was at a high price, and so was grain, and everything was flourishing. I wanted to recover the money expended by the Government, and so I told the Land Board, who objected very strongly, that I could not accept their valuation. Since that time, as hon. members know, the bottom has fallen out of the tobacco market. That is why I come to Parliament now. I want Parliament to come down to the Land Board valuation.

Recommendation put and agreed to.

Remaining recommendations having been agreed to,

House Resumed: