I move—

seconded.

I do not think that this leave should be granted at this stage, at any rate until the House is in possession of much fuller information, because, so far as I am able to see, the Minister is going to do by legislation things which have not been done by legislation at any previous time in this country. The Minister will probably say that we do not know what he is going to do, but I think we do know what he is about, because the other day he made a statement as to what he proposed to do. Replying to a question as to the steps which he was taking to give effect to the recommendations of Mr. Justice de Villiers in regard to the matter of the South African Mine Workers’ Union, the Minister made a statement in which he said that the Chamber of Mines having refused to accept, at any rate altogether, the proposals of the mediator, the Government felt, in the circumstances, that they should introduce a Bill to deal with certain recommendations in the report. The Bill which the Minister is now seeking to introduce is a Bill—

I do not think there is any precedent for a step of this kind. I am not proposing to deal with the matter from the point of view of the mines. I do not know what reply the mines have sent to the Minister; I do not know the details of their letters which are referred to in the statement, and I do not know exactly on what grounds they base their opposition to the proposals. I am simply raising this question because I do think that if we are going to get into this state of affairs, that when there is a dispute between employers and employees in any industry, no matter what industry, and when there is a conciliation board, and when no settlement is arrived at, then the Minister is to step in and say that because he agrees with one side and does not agree with the other he is going to come to this. House and use his majority in this House to compel acceptance by the side which disagrees with the report of the commission—if that sort of thing is going to happen there is no saying where it is going to stop. At present it is a question of the mines. There is this about it, I am sure if it had not been a question of the mines the Minister would not have brought this Bill in. He would not have dared to bring in such a measure as this if it had applied to any other industry than the mining industry. There is this about it, too, does anyone think that if the boot had been on the other leg, and if it had been a question of refusal by the employees and their organizations to accept a report of the commission, a Bill of this kind would have been brought in? In the first instance it would not have been brought in, and in the second place, if it had been brought in it is perfectly certain that it would not have been carried out. The hon. Minister himself, the other day, in speaking on the Wages Bill, referred to the fact that if we had compulsory arbitration the experience of other countries—I suppose he meant Australia—showed it was impossible to carry out awards which operated against large bodies of men. The same thing would apply to this. If the dissentient party had been the employees’ organization, first of all the Bill would not have been brought in at all, and if it had been brought in it would not have been enforced. What has happened? There was a dispute between mining employers and their employees. The employees asked for an increase in emolument, and that it should be ante-dated somewhere back to 1925 or 1924, I think. No agreement was arrived at, and a conciliation board was asked for under the Conciliation Act of 1924, and this was granted. When the board met no agreement was arrived at, and both sides then asked for a mediator to be appointed, and Mr. Justice de Villiers was chosen for the purpose. I think in him they had an excellent person, but I also think it is very unfortunate that judges should be taken from the bench and allowed to occupy these positions, because the inevitable result is, however much one respects a judge, differences of opinion arise as to the wisdom of his judgment, and he is thus brought down into the arena of party politics. Anyhow, Mr. Justice de Villiers made a report. The question then arose as to whether both sides would accept this report. I am not going into details, but there is this point, that the opinion of one man gives rise to differences as to whether that opinion is right or wrong. The mining employers found themselves unable to agree to accept this report. As far as I can discover, they base their objection largely on a question of principle. It is this: That the report based recommendations as to increase of wages upon the cost of living. There is a, good deal to be said for those who differ with making the cost of living a basis of wages in a matter of this kind. You become involved in a vicious circle. The Chamber of Mines refused to accept in its entirety the report of the mediator. Under the Conciliation Act that leaves both parties free to act as they choose. The principle of compulsion in the Act takes two forms. In section 7 an arbitrator can be appointed by agreement between both parties, and his decision becomes binding, and there is also the extended application provided in another section. There is nothing whatever to indicate that because one side does not accept the findings of a conciliation board the dissentient party should be compelled to accept the decision which they do not think fair. In dealing with the Wages Bill the other day the hon. Minister declared that he was a strong believer in the principle of voluntary agreement. We on this side of the House pointed out that the wording of his Bill had precisely the opposite effect. The hon. Minister now proposes to step in and make the decision of the mediator law. I would like to recall that when the hon. Minister was dealing with the Miners’ Phthisis Bill, he pointed out that certain provisions were entirely opposed to the findings of a commission, of which Mr. Justice de Villiers was chairman. If the hon. Minister is now going to tell us because we have a mediator of legal standing and undoubted impartiality we ought to accept his ruling, I would ask why the finding of the same impartial mediator was not accepted in another connection? It would be a great mistake to introduce legislation of this kind, and it would be bound to stir up agitation in the labour world. It seems to me that if legislation of this kind is passed, we are simply putting a premium on agitation. We are going to have this principle now applied to the mines. What is to prevent its being applied later on to other industries? We shall go on from one industry to another until presently the farm labourers and housemaids and cooks will be included. Judged from the Minister’s statement he has only one argument in favour of his proposal which is that if nothing is done there may be a strike. The men, undoubtedly, under the law are at liberty to strike, but I do not think the Minister is consulting the best interests of the country in the attitude he is now adopting, which is likely to cause agitation and threats of strikes. The Minister cannot have it both ways. Either there is a very great difference between the views of the employers—in this case the Chamber of Mines—and the report of the mediator, or there is not. If there is a vast difference between them it seems to me that only furnishes grounds for further investigation. If there is only a small difference between them, is the Minister right to acquiesce in the contention that the dissatisfied people have a perfect right to strike. Is not the Minister’s duty to avoid strikes; to negotiate with the parties concerned and to try to get them to come to agreement? Is it right because the Minister sympathizes with the finding that he should use his majority in Parliament to enforce it? Even though he settles this particular dispute, he is simply opening the door to agitation in future and is going to do much more to encourage strikes than if he did not pass this Bill. In the absence of some explanation as to why this legislation should be brought forward I consider that leave should not be granted to introduce this Bill.

I rise to support the objection of the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) to leave being given to introduce this Bill. I do so on the ground that the award which is in question now was an award made under the terms of the Conciliation Act of 1924, which has barely been in operation a year. This proposed legislation-of which of course we do not know the exact terms—will have a very bad effect on the working of the Industrial Conciliation Act, which has not yet had a fair trial. Not only is the Minister’s proposal a novel one, but in my opinion it will serve as a very bad precedent for the future. I think it is bad in the interests of labour and the industrial people of this country. The whole idea of the 1924 Act was that disputes should be dealt with as far as possible by means of time being given to the parties for deliberation so that every opportunity should be given to effect a settlement between the parties to the dispute. There are two sections in the Act which provide how this solution shall be arrived at. Under section 6, if both parties apply to the Minister, he may appoint a mediator, and it is under this section that the mediator is appointed. Section 7 provides an alternative method. Under it the majority of the representatives of the employers and employees may agree to abide by the decision of one or more arbitrators. The position in one case is the appointment of a mediator on the voluntary application of both parties. In the other case there is the appointment of an arbitrator. The difference between the two sections is that under section 7 the arbitrator’s award is final and binding, but under section 6 the mediator’s award is not binding at all and the only effect of that section is to provide what everybody has long agreed is a vital thing in the settlement of disputes and that is to provide a time for deliberation before the hotheads have got together and the extremists have got control of the situation. The Minister has admitted that the enforcement of an arbitrator’s award is to a large extent a problematic matter; that where you have a large mass of people concerned the enforcement of an arbitrator’s award becomes impossible, and that is why compulsory arbitration has broken down in many countries where it has been tried. The Minister has admitted that over and over again in the House. The result is your alternative that an endeavour should be made to avoid the extreme results of a dispute by giving the parties time to come together around a table and to consider the merits of the matter. I know nothing about the merits of this award. I think it is an unfortunate thing that a judge of the Supreme Court should be asked to adjudicate in a matter of this kind, but I accept with the very greatest respect any award made by that honourable judge. But I am speaking on the pure general principle that if you have only two methods of procedure for getting conciliation and one of them is admittedly difficult to enforce and you have only one left, then if a Bill such as this is going to be the result of an award I predict that you will find the greatest difficulty in getting employers and employees to come together and make an application for the appointment of a mediator. It is dangerous in the interests of the industrial people of this country to have a Bill of this sort brought in which was never anticipated, and it will have the effect of making this application of Clause 6 very difficult. It will stultify that clause to a very great extent. With this Bill you have conciliation with a knobkerry. I feel strongly that the Government are taking a false step in introducing this legislation to enforce an award which in its origin was never contemplated would be compulsory.

For some time past I have held the view very definitely that the miners on the Rand were underpaid, and that since the strike of 1922, and the readjustment of conditions that took place then, the pendulum has swung far too much in the opposite direction against the workers; and, having an intimate knowledge of mining conditions on the Rand, I have no hesitation in saying in this House that the miners do not get a sufficient share of the fruits of the mining industry. The men who are compelled to work 6,000 or 7,000 feet below the surface in conditions of the greatest danger, carrying their lives in their hands, and subject to the most awful industrial disease, do not get a fair and adequate remuneration. I was, therefore, particularly pleased when I saw that an impartial judge, after hearing evidence on both sides, had come to the conclusion that a case had been made out for an increase of wages on the Rand. But, holding that view quite unequivocally, I very much doubt if the particular course proposed to be followed in this Bill is the wisest course to attain that end.

You prefer a strike?

No, but I ask this House, and I ask hon. members on the Labour benches, to consider very seriously whether the course proposed is the right one. The problem is undoubtedly one that has to be solved. Agreeing that the wages are low, and that the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction, then it is a problem that we must solve, in what way are wages going to be improved? I do not think that the best way is by means of a strike, and if that was the only remedy I should be very sorry; but it seems anomalous that in the very session in which the Minister is forging a weapon to that end, in the shape of a Wages Bill, he is forcing a piece of legislation in this particular instance to cover a matter which comes within the scope of the Wages Bill. Here you have the Minister saying “I must have machinery to settle a minimum wage.” We have always known that the driving force behind the minimum wage Bill was the mines on the Rand. It was said in the debates in 1922 that if there had been minimum wage legislation the necessity for the strike of that year would never have occurred. It was a pledge from the Labour party to the electorate that when they came into power they would prepare such legislation as would obviate the necessity for such events. They now have the power.

We have not got it.

They are in process of getting it. Does my hon. friend not believe in the sincerity of his Nationalist friends in regard to putting this Bill on the statute book or of enforcing it? If he does, then my hon. friend agrees that a weapon is in process of being forged.

And in the meantime?

That Bill will be on the statute book within three months, unless Parliament is dissolved. Then it is for the Government to administer that Act and deal with the situation that has arisen. Therefore, while I consider the wages paid to the miners should be raised substantially, I venture to question the wisdom of the Minister in rushing the matter, as he is doing in this Bill. After all, it is surely a matter of fair play and commonsense. When I go to arbitration in the Transvaal in a legal matter I know there is a provision on the statue book that if an award of the arbitrator is made, it can be made an order of court, and enforced, but it was expressly stated in the Act under which this particular arbitration was brought about that there should be no means of enforcing an award; it should be left to the good sense of the parties; and it was with that provision on the statute book and under this condition that one party to the arbitration, the Chamber of Mines, agreed to this reference. Ex post facto they are told, the case having gone against them and I assume for the purpose of my argument that it went against them rightly—“Since you won’t agree to a purely voluntary award I am going to make it compulsory.” I say it is wrong, and I suggest to the Minister that if he persists in this course, he is going to wreck the Conciliation Bill. If employers know that under that Act it lies implicit, that, if they do not accept an award, the Government may bring in a special Bill to enforce it, you are going to get very few submissions under that Act. I understood the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) was the great advocate of that Act. He said “Let us drop this obsolete weapon of strikes, and let us settle our troubles by conciliation,” and we agreed. But the first time that measure is applied to a particular industry, and the employers will not abide by the award, the Government are going to make them do so. You are creating the necessary machinery in a general Bill, which presumably will become law some time this session; then under that Bill there will be the amplest opportunity of dealing with the situation. May I say that I believe opportunity might be taken in that Bill to give retrospective effect to the De Villiers report? There is no urgency, and yet the Minister is prepared to discredit the Conciliation Act, which is one of the most useful pieces of legislation that has ever been put on the statute book.

I heartily join in the protest which has been made from this side of the House against the Bill which the hon. Minister proposes to introduce. I really do not know which is the greater danger to this country—a strike on the mines, as is threatened, or the legislative procedure on which we are embarking. But I do not wish to pursue that matter to-day; I shall have another opportunity later. What I want to raise is another matter: I want to submit a matter for your ruling, sir. I see from the notice which the Minister has given that this Bill determines the minimum rates of wages or other remuneration of certain underground workers in mines on the Witwatersand. Last week we read here for the second time a Bill to provide for determining conditions of labour and wages and other payments for labour and the appointment of a wage board, and so on. Section 3 of that Bill provided that it shall be the function and duty of the board to investigate and advise the Minister on any matter relating to wages or hours or conditions of labour. Section 6 of that Bill laid it down that the Minister had to consider the advice given him under Section 3, and settle the minimum wage or rates of pay free of all deductions which shall be paid by any employer to any employee. The position, therefore, legally, is this. We have before this House a Bill under which the Government seeks for power to settle minimum wages for employees in any industry, the appointment of a labour board and other subsidiary machinery, and the Bill seeks power for the Government to settle minimum wages in all industries. That Bill has been read a second time and has been referred to a Select Committee. Now, whilst this is going on, the Government comes forward with a Bill which deals with the question, which seems to me to be absolutely identical with the sort of question which you could raise under the other Bill. This Bill is one to settle the minimum rates of wages for underground workers in the mines on the Witwatersrand. Either this question should be dealt with directly, as it seems to me, under the Bill before the House, or by amendment to that Bill, and in the other case it is not proper to bring in a second Bill dealing with the same subject matter in the same session. It is a very important question, Mr. Speaker, and I do not press you to give a ruling at once if you do not choose to do so, but it is a very important matter which should be gone into very carefully, for there is no question that this is a particular case which falls under the general rule in the Bill already before the House, and in that way I think that Bill contravenes the established practice that the same sort of subjects will not be dealt with in the same sesson twice.

It is rather difficult to judge the position without having seen the Bill; however, it is laid down in May (page 468, 11th edition), that—

Under these circumstances, I do not think that I can rule otherwise than that the Minister can go on with the Bill. Of course, the question may be reconsidered when the Bill is on the Table and when one is able to see its terms.

A discussion on leave to introduce a Bill is a most unusual proceeding, and it is a curious circumstance that the only occasion I can recollect that that course has been taken has been on two very opposite points of view. On this occasion I quite understand hon. members opposite expressing their intention of fighting this Bill from first to last. But, sir, I think whatever other view may be taken it is far better to deal with this matter in the way the Government propose to deal with it than to be confronted with the other occasion on which leave to introduce has been disputed when it has been the case of leave to introduce a Bill giving a Government indemnity for acts performed under martial law. Hon. members will be able to see the terms of the Bill when it has been laid on the Table and read a first time. I am not going to anticipate the second reading discussion, but will only say that the Government have under very earnest and careful consideration the whole position, and they are of opinion that it is their duty to recommend to the House the legislation which I am now moving for leave to introduce. I hope the House will support the Government in introducing the Bill, and at the second reading I will state fully the reasons which have forced the Government to the conclusion that this is the right course to pursue.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill brought up and read a first time; second reading on 23rd April.

I move—

It is hardly necessary for me to impress upon the House the great importance of our fruit industry and the interest which is being taken in this question. In order to give the House some idea of the importance of the fruit industry and the marvellous growth there has been in the past few years, I will quote some figures. In 1898-’99 we exported 10,817 cases of deciduous fruit. During the season 1922-’23 the export was 1,012,628 cases, and last year it was 974,126 cases. So that hon. members will see that there has been marvellous growth. With regard to citrus the exports in 1915 were 39,761 cases, and the latest figure available to the third of October last year was 494,262 cases. Hon. members will therefore realize that in dealing with the fruit industry and the export of fruit we are dealing with a most important phase of the export trade of South Africa. The possibilities of expansion of our export of fruit are marvellous, if we must look to the future. The number of trees planted both of citrus and deciduous fruit is very great, and the returns from the census and other departments show that our farmers have increased their planting. Therefore, in the next five to ten years our export will largely increase. It will be recalled that in 1921 the farmers realized that the time had come for them to organize. With the assistance of the Government at that time hey formed themselves into “The Fruit Growers’ Co-operative Exchange of South Africa, Limited.” I want to call attention to the primary object of the fruit exchange, namely, to place the export of fruit from the Union on a sound basis by arranging for the shipping of fruit. That is their primary object, in addition the organisation of and marketing and distribution of fruit overseas. The Government gave the exchange the power to levy the sum of 5s. a ton on all fruit exported, thus proving the recognition by the Government of the fruit exchange. It is important to note that this power to levy 5s. a ton on export fruit was not only extended to fruit shipped through the fruit exchange but to all fruit exported. It is levied and spent under the supervision of the Agricultural Department. The fruit exchange is at the present time in this position that about 80 per cent. of the fruit growers of South Africa belong to the exchange. It is true, a number has stood out, but the Government hopes that all fruit growers will realize that it is in their interest to join the fruit exchange, and assist it in developing this big industry of ours. It must further be noted, as regards the membership of the fruit exchange, that it is free and open. It is a co-operative company to which all growers are entitled to claim admission, and the fruit exchange is glad to welcome all fruit growers. The only bar is that speculators will not be allowed to become members of the fruit exchange. Those members who have taken the trouble, and I am sure the majority have read the report of the Committee of Enquiry under the chairmanship of Mr. Lategan, will have realized that there are two outstanding features stressed in connection with fruit export. The first is that we should have pre-cooling facilities for deciduous fruit at the ports. I need not detain the House by reminding the House that the Government have taken steps to convert the half of the east pier into a pre-cooling shed for deciduous fruit. The railway administration has under consideration plans for extending the other half of the east pier. That will not be done immediately, but we are taking steps to have the plans ready, so that if, in conjunction with the fruit growers, we find it necessary to proceed we shall be in a position to proceed at once, and thus prevent a repetition of the present lack of pre-cooling accommodation. The other point stressed by the Enquiry Commission is the question of shipping facilities. If the necessary facilities for the export of fruit are not available we get congestion, and the loss which unfortunately the fruit growers have experienced this season. It will be recalled that the fruit exchange arranged with the shipping companies concerned to regulate the shipment of fruit from time to time, but unfortunately in August last year the arrangements broke down. The Government then appointed a Committee of Enquiry and they issued their report in November last year. The report is now in the hands of hon. members, and they will see that is established by this report that the negotiations broke down in August last year. It is pointed out that the arrangements broke down because the shipping agents of the Australian lines at Durban agreed to ship 1,500 cases of citrus, contrary to the undertaking of the Cape Town agents of these shipping lines. That having happened the whole of the undertakings broke down, and unfortunately created the position which is well known. As far as the citrus crop was concerned that had more or less been disposed of, but the position with regard to the shipment of deciduous fruits was affected. The result was that individual shippers were allowed to contract for shipping space without reference to the fruit exchange. The whole system of priority of arrival and dispatch broke down. The Committee of Enquiry found that some central controlling body is necessary in regard to the export of our fruit. I do not think there can be any question as to the necessity that the fruit growers should have one central body dealing with the whole of this question. The committee dealt with the question how this central controlling body should be constituted. The committee suggested that the three members of the fruit exchange forming the shipping committee, with one member representing the outside growers should constitute the board. Let me now deal with the clauses of the Bill as drafted and submitted to the House. The first clause gives to the Government the power to establish a board of control. Hon. members will see that power is taken for the Governor-General to appoint this board and designate one of the members as chairman. It is not stipulated who the members of this board should be, but the Government have definitely decided that the membership of the board should be confined to growers, and that the fruit exchange should have a majority on that board. We must not lose sight of the fact that the fruit belongs to the growers. It is not the fruit of the Government.

Just like the diamonds.

My hon. friend must surely realize that there is a big difference between fruit and diamonds—a very big difference.

They are both the property of the producers.

I am not going to be led into a discussion now of the very interesting subject of diamonds. Let me confine myself to a more profitable thing and that is fruit, for I think that in the long run we are going to have far more benefit from the fruit industry in South Africa than from diamonds. The growers must take the responsibility for the shipment of their fruit. It seems to me that it would be wrong for the Government to step in and control the shipment of fruit. Hon. members will see in Clause 6 that the Administration will not, nor the board or any officer be responsible for any action that may be taken. The full responsibility will, of course, rest with the exchange. The second clause defines the powers of the board and I do not think there can be any question as to the necessity to give the board the full power that we propose giving them. It is essential that fruit-growers all over the country should realize that unless they send in, as far as it is possible to give them, correct estimates of their anticipated shipments to the fruit exchange it is impossible for the exchange to make the forward contracts which are necessary in order to cope with the export of our fruit. Clause 2 (b), therefore, seems to me to be one of the greatest importance. Under (c) power is given to the board to ask for and receive reports from shipowners, and under (d) to perform all other functions which are required. Clause 3 deals with the powers of committees. These committees will be appointed at the ports to assist the fruit exchange and the board of control. Clause 4 is undoubtedly one of the most important, if not the most important, in the whole Bill. We therein propose to give the right to make contracts with the shipping companies to the fruit exchange. It is necessary in order to be able to deal with this question of export to have one body— and we propose to make it the fruit exchange. Hon. members know what the position is in regard to the Australian Lines, for instance. Unless these liners are definitely assured and forward contracts are made with them as regards shipments in July, August and September they cannot undertake to do the shipment. Unless they are assured by some responsible body that the necessary fruit will become available, they may engage to carry other cargo during that period. It is necessary, therefore, to give this board power to make contracts with shipping companies and especially to make forward contracts. More than 80 per cent. of the fruit producers belong to the Exchange—

It is more than 80 per cent.; it is nearly 90 per cent.

I think I am right in saying that 90 per cent. of the deciduous growers belong to the exchange and 70 per cent of the citrus growers. That refers to the whole of the Union. Hon. members will notice that in clause 4 (1) there is a very important stipulation and that is that the power to the fruit exchange to make these contracts —is subject to the approval and authorization of the board of control. Hon. members may ask why the power to make these contracts is not given to the board of control. The reply to that is very simple—because they are not a corporate body. There must be a body with responsibility and it seems to me that, unless the Government were to undertake the responsibility we are bound to give it to the fruit exchange, which appears to me to be an ideal body for the purpose. Hon. members will also see that it is stipulated in clause 1 that no contract, made after April 15, will be recognized. I have had under consideration the making of this clause, restrospective in effect, but I have made close enquiries and am informed that there are no contracts of any importance.

Will you tell the House what they are?

I have not the particulars, but I am informed that they are so small that the fruit exchange will have no difficulty in carrying them out. Clause 5 is merely formal and provides that in the event of the fruit exchange going into liquidation, the Government can appoint some other body in their place. In Clause 7 power is taken for making the necessary regulations. In Clause 7 (2) power is specially taken to enforce growers to supply full information with regard to their expectations in regard to export. It is not necessary for me to do anything further than to commend this Bill to the House. It is strictly non-party and one in which members on all sides of the House are keenly interested. The growers of fruit and especially the growers of citrus, are very interested in this Bill. The whole of our citrus industry depends upon what action is now taken. This board and the exchange will be able to negotiate with the shipping lines and to supply them with the information which they require. The Government has had every assistance both from the Union-Castle line and the Australian lines, and have been assured that everything in their power will be done to assist the fruit growers of South Africa to transport their produce. I now move the second reading.

The House is indebted to the hon. Minister for the full and clear statement which he has made on this subject. It is quite true that this Bill deals with a matter which is not contentious. We are all agreed on all sides of the House that there should be control of the fruit industry. We were very much surprised to see a statement made on behalf of the Government that there was not going to be this control. Control is absolutely essential, and I congratulate the Government that second thoughts have prevailed, and they are going to have control now. I think we are fortunately situated in this respect, that the fruit industry is already so highly organized in this fruit growers’ association. We had a similar situation last year when the wine industry came to us and claimed for control and for protection, and this House was able to deal with that situation expeditiously, and apparently finally, because we find that the vast bulk of wine growers were organized in that association. Control was given to the governing body of that association, and what might have been a great problem has passed out of practical politics. Here we have a similar case, and it is very fortunate that the fruit growers are organized in large numbers, and it is thus possible for us to deal with the matter more easily. I agree with the hon. Minister that this subject is one of the gravest importance to this country. I look upon the future of the fruit industry as one of the greatest importance to South Africa. For years now we have been advising our young farmers, not only in this part of the country, but up-country as well, to go in for fruit growing, and they have followed that advice, with the result that orchards are springing up all over. Very soon, in a very few years now, we shall see the productive capacity of this Country in respect of fruit vastly increased, and the problem of fruit export, which has been comparatively small hitherto, assuming important dimensions. It is important to deal with this problem before it gets out of hand. It has been getting out of hand, as the hon. Minister has pointed out, for reasons which we need not go into now. This season has been most calamitous, large losses have been incurred, and I am afraid many people ruined through the position at the docks and the absence of shipment facilities; and what has happened this season was sure to be repeated on a colossal scale in following seasons unless we had dealt with this question in time. The real crux of the situation has been this; there has been no single authority so far dealing with the question. As far as the Government is concerned, authority is divided among a number of departments, and it was difficult to know who was responsible in regard to this question of fruit export. The Agricultural Department, for instance, was concerned with this question of fruit export and the conditions surrounding it. Then, again, there is the Railways and Harbours Department dealing with other aspects of the question. Whenever a difficulty arose it was tossed from one department to the other and it was impossible to know who was in Control, and who was the final authority to give decisions. Besides that you have the public bewildered and the fruit exchange at a loss to know how to deal with the difficulties confronting them. Under these circumstances it is easy to understand that the committee appointed by the Government came to the conclusion that it was essential to have this control. I am very glad that the Government has brought forward this Bill and that we are going to have control. I think we are all satisfied with the statement of the hon. Minister as to the body that will exercise this control. Undoubtedly it is a matter for the fruit growers themselves. This is eminently a case for following the precedent laid down last year in regard to the wine industry. After doing so we have the foundations for a proper board of control from the industry itself. I think that what the hon. Minister has said in regard to the constitution of the board of control is eminently satisfactory. It is just a question with me personally whether it will not make for simpler working if we attach to the board one or two advisory members of the Government departments. You want smooth working between this board and the great Government departments. After all, the Railway Department will have a great deal to say about this whole matter. It is the instrumentality through which the export is to take place, and I urge, for the consideration of the Government, whether it would not be advisable to attach to the board, in a deliberative capacity, a member from the Railways and Harbours Department. Similarly it is a question, in view of the scientific questions involved in regard to pre-cooling arrangements and so on, whether it is not advisable to have attached to the board a member of the scientific staff of the Agricultural Department. The machinery has to act expeditiously, and all I wish is that it should act smoothly as well. But it is when I come to the functions of the board that my real difficulty arises. A doubt arises in my mind whether the Minister has gone far enough. This is not a question that can be tinkered with. We must deal with it effectively and finally, as we did in the Wine Bill for the wine industry, or leave it alone altogether. And when I look at the powers given to the board under the Bill I am doubtful whether we are not going to have a recurrence of the trouble through the board saying we had not the power and could not do this or that. The board may, under this Bill, advance information from the growers and exporters. That is all right. They may also collect information as to shipping space from the companies, but they have no power to go further and enter into contracts. The Minister has said that power is not given to the board because it has no personality—because it is not a body corporate—but I conceive very great difficulties arising out of that. The Minister says, under section 4, that it is left to the Fruitgrowers’ Exchange to make the contracts for space. But the crux of the situation is that unless space is contracted for in advance we will have a breakdown in the future, worse than we have had this year. The board must have such power that it can deal with this question of securing space in advance. We know, as a matter of fact, that the space on the Union-Castle liners is inadequate and has to be supplemented from the Australian liners. In future, it may have to be supplemented by specially chartering vessels, but unless there is a body that can enter into contracts in advance, disaster and confusion must ensue. And therefore this is a weakness of this Bill, and I suggest to the Minister that this board should receive statutory authority. The board should have the power to contract for space, and, of course, if it can contract for space, it will have to be given some supplementary power: It is possible that a situation like this may arise: Space on a ship is contracted for, but when the ship arrives the fruit is not available, for seasonal reasons, such as will appeal to all fruit-growers, and the space is lost and loss incurred. The board, or the exchange —whoever is responsible—will be saddled with a liability, and therefore it seems to me we ought in this Bill to make the board a statutory authority to deal with questions of this sort. We ought, also, to give to this board the power to settle export rates, which may not necessarily be the same as the freight-rates charged by the companies, because what would happen would be this—indeed we know it is happening now. The Union-Castle lines charge a certain rate of freight; the Australian lines charge a different rate of freight, almost double the rate charged by the Union-Castle lines. Besides that you have the difficulty I have mentioned, that the space contracted for on any particular ship may not be utilized and loss may be incurred, and instead of meeting the case with special levies and special charges, the easiest way would be to give power to the board to levy from time to time uniform rates and apportion the liability or loss in rates among the exporters in proportion. Of course, you have your deciduous growers and your citrus growers, and it may be advisable to deal with the two separately, but it seems to be eminently advisable that the board should have power to levy these rates, and in the levying of rates, to make provision for the equalizing of the rates over the whole body of producers, and the meeting of any loss which may ensue out of these rates. If I may give an instance, supposing the export rate is charged by the Union-Castle Co. as 40s. a ton, the board may find that they wish to charge a figure slightly higher than that, say, 42s. 6d., or 45s., in order to have a small sum in hand to meet losses that might occur in the chartering of vessels of which the space is not used. Other contingencies may arise, and it seems to me that giving the board the power to fix rates would, perhaps, be the best way to deal with this question, distributing the burden equally over the whole of the exporters for a season. I am sure that once the growers understand it is a case of equal opportunity and equal treatment all round they will welcome this arrangement. They do not want to have bills sent them or levies raised, and the best way to secure this equality of treatment is to give the board the right as regards these growers to levy rates. I think that is an amendment which ought to be considered carefully and might be incorporated in this Bill. If these suggestions are carried out I am sure we will settle this question finally, and unless the board is an incompetent body, we shall in future have very little trouble, but if the board do not get these powers there will be a tussle between the fruit growers’ exchange and the board in regard to the responsibility for various matters, and we shall be in the same difficulty and uncertainty in which we are to-day and which we have had in the past. Let us fix the responsibility definitely on the board and give them the power also. Another point which occurs to me is whether the board should not have the power to deal with the transport of fruit to the ports, that is, fruit which is meant for export. I can conceive—although it is not an urgent case to-day—that next year or the year after we may be faced with this situation; that there will be shipping space at one port, whereas growers from the interior are sending fruit to another port. And the fruit is congesting and accumulating at one port, whereas there would have been space, under proper regulation, at another port. This condition, as hon. members may be aware, arises from the fact that the Australian liners call at only two ports, Durban and Cape Town. There may be a good deal of cold storage space in these liners, but they miss East London and Port Elizabeth. It stands to reason from the number of orchards which are being planted in the Sundays River Valley, and the Midlands, that there will be a great amount of fruit which would be sent to Port Elizabeth or East London, but there may not be space, because the ships which could take their stuff away will not call. It is a question whether, in this Bill, we should not make use of our opportunity to give the board the power of control also in regard to the question of transport to the ports of fruit for export. I know that there is a good deal of jealousy, and no doubt a great deal of suspicion, about this matter. The ports further east are somewhat jealous of Cape Town, and they think that under the operations of the fruit exchange, the tendency will be for fruit to be sent to Cape Town instead of to Durban; but that should not weigh too much. Let us look at this from the consideration that unless there is control of transport, we shall have a situation whereby fruit will be sent to ports where there will be no shipping space, whereas at the other ports there would be shipping space which will not be made use of. That is a point which I hope the Minister will consider—whether this provision should not be included in the Bill. I have noted a point also under section 4 in regard to contracts. Of course, I accept unreservedly the word of the Minister that there are no contracts of importance prior to April 15th which may remain in force under the provisions of this clause. I hope he will make certain that this is so, because it would be a thousand pities if in private hands there were a lot of space to be bargained with and doled out to the public. Let the board have control of the whole thing. That is what I wanted to say. I understand, and we all understand quite clearly, that this Bill is a matter of great urgency, and that We cannot afford to waste time in fighting it through this House. It is clear to my mind, however, that some quite important amendments will have to be made to this Bill in order to make it effective for the future, and the question arises whether we should have these inserted through the agency of a select committee, or whether we should follow some other procedure. I would suggest to my hon. friend a method of dealing with it. We are quite prepared that a couple of members on this side of the House who know all about this business, should meet the Minister and in a couple of days they would be able to settle amendments by which we wish to add to the effectiveness of this Bill. I understand there is no difficulty of any principle between us. The hon. Minister has been afraid to make the board a statutory body, and therefore it hangs somewhat in the air. I want to have an effective body, a board which the country and Parliament and the fruit-growers can hold responsible; with that in view we should have some amendments. We are quite prepared to agree with the Government, and if the hon. Minister will agree to my proposal we are prepared to meet him, and so arrive at agreed amendments without the Bill going to select committee. I am very glad the Government has introduced this Bill. I believe it is work which will lay the foundations of what we believe will be a very important export industry in future.

This Bill is very welcome; indeed, it is overdue, and I am only sorry it was not introduced in the early stage of this session. As the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) says, it will receive every assistance and encouragement from this side of the House. The Minister gave us very interesting figures as regards the export of fruit. I am only sorry he did not go a little further and give us some idea of the probable expansion of this industry, because that is the most important point we have to deal with. The whole problem is that of effectively handling a perishable article of food, grown a long way from its market. The fruit industry differs from most industries in that way, and it necessitates most thorough organization and the provision of proper facilities in order that the fruit may be carried to its destination without material loss and return an adequate profit to the growers. There are an increasing number of small men who have gone in for fruit growing, and for whom, as the Americans say, fruit is their “money-crop,” in other words, their main crop. Therefore all legislation in connection with the fruit export should be directed chiefly in the interests of the numerous small men rather than in the interests of the one or two large concerns, which are interested. It is evident that our resources and ingenuity will be taxed in the near future in order to handle the vast quantities of fruit that will probably be coming forward. While we to-day export about 1½ million of deciduous fruit annually, citrus fruit is creeping up very rapidly, and I believe, if the calculations are correct, that within two or three years from now there will be no fewer than five million cases of citrus for export, and means will have to be considered for dealing with this vast production. I suggest that it would have been well to add to clause 2, defining the duties of the board, a provision that one of their duties should be to advise the Government as to the probable expansion from year to year of the fruit export, in order that the necessary facilities should be made in advance. Supposing that, according to the estimates, there will be five million cases of citrus or of all fruits for export within the next few years, this means the provision of no less than 300,000 shipping tons of cold storage per annum. It is necessary that we take full stock of the situation and make such arrangements as would ensure when the fruit goes to the wharf that the ships would be there to take it off within a reasonable time. Seven hundred trains per annum will be required to convey the fruit from the places where it is grown to the ports. I doubt very much whether we have the railway facilities in sight, and we certainly have not them now. I am sure that if these matters are made part of the duty of the board upon which to advise the Government there will be a very good chance of their receiving very necessary attention. The board is to be appointed by the Governor-General, and the Minister has told us that the members of the board will be fruit growers. I wish he had stated that all the voting members will be nominees of the Fruit Growers’ Exchange and not the nominees of the Government.

I said the members of the fruit exchange would have a majority on the board.

I do not think that goes far enough. With the exception of the two departmental advisory members, the other members of the board should be the nominees of the Fruit Growers’ Exchange. The Minister quite rightly laid stress on the democratic ideas underlying all this, and he pointed out that the fruit growers had the right to be consulted on all matters affecting the disposal of their produce. It is not too much to ask that the members of the board should be appointed by the Fruit Growers’ Exchange. Supposing there were three vacancies, the exchange might be asked to put forward five names and let the Government make its choice. Greater confidence would be enjoyed if the members of the board were appointed on the nomination of the fruit exchange. I take it that the departmental advisory members will not be entitled to vote, but will be purely advisory. It is difficult to forecast what the extension of this fruit industry will be, say, in 10 years’ time. At the rate at which trees—particularly citrus—are being put in at present, and in view of calculations of their productivity, there is reason to anticipate that in 10 or 12 years’ time we shall have a yearly output of 12 million cases. All these considerations make it evident that we must take long views of the industry, and make all preparations for railage and shipping. I have been struck by the testimony to the efficiency of the Fruit Growers’ Exchange which is contained in the report of the Committee of Enquiry. The committee found that when things went wrong it was due either to outside interference or to incorrect or incomplete information being furnished by the fruit grower. I am not acquainted with the directors of the Fruit Growers’ Exchange, but it is only due to them to pay this little tribute to the efficiency of their work as the pioneers of a new and expanding industry, which they have brought through its initial stages with great success. I hope the Minister will fall in with the suggestion made by the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts), and the sooner the Bill becomes law the more satisfactory it will be for the country. The citrus season is on us already, but our arrangements for dealing with it are not so well forward as we should wish.

We feel that the introduction of this Bill satisfies a long-felt want, and the Minister is, therefore, to be congratulated on having brought forward this measure. During the last season thousands of pounds were lost on account of lack of shipping space. We have heard this afternoon that in future there will be more cold storage, but judging from the past these cold stores have been really dam walls unless more shipping space is available, and the sooner something is done to provide more shipping space the better it will be for the growers. I fully agree with the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) that the board should have wider powers, and I hope the Minister will give this point the consideration it deserves. Another point is in regard to Clause 4, and I would suggest that the powers given to the Fruit Growers’ Exchange be placed in the hands of the board, as we do not want the Fruit Growers’ Exchange to unduly interfere with the operations of the board. Up in the north there is quite a large number of growers who are not yet members of the Fruit Growers’ Exchange, because they feel that in many instances the exchange has been weighed and found wanting, especially in regard to the expeditious marketing of our fruit. If the hon. the Minister is prepared to alter Clause 4 of the Bill so that the powers which it is intended to confer upon the exchange be vested in the board of control, men we are all agreed that this will be a very valuable measure. The reply to a question put in the House the other day shows that over £10,000 in levies has been collected and handed over to the fruit exchange which can only act in the interest of its members. Therefore growers, who are not members of the exchange, received no benefits and for this reason I think the board of control should be entrusted with all the necessary powers including those vested in the Fruit Growers’ Exchange under Clause 4 of the Bill. Another point in the Bill to which I would direct the attention of the hon. the Minister is Clause 6. While Clause 4 gives very wide powers to the exchange, in Clause 6 it would appear that the grower is not sufficiently protected against losses, either negligent or otherwise. In order to ensure confidence it seems necessary that the clause be amended in this respect, so that the grower may feel more secured. We all want to see the fruit growers well organized, and if points like these are considered and given effect to, we shall, in the near future, have a powerful organization, which could deal effectively with fruit export.

I would like to emphasize that we should have the guarantee that the board to be appointed will consist of producers, that the control will not be exercised by a Government board, but by a board which is appointed by the producers. For this reason we suggest to the House that the appointment of members shall be made by the fruit exchange. To them then two persons, say, could be added as representatives of the Government, one as representative of the Department of Railways and Harbours, and one as representative of the Department of Agriculture. Moreover it must not be forgotten that the people who have not joined the co-operation must also be represented on the board. This must not be only a one-sided representation of the fruit exchange, but a body whereon those persons: also, who do not fall within the fruit exchange, are represented. The two members who will be appointed by the Government as representatives of the Department of Railways and Harbours and Agriculture respectively must have no vote at the meetings of the board, but only be advisers and the authority of the board must remain in the hands of the producers themselves, and if any one is appointed from outside the exchange, then he also must be a producer and not a speculator. We do not want any speculators on that board. I think that if the hon. Minister accepts the advice of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) to have a round table conference about the matter that we will make the passage of the Bill very easy. Unfortunately in the past years, and especially this year, there has been a great accumulation of fruit and much damage has been suffered. As far as I learn, not five per cent, of the producers who export fruit have made a profit. Enormous damage has been suffered and we must not alone clear up this matter as soon as possible and appoint a board, but we must also inspire the producers with fresh confidence. If they see that the matter is attended to without delay and that the Minister is engaged in straightening out affairs, then they will regain confidence, and everything will come right. I object to the council having control over the order of shipping as the Bill now proposes. The little words “order of” must come out. It must have control over the shipping. As the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has said, it must have control over the transport to the respective harbours and ships, the shipping of fruits, and the board must also have the right to control the shipping to the one or other harbour in Europe as it thinks fit. Therefore, I approve in section 6 of the exemption of the board from responsibility. I think that this section has been specially put in to avoid that the same difficulties should exist for the board as the existing board has had to deal with. In a case I know about they sent fruit to a harbour in Europe, and it was a harbour which was not indicated by the producers. The producers alleged that in consequence thereof they had suffered damage. The board, therefore, should be indemnified against responsibility and liability when it ships fruit in good faith to a certain port. It must have the right to send the fruit to the port which it thinks will be at a certain time the most suitable and where the best prices will be obtained. In all the three stages the carriage, the sending away, and the arrival of fruit in other countries the board must have full control. If it does not have this control, then confusion will soon arise again. Therefore it is necessary in section 6 to indemnify the board from responsibility when they act in good faith.

But not if there is negligence.

It would, nevertheless, be a good thing if the hon. the Minister could give us the figures the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) has asked for this afternoon. He has given us interesting figures, but if the Minister can get figures from his department about the number of trees that have been planted during the recent years, and what the estimate, the calculation is of the fruit that will be available for the coming year and subsequent years, then it will be of great interest, not only for the board to be appointed. It will put the board in the position of making proper arrangements which is of very great importance, also it will put the world in the position of knowing how many boxes of fruit they can expect from South Africa per annum, and by how much our fruit export will increase annually. The people now have nothing upon which to form an opinion of the probable export. The following year it may be a million or ten million or five million. It will be of great interest if fruit dealers know upon how much fruit for export from South Africa they can calculate in future years. This will also enable the shipping companies to make provision for dealing with the fruit. Cold storage provision must be made, and the fruit will have to be carried. If we can, therefore, say approximately how many trees have been planted, what the estimated increase will be of fruit that will be available for export, then there will be an opportunity for the persons and companies concerned to make proper arrangements. I do not think that this Bill is welcome just now after the unfortunate losses that have been suffered. The law would have been welcomed long ago, if we could have given the lawful authority to such a board sooner, and then the confidence of the fruit growers, as far as export is concerned, would long since have been restored, but we, nevertheless, welcome the proposal to-day before the House, and if the passing of the Bill can be expedited by a possible round table conference, then it will undoubtedly be the best.

May I call your attention, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to the fact that there is no quorum present?

House counted, and the Deputy-Speaker declared that a quorum was present.

The hon. Minister of Railways said in his second reading speech in connection with section 1, that the constitution of the board will be so arranged that the majority of the members thereof will be members of the fruit exchange, and in dealing with section 4 he called attention to the fact that the contracts relating to shipping space and their execution would be subject to the approval of the same board. The contracts are entered into by the fruit exchange. The control over the fruit exchange is in the board, of whom the majority of the members are members of the fruit exchange. My question is: Where then is the control over the fruit exchange? We cannot exercise control over a body by means of the body itself. It seems to me that this is the weak point in the Bill. Moreover, I wish to refer the Minister to a few points in connection with the special position of the Transvaal. At the moment the Transvaal produces 70 per cent. of the citrus fruits and we have only just begun with the production for export of deciduous fruits. It is accidental, but I say it with surprise, my own constituency, Pretoria (North), took the lead. That was only an experiment. The Transvaal cold storage gave great assistance and the experiment was a great success. The result thereof will be that the Transvaal will continuously produce more for export, and I venture the prophecy that within a relative small number of years the Transvaal will beat the Cape Province in the export of deciduous fruits. At the moment the fruit exchange has little influence in the Transvaal, and I am afraid that section 4 contains the principle of compulsory co-operation. People are compelled to join the fruit exchange. In theory one cannot do otherwise than object to it, and as for the practice I wish to say this, that if we go to the farmers in the Tranvaal with compulsory co-operation it will mean that the people will not co-operate and this Bill will be a failure. I wish to state this very earnestly because it is a matter of importance. If compulsory cooperation is included in it the Bill will be a failure. Section 4 compels people to join, and this should not happen under any circumstances. What I suggest is what has already been said by the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). I want it to be clearly understood that we are not against the fruit exchange and cooperation as such, but we are very much against being compelled to co-operate. I am convinced hon. members who have said otherwise do not know the conditions in the Transvaal. One hon. member has said, I think it was the hon. member for Standerton, that the board should also have the power to levy a rate. In my humble opinion that power is not necessary because Act 16 of 1922, in section 4 (c) gives the Minister of Agriculture the power of making levies on fruit, etc., as he considers to be in the interest of the development of the trade. It is clear, therefore, that the fruit exchange can levy a rate and that the board need not be given special power for the purpose but that under the existing laws a portion of the levy can be used for damage resulting from the non-execution of contracts. I repeat that this Bill is going to be of greater importance to the Transvaal than the Cape Province, in the first place because the greatest citrus production is there and because in the near future the Transvaal will export the largest quantity of deciduous fruits. As a consequence of different climatic conditions we never have the fear that we will come into competition with the Cape Province because we will always be at least a month earlier. I hope the hon. Minister of Railways will try to correctly appreciate the value of these points and take them to heart. Whether he thinks it desirable to send the Bill to a Select Committee is his business. But what we would gladly see is that all the powers that are given to the fruit exchange, and which will be necessary for the fruit industry in the Transvaal, will be given to the board of control and not to the fruit exchange.

I am sure the fruit growers will be very grateful to the hon. Minister for bringing in this Bill. After making a promise the other day that he would do so he has lost no time. I was very pleased to hear in his statement that the board of control would be constituted mainly from the fruit growers themselves. What you want is that it should be absolutely definitely put in the Bill how that board of control is to be constituted, whether by nominees of the fruit exchange entirely, or whether there should be a nominee also appointed by the outside growers—that, I think, would be the best. You should have three members nominees of the exchange, and one representing the outside growers, and then a couple of advisory members, one from the agricultural department and one from the railways department. But the board wants more power. As the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) said, I hope that this power will be given. If you do not give it, the board will be entirely ineffective. I take it that it should not be the Fruit Growers’ Exchange who should have the power to make the contracts, but the board itself, which should be a statutory board and should have power to make shipping contracts. We should invest the board with powers, and not the Fruit Growers’ Exchange, who will be very satisfied if they know that they have their own nominees on the board. The board should have power to levy rates of freight; and do they require these powers, so that they may have a fund to provide against losses when the whole of the charter space is not made up, and also to average charter rates. It is only fair that the rates should be averaged; it should be done entirely on a co-operative basis. I think, further, that provision should also be made when the money collected exceeds the provision to be made for freights, and where the whole of the money has not been used, and there is a substantial balance, to distribute that balance among the exporters pro rata in accordance with the tonnage they have exported, and if that provision were made the growers would more readily accept the paying of the extra freight, as they would then know that the money would only be used if required, and if not so used would be repaid to them at the end of the season. I agree with the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) that the board ought to have power to collect statistics, and it should, in fact, be the duty of the board to do so. I hope, when we have the Bill in committee, that that power and obligation will be laid on the board to collect statistics of production. They should from time to time furnish what the board considers would be the probable exports for successive years. This would act as a guide, not only to the market, but also to the shipping companies, and would enable them to make provision for the necessary space. I think the suggestion of the hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) is an excellent one.

I am sorry to say that this Bill is also a disappointment to me. This is the second time that we have to do with a co-operative association who everybody is informed is going to carry on the business for a certain section of the farmers, and in both cases they have failed. We have had the wine farmers’ co-operation, and the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Heatlie) and others have always held up to us from the north that co-operation as a model and a magnificent success. The co-operation carried on for a few years, and then it ended in a hopeless failure. Then they came to Parliament and asked for compulsory co-operation, because that is what it actually comes to. The legislation which was accepted by this Parliament was intended to induce all farmers to join up. Here we have the same case. The fruit exchange is established, and we have heard that it is now a body with which all the fruit industries will shortly be affiliated. What are the facts? It has ended in a miserable failure. There is not a Single argument which can be used by the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) or anyone else that the people outside of the fruit exchange are the cause of the failure. The board itself was the cause of the failure. And what are we now going to do here? We are going to appoint a board, and the board will have certain powers and will consist practically of the same members who were members of the co-operation which was such a failure last year in regard to the export of fruit. The Bill actually means compulsory co-operation. Much is spoken here about socialistic legislation. Well, it looks very much like socialistic legislation. We are going in that direction. Representatives of the tobacco farmers came to Parliament and they asked for compulsory co-operation. The mealie farmers are engaged in bringing about compulsory co-operation. Is it, I ask, a sound state of affairs for the farming population of a country, when the proof is given that we cannot carry on our business on business principles, to then come to Parliament with such a proposal? What should we think if the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) came to Parliament to introduce legislation and put it through to do something which is an everyday business practice? I do not represent a fruit district, but I want to tell the hon. Minister this, that in my constituency alone, within two or three years, citrus fruits will be produced which will perhaps be larger than the production of the whole of the Cape Province. There have to-day already been planted more than 600,000 orange trees, and it is calculated that on one plantation alone there will be in six years a million orange trees. And if it is necessary to help the fruit farmers who have joined the fruit exchange with this Bill, then the people who remain outside the fruit exchange must also be protected. It seems that the House wishes the Bill to go through. I could understand that they consider a certain amount of control necessary, but if we do not get a board which is more capable than the one we have had, then the same blunders will again be made that were made last year. The powers which we are giving for improving the fruit trade will help nothing if we do not go to work on better business lines. And while we are now going to give the powers under this law to the board—the hon. member for Standerton has said that we should give more powers—then we can surely go a little further and say that the levy which the fruit exchange collected in the past shall be taken away from it and paid over to the new board. If the board is to bear a certain responsibility, then it is necessary that he should also get the “levy.” I can see, as, indeed, the hon. member for Standerton has said, that the board will have great losses. It will bespeak shipping space, enter into contracts, and when the ships come here the fruit will sometimes possibly not be in the port or the proper season will not be at hand. I therefore hope that the hon. Minister will take into consideration the permitting of the levy, which is now paid to the fruit exchange, going to the board.

I do not think the hon. member who has just spoken need be afraid of this Bill being socialistic legislation. It is purely on co-operative lines, and there is a vast difference between co-operation and socialism How is the small grower going to stand any chance of getting his fruit on board a ship if he does not co-operate with other growers? That is all there is in it. I agree entirely with what the Minister said about this Bill being purely for the fruit growers, and I wish to emphasize very strongly that he ought to allow the exchange to nominate the three men he is going to put on as members of the board. The appointment rests with the Government, but only men nominated by the fruit exchange should be put on. One might go further and say that there should be some representative of the fruit growers who are not members of the exchange. But he should be a fruit grower, and the Minister should take the best means of getting a representative man. The other two members may be in an advisory capacity as suggested. I hope the Minister will consider the suggestion of the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) on the question of meeting losses. This point further emphasizes the necessity of having fruit growers on the board because they are going to take big responsibilities on behalf of those they represent. It will be sounder all round for the Government to take no responsibility in appointing these men to the board. Leave it to the fruit growers; let them manage the business and take the full responsibility. There should be two outside members, in an advisory capacity, representing the Harbour and Agricultural Departments respectively, as was also mentioned by the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). I hope the Minister will also give very careful consideration to the right hon. member’s suggestion that the board should have power to make contracts with shipping lines. I hope it will not be so, but it is quite possible that some loss may arise through fruit not being available to occupy space which has been taken up, say, on an Australian steamer. The suggestion of the right hon. member is that supposing the rate fixed by the steamship companies is 40s., the board should have power to instruct the companies to charge a little extra, say, 42s 6d., as mentioned. Forty shillings they would keep to themselves as being their fixed rate of freight, and 2s. 6d. they would collect on behalf of the board, and the latter sum would go to form a reserve fund from which losses can be met. I think it is the only possible way of meeting the case fairly. Then everybody will have to contribute. The Government should not contribute. That would not be fair. You must get the men who are co-operating and standing together to contribute a fair share. I think the suggestion of the right hon. gentleman is an extremely good one, which should be very carefully considered. Then there is the other point, which is well worth consideration—that of giving the power to the board to control the allocation of the fruit to the different ports. Let us take the case of fruit from say the Sundays River Valley. The control board may know perfectly well that there would be no opportunity of shipping that fruit from Algoa Bay for some considerable time, and in that case they would order it to be sent to Cape Town where it might be shipped much sooner. It should be the duty of the board to act in the interests of the fruit growers. The hon. member for Marico (Mr. J. J. Pienaar), and I think the hon. member behind me, have raised the question of claims for negligence and argued that the board should be responsible, but that cannot be done. The board is purely a co-operative body, not making profits and appointed to act in the best interests of the fruit growers. If they are guilty of negligence, the only way to deal with them is to sack them and put other people in their place. But if you are going to make members of the board responsible, even though there may be negligence, it would mean that no one would occupy the position. Then as regards the compilation of statistics; we have already so much of this to do that some of us will be compelled to keep a clerk for the purpose if any more is expected of us. We are sick of preparing statistics.

The more we think about fruit farming the more we see the importance of this growing industry. Take, e.g., the district of Caledon. Ten years ago a beginning was made there with fruit culture and to-day in that district there are a quarter of a million fruit trees if there is one. The fruit farming is carried on at Elgin, Villiersdorp and River Zonder Bind. A farmer expects to export 100,000 boxes, and have we as a Parliament ever thought what a source of giving work to our people fruit farming is? I am sorry that the Minister of Labour is not here. I can say this, that during the pruning and picking times there are farmers who employ between 80 and 100 people. What a source is not this to furnisch work in the country for our poor white people? To train them up in a proper technical manner? We talk about civilized labour and higher wages and calculate the solution of the poor white problem on a commercial basis, but will money raise up people? Will money make them more honourable? No, the only way is to train the people technically to become better people. If we give a man a civilized wage on the railways—which the Minister of Railways is so wedded to—do we give him a chance there of mounting up higher in the social scale? No, he will possibly always remain on the platform or at the shovel and the pick. This is what I want to emphasize. I hope the Minister of Education will listen to this, because I understand that he has taken technical and industrial schools under his wing. The fruit farmers in my constituency are very anxious to establish a school where a person can learn to prune fruit trees and to pick and pack fruit. In this connection we can have schools where at least 80 to 100 young people can obtain practical experience of the work which they are learning. They have a chance of working with the farmers. In the fruit season the farmers pay very big prices for the packing of fruit, sometimes as much as £1 per day per packer. The young people that are there at school are at the same time practically taught to do their work in a technical way, and they become better people in this way. The fruit farmers at Elgin, Dutch-speaking and especially the English-speaking, who have come from oversea, from India and elsewhere, make a great success of fruit farming, and they are anxious to assist the Minister to solve the poor white problem in this way.

Can’t they learn better on the farms than in the school?

I am speaking of schools where the people can be taught to pack fruit and to prune trees, and they get payment from the farmer. I want to say this that fruit farming is growing so rapidly that we bye and bye will be able to employ thousands of people in this area. This matter of the export of fruit was especially brought to the notice of the farmers since Mr. Griffiths’ report came out about the unhappy state of the cold storage at the docks as well as on the ships. The farmers can never be sufficiently thankful to the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) for bringing out Mr. Griffiths. After his arrival the fruit farmers woke up and found out what was necessary with regard to cold storage, and it was found that the cold storage at the docks and on the ships was entirely unsuited to the requirements of the country. It was a riddle how the fruit in the past arrived so well on the other side. Mr. Griffiths thought that it was only due to the wonderfully healthy nature of the South African fruit, and I cannot understand how the fruit arrived so fit on the other side with the insufficient cold storage arrangements that were then available. This all points to the fact that fruit farming in South Africa is going to have a great future; that this will mean large development in agricultural affairs as also a great opportunity for finding work for a great portion of the people, and for technical training. Let me say this, that the export of fruit this year was a very great failure, and if it was not for the fact that South Africa actually offered an unlimited market for apples then thousands and ten thousands of pounds would have been lost, It is wonderful what a good market there is for apples here in South Africa. A farmer at Elgin told me that he sold 6,000 boxes at the average price of 18s. per box. To-day the price is 24s. per box, so that both in South Africa and overseas there is a great future for our fruit. We, as a Government and Parliament, can do much to develop the South African market. There is no market that is so poorly developed as our inland fruit market. Take villages in the Karroo such as, e.g., Richmond. What opportunity do the people there have of getting good, fresh fruit. They get no opportunity, because there is no systematic organization. There is thus great room for development in South Africa. After all the trouble we experienced this season, the farmers think that a board of control is the only salvation. This is rightly or wrongly their conviction, and I hope the Minister will give all his attention to the matter. I know he has the matter at heart. As a son of the Western Province, he knows fruit farming, and I know that he takes a great interest in it. He must give his earnest attention to the hints of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) with reference to the constitution and powers of the board of control, because I can give him the assurance that all the fruit farmers look to this board of control for help, and I have the fullest confidence that the Minister will see that we will get clearness and unanimity if necessary by way of a conference. I have said these few words to bring the importance of the matter before the House, and I am sorry that it is necessary to ring the bell during my speech, because there was not a quorum present. We are discussing a matter of importance, not only for the Cape, but for the whole Union. Even in the Transvaal great developments are taking place in the matter of cultivation of deciduous fruits. We must thus jointly do our best to put this important industry on a sound footing for the future.

I fear that I cannot altogether agree with the hon. members who have spoken up to the present. It seems to me that the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) wants to send the fruit from his district to mine, because we have not enough. I do not know whether I correctly understood him.

I did not speak of Colesberg.

You said Richmond, and it is in my constituency. Richmond, however, produces fruit as good as that of the Western Province. When the peaches are ripe the hon. member for Caledon should order some from there and compare them with the peaches of his district. Farmers complain that fruit on our village markets is so cheap that it is not worth the trouble to send in fruit from the farms there. The hon. Minister wants to export our fruit. I fear I cannot support him. I am afraid that if he is going to export more, then we will have nothing over to eat ourselves. Yes, it is really a consideration with me. I think that we in our country do not eat nearly enough fruit, not only fresh but also dried fruit. If we would only eat more fruit it will be less necessary to go to the apothecary or even to the doctor. It is difficult to get proper fruit in Cape Town. The hon. members who come from up country know how difficult it is to get fruit in the hotels. I regard it as a scandal of the Western Province that if a person comes to the hotels here they cannot get proper fruit, not only as regards quality, but also with regard to quantity. At one of the three meals one gets a little fruit, and this is usually also of a poor standard. As for the catering department which falls under the Minister of Railways, I can tell him that they always give good fruit, and plenty of it, but not in the hotels. I go so far as to say that if we ate more fruit we would be much healthier. Only the other day I asked someone where I could get a fresh fruit meal in Cape Town. He indicated a place where I might possibly get it, I went there, but I was not successful. As far as I know, it is not possible in Cape Town to get a meal of fresh fruit. All one can do is to eat fruit in the room of your hotel, and this I do a great deal. I hope the hon. Minister will consider a little whether something cannot be done, either privately or by the Government, to establish places to provide people with good and fresh fruit in Cape Town. I have said that I do not know whether I can support the Minister, but that was only said jokingly. His undertaking is a good one, and we wish him every success, but I hope that he will think a little about what I have said in connection with the eating of fruit.

I do not think my hon. friend has reason to complain of the sympathetic manner in which his Bill has been received by the House, and I want to add my congratulations to those of my right hon. friend alongside me, on the admirably clear manner the hon. Minister has introduced the Bill. It has given me and other fruit farmers an idea of his sincerity to do all he can to improve fruit farming in this country. In the last few years there has been anxiety among the fruit farmers, especially the younger farmers, many of whom have gone through a very trying time, and they came to the conclusion that if the Government did not come forward and do something in the direction of controlling the shipping of their fruit, they would have to give up the business. The way the Bill has been introduced by the hon. Minister will be an earnest to the fruit farmers that at last the House is going to take their position into serious consideration. My hon. friend knows that the fruit exchange has done a great deal of good during the few years it has been in operation in this country, and he also knows that there have been influences at work to undermine the fruit exchange in its co-operative character, which at one time went so far as to threaten its existence. When it was established at first it had an idea that the vote should be controlled by tonnage. We realize what a serious menace that would have been. Fortunately the fruit exchange altered its articles of association, whereby the vote would be by individual fruit growers. If the vote was to go by tonnage the exchange would have been in the hands, not of the fruit farmers, but of the big syndicates with huge tonnages. The hon. Minister has been good enough on more than one occasion to give me the benefit of his opinion in connection with this Bill. The hon. Minister will realize that on this matter we are desirous of meeting one another and doing what we can with the idea of improving the possibilities of the development of the fruit trade in this country. I agree that it can yet become one of our extremely large industries. If nothing is done to control the shipping of our fruit, for which we require a foreign market, the industry is in a hopeless condition. The trouble that has beset us in the past was owing to the fact that we had no statutory body to commit the fruit growers, and to make in their interests shipping arrangements in advance. As my hon. friend knows, the Government can be of great assistance to the Shipping Board. I hope he will accept the principle, and I am prepared to meet him in that direction, although, as he knows, as a co-operator myself, I should like to see the whole of the control in the co-operative section of the fruit growers. There are a certain number of people who have not yet seen their way to join up with the fruit exchange. It would be a fine thing if the board could consist of three nominees of the fruit exchange, which has a proportion of 80 per cent. of the fruit growers, and one nominee of the remainder. That, I think, would be a fair representation on the body. He should also agree to the suggestion to have on the body a technical officer from the agricultural department, and one from the railway department to act as ex-officio members, and technical advisers to the board, but certainly not to have a vote. The control should be in the hands of those who have to pay the piper. With regard to the chartering of ships, I don’t think there will be any serious loss, because, supposing the board enters into an agreement with the Australian steamers, say boats like the “Sophocles,” to make provision for ten or fifteen thousand feet of cubic space, then, if the fruit is not forthcoming, the board will be able to look round and find other things to put in as cargoes. Although the price may be much less, at any rate, it will save a certain amount of loss they would otherwise incur. I hope he is going to meet the proposal of my right hon. friend alongside me, and consider fully the advisability making this board a statutory body. The fruit exchange has got quite a lot to do in connection with the co-operation of fruit growers, and if it is represented by three to one, it will be simpler to refer to them the statutory powers and make them responsible for the whole of the interests of the fruit farmers in the country. The hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius) said that he was socialistically inclined in connection with his opposition to this Bill, and that the party was being moved in the direction of socialistic thought. That appeals, I am sure, to the hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Fourie). He has that good, solid look of an enthusiastic socialist, and I have no doubt he is in entire sympathy with the hon. member for Witwatersberg (Lt.-Col. N. J. Pretorius) in his confession that he is now beginning to look upon the majority of measures with a socialistic point of view. But in the fruit exchange there is no compulsory co-operation whatever. Nobody is bound to join it. This is a measure which has become essentially important owing to the trouble we have had in the past. It is quite clear to everybody who is a fruit grower that if we are not going to have chaos we must have a body with statutory power to control the fruit from the time it comes from the railway, and to send it by any ship they think advisable and make whatever arrangement they think necessary for the transport. I speak with a good deal of feeling because as a fruit farmer I have had a certain amount of loss especially during the past season. I feel perfectly certain that, unless you have some such control as is proposed to be set up by this Bill, it would be much better for the large number of young fellows who have gone into the industry to get out of it altogether. We must look to Europe to get a market for our fruit. I feel that, though you may have a board of this character, the Government can be of great assistance. My hon. friend the Minister said the other day that so far as the mail contract is concerned it was not a closed book. The Government have a considerable lever in the mail contract not alone by reason of the carrying of the mails, but in the amount of Government freight from Europe that is coming out here, to bring pressure upon whatever company is carrying the mails to make much better provision in the future for insulated space than they have made in the, past. I was horrified to hear one who had been in these things my guide, philosopher and friend, the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) say that he was getting sick of statistics.

The collecting of statistics.

You cannot have statistics unless you collect them. I, who have always sat at his feet in commercial matters of this sort, feel extremely sorry, but I have got to disagree with him, because unless the Minister and those whom they are negotiating with have an approximate idea of the number of trees that have been planted during the last few years and the number now being planted, it would be impossible to bring that information to the shipping companies which they are not in the same position to acquire as the Government are. With the statistics which are available in the Department of Agriculture they will be able to impress upon the shipping companies the advantage, in their own interests, of making provision for the tonnage so far as fruit is concerned that is likely to be forthcoming. I was greatly interested in what the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) said about rural education in the Caledon district and the desire that that rural education should take a horticultural turn. May I make a suggestion which I hope will be taken into consideration by the education authorities? The fruit industry is becoming an expanding industry, but we are largely handicapped, like the fruit industries in other countries, owing to the fact that our holiday times do not correspond with the fruit-picking season. I have had the benefit personally of the services during the holidays of school children and university students, who, I am glad to note, are not too proud to go out and work and use their holiday period very largely to assist people who want skilled labour for this purpose. I hope my hon. friend the Minister will receive the suggestions made from this side of the House in the spirit in which they are made. I was sorry to hear it said that the Australian liners were booked up to August next. I dare say the sudden rise in the price of wheat caused a good deal of call upon the insulated space on, the Australian steamers, but wheat has now fallen very considerably and there may not be now such a call upon the space. Many of us are nervous that there may be certain contracts entered into of such a size and such a character as to prevent the carrying out of the provisions of this Bill in the manner in which we should like to see them carried out and I do feel that it is due to the House and to the fruit farmers to know what the position is in this regard. Personally, I do not think there will be any objection to say that when this Bill is promulgated all existing contracts should lapse and you would put everybody on an equal basis. What makes me nervous about this matter is that there have been influences at work in this country not only to try to break up the fruit exchange, but to try, if we had not legislation of this character, to contract for space in the Australian steamers so as to give them priority for the shipment of their own fruit and, if they have not their own fruit to ship, to give them a lever which would enable them to secure from others who had fruit to ship an extra price for space in these steamers. I think the Minister should tell us what the extent of these contracts is. I should like him to consider whether he would not be prepared to put a clause into this Bill which would enable all such contracts to be broken. I am out to prevent any one taking an undue advantage, especially of the smaller grower. That is the man I am looking after. There are a great many people trying to do all they can to prevent him having a show. I think my hon. friend should tell us, as far as he possibly can, what is the nature of these contracts and whether they are of such a small character that they will not interfere with the carrying out the principles which he wishes to see carried out and which are embodied in the Bill.

I must express my gratitude at the tone that the whole debate has taken to-day. Hon. members have rightly appointed us that we have here to do with a matter of general interest and therefore it is one about which we can differ from each other in a calm way in the spirit which has been exhibited this afternoon. Let me endeavour to deal with a few objections which have been made against the provisions of the Bill, and then in conclusion the two great objections mentioned by the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts). The hon. member for Pretoria (North) (Mr. Oost) and the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. van Niekerk) apparently wished to understand by this Bill that the principle of compulsory co-operation is latent in it. I would like to know where it comes in the Bill. All that is provided in the Bill is that there should be a board of control for the regulation of the export of fruit. As for the work of the fruit exchange in connection with the raising of a levy of 5s. per ton, I can say that this still remains in the hands of the Minister of Agriculture. All that my department has taken over is the question of the export of fruit. If hon. members then see a danger that people will be compelled to join the co-operative societies I can only say this, that I do not find it in the Bill. Now they come and say that the fact that the fruit exchange will have the majority of representatives in the board of control will compel the fruit farmers to become members of the exchange. They must understand that four-fifths of the farmers are members of the exchange and that I was obliged to meet the exchange if I wanted to do justice to them. I also intend to give the producers who are still outside the exchange representation on the board of control. I cannot therefore see where the hon. members find any difficulty. In this connection I should like to say that I hope that it will come to this that all the fruit farmers will join the organization. I am sorry that the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. van Niekerk) places no confidence in the fruit exchange and accuses the exchange of incapacity. It is certainly true they did make mistakes. But everybody can make a mistake, even a good Government like this makes mistakes. The hon. member will, however, agree that the fruit exchange did its utmost to look after the interest of the fruit farmer. This is established by the commission of enquiry where the commission points out that the measures this year went wrong because the agent of the Australian lines in Durban concluded contracts for the shipment of fruit in conflict with the agreement which had been made with the agents of the line in Cape Town. I therefore hope that the hon. members will not judge the fruit exchange too harshly but will encourage the exchange to go on with its good work. The hon. member for Pretoria (North) (Mr. Oost) has pointed out that the Transvaal has gone ahead with great strides in the cultivation of deciduous fruits. I agree, because it is also my information, but I wish to point out that the feeling of the Transvaal farmers, which was very strong, that the fruit exchange was not the friend of the Transvaal, rested on a misunderstanding. I have had the opportunity to get into touch with the fruit exchange, and I wish to give the assurance to the Transvaal farmers that the fruit exchange is actually inspired with the desire to look after the interests of the fruit farmers over the whole country, and if hon. members think that the fruit exchange is not acting properly and in the best interest of the farmers they must bring it to the notice of the fruit exchange and the exchange will do its best to remedy the defects. I do not, however, wish to go into the general position of the fruit exchange. There are two points which have been mentioned by hon. members on the other side. The first is in connection with section 4 (1). I do not know whether I understood correctly that the opinion of the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) is that the section must not be accepted as it stands. The gravamen of the criticism on the opposite side was, however, that larger powers should be given to the board of control. Hon. members must understand that they cannot have the matter both ways. On the one hand they want the largest representation to be given to members of the fruit exchange, and on the other hand that the board of control should act independently of the exchange. Why should we now show a spirit of distrust of the fruit exchange that it will act against the interests of the fruit farmers? We must not forget that those representatives on the board of control are responsible to the fruit exchange and in everything that they do will duly bear in mind the interests of the fruit exchange. I cannot see how we can bind the fruit exchange by the contracts of the board of control. If we were to accept the suggestions in this connection then it would mean that we would be creating a new body. This body would then appoint a general manager at a large salary because complicated matters would have to be dealt with. If we give the board the right to fix tariffs this means a new legal body. I gave the assurance that the fruit exchange would have the majority on the board and I think that this will remove the difficulty. I only wish to point out to hon. members the difficulties in connection with the proposal of the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) as to the regulation of freights with the steamship companies. Most of the freights are, for instance, paid in London and not here. Settlement takes place oversea and great difficulties would arise in connection with the matter. But I should like to point out a further practical difficulty. The hon. Minister of Agriculture has the power—and the fruit exchange makes use of the powers that the Minister has—to levy 5s. per ton on all exported fruit, and the affairs of the fruit exchange are managed out of the proceeds thereof. Is it then asking too much of hon. members to leave the matter in the hands of the fruit exchange? If the exchange finds that in consequence of contracts which have to be made from time to time —and here I also agree with the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) that no action can possibly arise in connection therewith, and in the past this did not occur either, if any action should arise, then we must, of course, be ready and take measures therefor. If a levy of 5s. per ton is not sufficient, then they can go and ask the Minister of Agriculture to levy a further 1s. or 2s. 6d. or 5s. per ton. But if it is left in the hands of the fruit exchange, then the whole administration is in the hands of one body, then the fruit exchange can manage the affair and the fruit exchange embraces people of experience and knowledge and business capacity. It is better if it is possible to centralize the whole administration with reference to the export fruit. No, I believe that it would be a radical mistake to depart from section 4, although I want to meet hon. members as much as possible. I can also give hon. members the assurance that the position that they have outlined has been very carefully considered. I discussed it with the legal advisers of the Government, with the department, with the director of the Land Bank, with the shipping agent and practically with everybody who have any interest in it, and I want to say that everybody that was consulted, although they do not all approve of the Bill in its entirety, are yet convinced that the general principles laid down here are the best measures and have been drafted in the best way. I do not, therefore, think that I can accept the proposal to create a new body with powers of levying taxes—even if it is in the form of raised tariffs and a division of the balance. The hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) and other members have raised the point whether we cannot give more powers under section 2 in regard to the question of carriage of fruit to the respective ports. May I point out that if the board of control does its duty—and nobody doubts but that what it will do its duty it will act in conjunction with the committees which will be appointed under section 3 in the various harbours, and thus the shippers of fruit and the committees and the board can co-operate with each other. If, e.g., it is more desirable at one time to send the fruit to Cape Town or to Port Elizabeth or in another case to Durban, then those arrangements can be come to by co-operation between the board and the committees and the shippers of fruit. I wish to point out to hon. members that if the powers proposed by some hon. members are given we shall then drive the board of control and of the fruit exchange into a hornets nest, because there exists, unfortunately, considerable jealousy between Cape Town, Durban and other ports, and there will constantly be difficulties as to which port the fruit should be sent to for shipment without the board being accused of favouring one port above another. I think it must be left optional to the shippers, but the board which we are creating can advise. If the shippers or producers of friut do not follow the advice it is their own fault if things go wrong. The board will, e.g., be able to advise at a particular time to send no fruit to Durban, because the cold storage there is full. Hon. members must not forget that the board of control has control over the order of shipment of fruit from all harbours in the Union, and further the fulfilment of such duties in connection with the export and shipping of fruits from the Union as may be prescribed by regulation. Thus, under the regulations, the board will have the fullest power to settle the matter. I do not say that the board will have the power of saying to which port fruit is to be sent. I do not think that this power is included in this Bill, but I expect that if the decision rests with the producer while the board merely gives advice that no difficulties will arise. I also fear that if we grant the rights that it will mean the death of the fruit farmers, because if we put compulsion in its hands, then it will at once be said that Cape Town, e.g., is preferred to other ports. We know, I may say in passing, that the cold storage space will be very much enlarged in Cape Town. Therefore, it is better to leave the shippers free to ship their fruit at the port they prefer. I do not think there is any other outstanding point.

The point that the same members are members of the two bodies.

The hon. member reminds me that the members of the board can also be members of the fruit exchange. We foresaw this. I acknowledge it, but the hon. member surely does not expect that the members of the board will not do their duty—

But will there be no control?

The hon. member will understand that if, e.g., three members of the board are also members of the fruit exchange; the fruit exchange as a whole—and it is a large body—exercise control over the board. Then another point has been mentioned by the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) with regard to advisory members. I had myself intended when the board was constituted to add advisory members as well, one from the Agricultural Department, one from the Railway Department, one from the Harbour Department, and possibly further representatives of other bodies interested in the matter. But, of course, they will only be members in an advisory capacity. No outsider will have any control on the board. The hon. member for East London (North) (Brig.-Gen. Byron) wants more statistics about the expected quantities of fruit for export. I agree with him and other members that it is desirable. I hope that the Department of Agriculture, which has all the machinery, and the Census Department will be in a position to obtain the statistics and the departments will naturally now co-operate closely with the board. I do not think that it is necessary to make provision for this. The only remaining point is what are we going to do when the second reading has been taken. I must say that I do not think that a conference will take us much further, but if hon. members think that it is necessary, then I have no objection to the Bill being referred to a select committee after the second reading. I think, however, and hon. members will, I think, agree with me, that we can deal with the matter satisfactorily in committee of the whole House. Hon. members can place amendments on the Order Paper, and I will give ample time for dealing therewith. But if hon. members think that we require more information, then I think the Bill should go to a select committee, and then I think evidence should also be taken, e.g., from the Secretary for Agriculture, the Railway Administration, the general manager of the fruit exchange, the director of the Land Bank, and others.

So you will refer the Bill to a select committee.

I would only do so in order to meet hon. members. I think that we have enough information to deal with the matter in committee of the whole House, but the Bill has been discussed in such a fair way that I want to meet hon. members if they insist on it, and will refer the matter to a select committee with instructions to deal with the matter expeditiously.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into committee on 20th April.

There are two or three special points which I should like to deal with. One question is that of the choice of registration as between the place of business and the place of residence. I do appeal to the hon. Minister to bear in mind what he said yesterday, that this is an electoral law, and not a franchise law; because the question of disfranchisement does arise, to a certain extent. Under the present law persons have the right to register at either places, and I contend that to abolish this right is a species of disfranchisement. I put it also on the question of convenience. The original provision was clearly intended to allow a person to select the place at which it would be most Convenient for him to vote. There are many to whom it is convenient to vote near their place of business. Very possibly a man may live a considerable distance from a railway and polling booth, and it may be more convenient for him to vote at the polling station near his place of business. Yet this Bill is intended to get people to vote and to provide facilities, and on both these grounds I put it that this is not the right place to take away this right of choice. The provision is objectionable to my mind, on the ground that it is interfering, to a large extent, with the legitimate convenience of people in regard to voting. It is the deprivation of a right. The hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Reyburn), in his very logical speech urged the change on the ground that it was undesirable to extend the Cape system; but all we ask is that the Cape system should be left alone. The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) has talked about the manipulation of the native vote, but it will require more than his repeated rash assertions and his smile to cause us to accept his assertions. The hon. member is entitled to his opinion, and I am entitled to mine. I also wish to support what was said yesterday by the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter). In my opinion this Bill will lead to a considerable danger of what we used to call the illiterates in the Cape Colony being deprived of their right. I wish to draw the Minister’s attention to Act 5 of 1892. Clause 3 of that Act contains an exemption whereby persons then registered, although they might not be able to pass the education test, were to retain the franchise so long as they remained in the division in which they were registered. The powers which the Minister has require any voter to fill up a form, and I ask the Minister in this connection carefully to consider the position of these people, because this is not a franchise law, and I take it he means that it is not a disfranchise law. I hope the Minister will accept necessary amendments to protect those whom we called the illiterate voters.

Business was suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.17 p.m.

I venture to continue the third stage of my few remarks on this Bill. I was pointing out before the adjournment that illiterates might be struck off the roll owing to their inability to fill up forms which might be prescribed by the Minister, under which an additional educational test might be imposed to which they are not liable at the present time. Another point I wish to emphasize is the effect of absentee voting on the native vote. That the points I have drawn attention to are not mere imagination will be clear when one realizes the line taken up by the hon. member for Maritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) in his speech he delivered at Maritzburg a few days ago. Dealing with the fact of the Women’s Suffrage Bill, he said the Bill had only been suspended until the Electoral Bill has been passed, which Bill, by the effect it will have on the native vote, will do away with many of the difficulties in the way of women’s suffrage, and make it easier for the Bill enfranchising women to be passed. I would like to know how he gets that impression that the Bill would disenfranchise many natives and thereby give a chance of giving women the vote. He may not have read the Bill, but I give him credit for thinking he knows the Bill. It is not the first time that the hon. member for Maritzburg (North) (Mr. Strachan) has seen some of the difficulties that have been recognized and have been shown from this side of the House. I now come to the point on the question of the clause dealing with the signing of articles in the press during election times. The point I wish to make is that not only are we correct in pointing out that it is likely to be ineffective in practice, but we are justified from experience in arguing that it has proved to be so, because in Australia, I am informed, the provisions of the law, which are as strong as, if not stronger than, ours, are evaded in the most easy manner. I predict the same thing will happen here. When the hon. members in that corner sneer at the desire of people to protect themselves by not signing communications in their own name, they will not look facts in the face. We know what will happen if they append their names at election times.

They should have the courage of their convictions.

Will the hon. member tell us if they have the courage to say what happened behind closed doors at Mr. Andrew’s election? We had a very interesting official version from the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Reyburn), but we should very much like to know an official version of what was not communicated. We should also like to know what took place at the celebrated meetings at Bloemfontein, when the now Minister of Defence and Labour called upon the new Prime Minister for the little cup of tea—those little communications which were denied and which were said to be untrue. We should like a confidential communication of what took place at that time. When we object to the clause we object because of the grave inconvenience and danger of victimization if the clause is carried. We are justified in our fears. There have been sinister things in the past which give us grounds to believe that there is more in the thing than meets the eye. Two hon. members yesterday “blurted out” a considerable amount. The things which have been repeatedly stated by an important Minister during last year—I mean the Minister of Justice—we know the threats he has been making about the press this year, are only borne out by the statements of those two members yesterday afternoon. They are threats to clip the wings of the English press.

It is about time, too.

We say that is the sinister side when taken in conjunction with the hon. Minister of Justice. When the South African party were in power they never dreamt of things like that. Hon. members may laugh, it just shows the point of view. The South African party Government during its existence has had to face the most scurrilous and mendacious attacks from the Opposition press ever made in the history of this country, and to those hon. members opposite that was a justifiable proceeding. The moment our papers attack the principles of that side on political grounds, then every attack is one that must be suppressed. We are told this is a capitalist press. I ask the members how much it costs to run “Die Burger”? How much does it cost, and where does it come from?

Where does it come from? It comes from subscriptions from people who have taken up a couple of shares or so.

The hon. member’s withers seem very much wrung indeed. I have asked in the House where does the money come from. I ask again, who are the shareholders?

Cannot you find out.

I would say to the members who displayed so much research into the capital of the South African papers that they stopped short. Where does the money for the “Die Burger” come from? It is a perfectly fair question to put to the hon. members. They have no desire for anonymity. Have the people who put their money in it had their names registered in the Deeds Office under the Company Act? How is it that a large amount of money used for “Die Burger” is not capital, whilst a large amount of money used for the “Cape Times” is capital?

They are capitalists.

The hon. member should be one of the last members to talk about capitalists or what can be done with money. What we feel about it, at all events what I feel about it, is that when you have a measure like this, you must look to see what is the policy behind it. You have seen during the session how muzzling has been going on—

I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.

It appears to me that the Opposition is very sensitive in connection with the limitations which are being laid upon the press. I wonder if they suffer from a bad conscience. It is clear that the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) has tried hard to divert attention from the actual question. His chief point is that the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) said that we want to get our own back. What danger does the South African party press run under this Bill if it is honourable? We have here to do with a double-edged sword which cuts on both sides of the House. I acknowledge that harm has been done to persons on the other side of the House by the press. I will mention a possible case. During the recent election it appeared in the press that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) had said at De Aar that he was in favour of the native franchise in the Transvaal. The Nationalist party reaped a great advantage from this in the Tranvaal, and if it is untrue the man responsible therefor ought to be punished. One of the arguments of the hon. member for Rondebosch is that the vote is kept secret and he asks why the name of a person who writes an article in a newspaper cannot also be kept secret. They are two completely different cases. In the one case the voter is protected, in the other case the public and the candidate are protected, and not the man who wrote the article. He ought to be sufficiently manly to sign the article. He will always then write voluntarily. The object of this Rill is to get a thorough electoral law and not to damage the “Argus” or another newspaper company. I will go a step further with the arguments of hon. members opposite. The hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) adduced arguments against the measure that persons would be obliged to vote at the place where they reside. His argument is that one constituency will then lose so many voters that it will disappear while the other will have too many. He should understand that it will work out reciprocally. Persons living in that constituency and working in another will have to vote in the former. The quota will thus remain more or less the same. I also wish to point out how illogical the hon. member is. He says that we should leave it optional. Say that a constituency has 2,000 voters who work in another area and they chose to register themselves at the latter then we have the same position. I therefore do not attach much value to his argument. I would like to come to another point and that is voting by post. I am not in love with it, I see great danger in it and I agree with the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) that great danger lies in the fact that the ballot papers will be known ten days before the polling day seeing they will be sent to certain persons. Perhaps it may be provided to issue a special kind of ballot paper to those who vote by post. The hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) complained that in the Transvaal in certain divisions more people were registered than there were male citizens in the division. I appeared recently before the Delimitation Commission and it was said to me that 400 more people were registered in my division than there were adult citizens. I said that the Census Department must, in that case, have made a mistake because our organization was so complete that we could give an account of every voter. We must remember that time frequently lapses between a registration and a delimitation. I do not know what happens in the Cape Province, but in the Transvaal it happens that people move about in that period. In the Transvaal we often find that a person is registered in two constituencies and both parties are then guilty of telling such person to go and vote in the place where the party is the weakest rather than where the seat is safe. I fear that the position will be made worse by a quarterly registration. The consequence of postal voting will be that the party organization will have two classes of people to look after. The one party will vote by post and the other will have to be taken to the poll. I hope that the Minister will establish one or other system by which a person who leaves a constituency will be taken off that roll. It is a great trouble in an extended constituency to get all the voters on the roll. I would suggest to the Minister that he institute a system that the special justices of the peace or the field cornets in the Cape Colony will supervise the preparation of the voters’ rolls in the ward that he represents. He can then notify the registering official when a voter has left that ward. In this way many of our difficulties will vanish. I do not know what the position in the Cape Colony is but in the Transvaal the people are keen on their names appearing on the voters’ roll and it happens sometimes that after a year or so they want to come and vote and then find out that their name is not on the roll. I am glad that changes are being made and I hope that this will contribute to the preparation of an accurate voters’ roll. The Minister has made provision here that a person’s name cannot be taken off the roll if he applies on the wrong form. In the Free State there was an instance of a person losing his seat because the official made a mistake with the form. In my case I and my party had to go to heavy expenses in consequence of a mistake of the officials and I think provision should be made that the State should pay such expenses. I wish to say again that I am glad that the Minister has introduced an amended Bill. I think that it will greatly improve the existing system.

Everyone speaking from the South African party benches has started by saying he is in favour of clean electioneering. If the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) has let the cat out of the bag, I do not know what members of the South African party on this side of the House have let out of their bag. They are very concerned as to the deprivation of those provisions which enable the voter to register where he works, or where he lives and renders the register susceptible to manipulation; they are opposed to the provision whereby the absentee voter can vote by post and which deprives a rich party of the advantage over a poor party; they are opposed to the check against illiterates voting and they are particularly concerned with the question of the press. What they are really concerned with is to safeguard the evils which have existed in the past, and which have proved of benefit to the South African party. Nothing has been said by members of the South African party side of the House, which can hold water so far as these objections are concerned. The member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) said all he wanted was to be left alone. He should have thought of that in 1910 before we established the Act of Union. It is surely rather late in the day to say this now. Another argument is that it would be very difficult for a man to go and vote in the place where he lives, when it might be some distance from where he works. This is answered by the fact that polling hours have been greatly extended. I cannot follow the arguments of hon. members who are opposing this Bill. Sufficient has been said to show that this system of so-called choice lends itself to manipulation. The second objection is to making provision for the absent voter to vote by post. The position to-day is that it is the party with the largest amount of money that can bring the most voters to the poll. I am surprised that hon. members of the South African party could so fall to the blandishments of the Unionist party in this matter. We all remember the great fight which took place in Pretoria when Gen. Botha was defeated, not by the voters present in the constituency, but by absent voters who were enabled and induced to vote by the large amount of money the Unionist party were able to spend. I submit that if you want to give a man an opportunity to vote you must not make his power to vote dependent on money. As a matter of fact, the experience of voting by post has been particularly satisfactory. I need only refer to one particular instance which will show its advantages. I think it was in 1918 that the Australian voters on active service in Flanders were given the opportunity to vote on the question as to whether there should be conscription or not. These men being away from the blandishments of the press, conducted by editors sitting safely in their editorial offices, and being faced with the grim realities of war, voted by a majority against conscription. The third strenuous objection of the Opposition to this Bill is to the education test. It will surely be admitted that the original intention of the Act, which laid down that a voter shall be able to sign his name and address, did not contemplate the sort of signing of a name we have often been told of that exists in some parts of the Cape where someone has been taught to mechanically sign his name. I take it that the intention of the law is that the voter shall not be illiterate, and the provisions of the Bill will go a long way to bring this about. I am surprised that the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) and others have taken such a feeble line as to shelter themselves behind the rights of certain voters in the Cape prior to 1892. Our experience in the Transvaal, and that is probably the experience in the Cape and everywhere else in the Union, is that the voters move about a good deal, and I doubt whether there are many people registered now in the place where they were registered 33 years ago. I now come to the provisions of the Bill dealing with the press. Whenever I speak about the press I feel a certain amount of diffidence and I do not intend to say anything against the press in the ordinary course, because I have always stated that I have no objection to the press carrying out their own policy and reporting whom they choose and reporting a speaker fully or not as they think fit. That is their own business. But the point is overlooked that when it comes to a question of an election which is to establish the Government of the country, then the press must be looked at from a different point of view, namely, as an instrument utilized for shaping public opinion. From that point of view, we are entitled to have certain safeguards so as to secure that every section of the community and every political party shall start off in the race without any handicap. The possession of a strong and unchecked press by one political party is a serious handicap to the others. I do not blame the South African party for their strenuous defence of their press, as but for that press in South Africa that party’s long-deferred fall from power would have taken place many years ago, and probably they have cause for gratitude not only for past favours but perhaps for favours still to be received, as, so far as I can see, their only hope of resurrection lies in the efforts of the press on their behalf. It is therefore a matter of vital interest to them to leave the press unhampered. As to knowing who owns the shares in a newspaper, the advantage is that the public will know what economic policy will be advocated by that paper, and when they read a leading article in that paper they will know it is expressing the particular policy of the particular financier who is financing the paper, and they will know what weight to place on the views of the paper. We have been told that the Nationalist press in a few years will be a powerful press. We are not afraid of the provisions of this Bill. We are not afraid of the editor having to sign his name or of contributors or reporters having to sign their names, and we do not see why those on the Opposition side should be afraid of things which we are not afraid of. All we require, and I think it is a reasonable requirement, is that at election times the dice shall not be loaded against us. Electoral legislation makes provision to ensure that. Let me quote one instance, that of transport. There is a provision in the electoral law by which a candidate or his friends cannot hire motor cars to convey voters to the polls. The object of that is to try and secure as far as possible equality between the different parties, because unless you have such a provision, the party with the largest purse, having accustomed voters to be brought to the poll by transport, would be able to hire all the motor-cars on a particular election day and leave the party without the money in the position of not being able to bring their voters to the poll. One of the great objections raised by the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) in regard to the provisions of this Bill dealing with the press was that it would be impossible to carry them out. It is difficult to carry out the provisions in regard to the hiring of motor-cars. In 1921, in Pretoria, I believe, the right hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) suddenly had a craze to own a large number of motor-cars and became the registered owner of 16 or 18 taxis. This was an obvious evasion of the law, which we could not very well enforce. There was, of course, nothing to prevent him from buying motor-cars, but it is no reason that, because somebody succeeded in breaking the law, we should amend it because we cannot carry it out. The same applies in regard to the press; the fact that it may be difficult to enforce the provisions of this Bill is no reason why we should not attempt it, and by attempting it we shall be doing something to ensure that all sides shall have a fair chance and equal opportunity. That the dice is loaded under the present arrangement cannot be gainsaid. In 1915 we had a Jingo election. It was not the propaganda of the South African party or the Unionists which brought about the result of that election; it was the facilities which they had in the press to mislead public opinion in connection with the issues before the country. That was the great patriotic election. I remember a very gallant gentleman, Captain Meyler, was then a member of this House, and in accordance with his ideas of patriotism he was in Flanders, as he preferred real fighting to the sham fighting of his political party. But, because of that, he was not loyal enough for them, and he was turned down by the Unionist party.

That is truth, I suppose?

I remember at that time it was almost dangerous to be associated with the hon. member for Smithfield, the present Prime Minister. A few days before the election, Reuter issued throughout South Africa a message coming from Harrismith of all places, announcing that the hon. member for Smithfield has paid a visit to Harrismith and had been presented with an address of welcome by the Harrismith Labour party. That was flashed from one end of South Africa to the other, and it lost the opponents of the Unionists thousands of votes, because the hon. member for Smithfield was then considered the embodiment of disloyalty, and the non-existent Harrismith Labour party and the Labour party of Johannesburg, Durban, etc., were supposed to be associated therefore with disloyalty. I personally on that occasion made enquiries of my family, resident in Harrismith, and Gen. Manie Botha, a member of the South African party, was gentlemanly enough to send a wire to me at the instance of my friends to the effect that there was no such thing as a Labour party in Harrismith. Indeed, unfortunately, we have not a branch in Harrismith to this day. I endeavoured to get that information into the press and went to the “Natal Mercury,” but they would not accept it. I had information at my disposal as to who constituted “Reuter,” and it appeared that they were gentlemen with names which were not British. I then offered to insert the information as an advertisement. I went to a weekly paper in Durban, the “Latest,” which, I will say, has always endeavoured to be impartial, and handed this advertisement to them, but to my surprise I found that the most important part of that advertisement had been omitted. They said that the publishers, the ‘Natal Mercury,” objected to it, and they did not take my money. I submit that an instance of this kind shows clearly how imperative it is that power of this kind should be checked. That is why we allude to clipping their wings. We want to curtail the power of unfairly influencing public opinion. I believe that if the provision had been enforced that the names of editors and reporters should be published, this report from Harrismith would not have appeared, because I do not think they would have got anyone to sign it. Let me quote another instance. Some years ago the same “Parliamentary Notes” appeared in the “Natal Mercury” as in other papers. I believe all journalists, as far as they are able to exercise their independence, are anxious to do the right thing, but they are not always independent. That gentleman must have made a mistake, because he wrote a very flattering paragraph about some remarks I happened to have made in this House. What took place? The article was reprinted in the “Natal Mercury” with the exception of the flattering paragraph referring to myself, the object apparently being to suppress any favourable comments about an opponent from his constituents. This is but another instance of the tremendous power exercised by the press. I would mention another way in which the press seeks to create prejudice against individuals. It is not an unusual thing to refer to the fact that prior to 1911 I, and the members of my family, happened to bear the name of Kantorovitch. I presume that having assumed British nationality I have as much right to assume a British name as anyone else, and just as much right as people in higher positions than I am. What is the object of newspapers constantly referring to me as Mr. Kantorovitch? Naturally, despite their clamour against racialism, the object was to try and create a racial prejudice against a particular candidate. If that newspaper were obliged to disclose the fact that it was financially controlled by gentlemen with such good old British names as Joel, Beit, Werner, etc, one could imagine what little importance its readers would have attached to its disparagement of anyone of alien extraction. We should preclude the press from unduly prejudicing public opinion. I will repeat a statement made many years ago by Wendell Phillips, an American—

That is the position taken up by the South African party and its friends who say—

We, on the other hand, wish the newspapers to be the disseminators of news so as to give the public a chance to draw their own conclusions on that news. This morning’s “Cape Times” publishes in its summary of South African news the following—

Naturally anyone reading that paragraph would infer that the trades union congress was sitting at Johannesburg yesterday and that it passed this resolution, but what are the actual facts? The rump—a handful of people from the late Mr. Crawford’s S.A.I.F.—came together probably in a private room and passed a resolution, and the press of South Africa blazoned forth the fact that the trade union congress had passed a resolution protesting against the action of the Government in nominating Mr. Sampson as the workers’ delegate to Geneva. The inference conveyed to the public mind is that the trades union congress protested against the action of the Government. If it had been necessary to put to the paragraph the name of the individual who sent that news the probability is that we would have had the correct information. Then letters are published in the press attacking the Labour party, and by the time a reply is published—probably a week has elapsed between the publication of the two letters—all interest in the matter is lost. We want to stop that, but we want to secure the freedom of the press and not to protect the licence of the press. We have not a free press either in England or South Africa. A man like Mr. Massingham lost his job on the press because of his political views. Take again a man like Mr. Nevison, one of the great war correspondents and journalists, who is now obliged to write for small labour papers, because he has developed certain political and economic views. Mr. Hamilton-Fyffe is another instance of this sort. As a matter of fact there is no such thing as the freedom of the press either in England or South Africa. The late Mr. Moneypenny, at one time editor of the Johannesburg “Star,” is another startling instance of this. The press is used to advocate certain economic interests, and any man who believes in the existence at present of the freedom of the press is vastly mistaken. Because the late Mr. Pakeman, the editor of the “Transvaal Leader,” was opposed to Chinese labour he had to go. I believe in this very gallery there is one of the most brilliant journalists in South Africa who has severed his connection with a newspaper. We will put it generously that it is because he did not agree with the policy of the paper. When we are making these provisions for the freedom of the press we are making them in the interests of journalists, and are trying to expose the position under which a handful of monied people are able to manipulate a powerful instrument in the country in their own interests.

The Minister must have begun to understand the objections some of us feel against certain particular clauses in this Bill, when he hears the speeches in defence from his friends on the cross-benches. The speech we have just listened to shows clearly that whatever the Minister’s intentions are with regard to these provisions, they are frankly regarded by his supporters as a means of carrying out a vendetta against a section of the press of South Africa. They ought to make him pause, and hesitate, as to whether he is not being pushed along a dangerous road. The hon. member regaled us with a long collection of anecdotes—

Very pertinent anecdotes.

If any of us took the trouble to make a collection on the other side we could do so if we thought it worth our while. He made a great point about the purity of elections, and who was the author of documents and letters circulated at election times? It would be interesting to know who was the author of a pamphlet published in his own election attributing to a gentleman who stood against him, the views of another gentleman of the same name. It would be interesting to know who would have signed that pamphlet if this law had been in force. If we spent time raking up these things from the dust-heaps of past elections it would be very edifying.

We want to check that and you object.

I am coming to that. With regard to spending money it is doubtful if you can do much without having public opinion with you. You have to get public opinion educated on these points, and if you have not got that your laws will be a farce and will be evaded. In a large number of constituencies the provisions of the existing law are evaded. It is all very well to apply pains and penalties to people who do wrong in election time, but is extremely difficult to bring about a conviction. Certain people were recently convicted of a heinous election offence and were sentenced to terms of imprisonment, but they were promptly released by the Government, and that sort of thing will counteract all the pious provisions of the Government Bill. I should like to ask the Minister why is this Bill being introduced now. There cannot be said to be any urgency for it. The Minister told us a Select Committee sat in 1921 and made certain recommendations, and they recommended the department to enquire into certain other points and embody them in legislation later on. That has been going on and this Bill is one of the results of the report of that committee, and the investigations since carried on. It is not a Bill with any degree of urgency. The Order Paper is loaded up with Bills of a very contentious kind, and I ask the hon. Minister to consider whether this is a Bill he can hope to carry during this session, unless it is prolonged to a length we have never had in our experience in South Africa. It is going to create a long discussion. It is then going to be sent to a Select Committee. I believe there are 18 Select Committees already sitting, and it is impossible for hon. members to serve effectively on more Select Committees than are already sitting. It would have been better if the Minister had kept this little Bill for a time and have brought other measures on the Order Paper to a conclusion, without introducing a contentious Bill of this sort. He says it is not a franchise Bill. It may not be so in his intention, but he must be aware that when the Act of 1918, of which this is an amending Bill, was before the House, it was held that was a Bill on which the question of women’s enfranchisement could not be properly dealt with, and he is aware that it has been held to the promoters of that movement that it would not be open to them to bring in a Bill on that question this session because of the Bill now before the House. The opportunity cannot be allowed to pass for testing the feeling of the House on the question of women’s franchise. I do not want to go into the question in detail, it can be thrashed out in committee. I want to say something about the question of dual qualifications. We have heard, generally from the Labour party, that this is one of the corner stones of the South African party, which gives them the opportunity of manipulating te register and to secure votes where they ought not to get them. I am in favour of the provision in the Bill that a man should be registered in the division where he resides. We are not against that, but it ought to be considered very carefully whether, in bringing it into force in a part of the Union where it has not hitherto been in force, whether you are not restricting the rights of people, and whether it does not require some modification. The principle itself is sound, and I shall certainly support it. I don’t think it will do the South African party more harm than other parties I could name without going very far. On the question of voting by post, I am in favour of doing something to enable the absentee voter to record his vote without being transported to his own division. I think a great deal of energy and money is unnecessarily, and unlawfully expended now in bringing voters to the divisions where they are registered, and it would be a great thing for both the voter and the candidate if they could exercise their vote without being transported to the division where they are registered. This is a new principle, and one that will have to be examined with great care so as to prevent abuses from creeping in. As I say, I do not want to go into the Bill in detail. I want to touch on one or two outstanding things, new things in this country and things which seem to be very undesirable. One of these is the provision in regard to the press. We have heard a great deal about the press and about the intention of this provision being to clip the wings of the South African party press, and a great deal of other stuff like that. The South African party press, as far as I can make out, is very like the press of the other parties; it may not be better, but it is certainly not worse. All this talk about a subsidized press and about editors being at the mercy of the money power and that kind of thing is nothing but hypocrisy.

Nonsense.

You (Mr. Duncan) are a director of the “Pretoria News,” aren’t you?

Yes; does that make any difference?

You (Mr. Hay) were a director of the Roberts Victor.

A great deal of this talk about the editors being at the mercy of the money power and compelled to write against their convictions is hypocrisy.

You have missed the point altogether.

I am very sorry; I may tumble upon it later on. The man who accepts a position as editor of a paper knows perfectly well that he is appointed to carry out the policy of that paper. He accepts the position because he feels that it is a line of policy which he can carry out, and he knows quite well that if he suddenly comes to certain opinions which are contrary to the policy of the paper which he is editing, it is not unreasonable that he should cease to be editor of it.

And those are conditions that contribute to intellectual honesty:

I say this without fear of contradiction, that the editors of the principal papers here in South Africa are not men who are going to sit down and be told what to write by any financial power. They write what they do because their own convictions run along the lines which their paper supports. I regard with great apprehension this invasion of the liberty of the press. I do not regard the liberty of the press as a mere figment, as the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) does. The power of capital no doubt extends over the press, and very often to an undesirable degree, but let us beware that the remedies we are proposing to adopt are not worse than the disease we are suffering from. It is rather a remarkable fact that the Communist party in Russia prohibits altogether the issue of any paper holding contrary opinions to those of their party. I think it is interesting to reflect that this movement for suppressing the expression of opinions which are not welcome to a particular party is characteristic of the Communist development.

How does it suppress it?

I do not say that these provisions are going to suppress it, but it is the beginning, and we have only got to listen to speeches such as that which we have just had from the hon. member for Troyeville to see that what he aims at is the suppression of opinion which is contrary to that which he supports. I regard the anonymity of the press as one of the safeguards of its liberty. We have heard a great deal in this debate that rather confirms that idea. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) said that when they had the writers’ names to these articles they would know how to deal with them. Exactly. The minority nowadays, the minority of a trade union or the minority of any other body, is very apt to have its opinions suppressed, not by the right of reason, but by force, and that is what is coming about more or less in this country, it seems to me, nowadays. My experience of electioneering in Johannesburg is that in quite a number of constituencies there you cannot hold a meeting now, unless you are addressing it in favour of the Labour party or some party that is allied with the Labour party. I do not say that they organize disorder. The platform is now becoming less and less open for the free expression of views which are unpalatable to a number of people in the country. It is important in the interests of liberty and of the free expression of opinion that we should not invade what is certainly a privilege of the press, that is, anonymous writing. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) said so and so could write a splendid article, a most convincing article, and if we read it over it would make us believe it right to hold these opinions. But he says, if we knew the man’s name no one would read it. If we are going to depart from the principle of allowing people to read and think for themselves and to judge what is right in politics, we are going right away from democratic principles about which hon. members on the other side of the House are so enthusiastic. The greatest safeguard against abuses of the press is education of public opinion and giving people more and more opportunity of judging for themselves whether they believe in this, that or the other, point of view. Let the people read what they want to read and judge for themselves. That is the best guarantee of freedom in elections and elsewhere. I think this Bill which intends to make it compulsory for everybody writing anything in respect of an election to sign his name is the first inroad on the liberty of the press and, consequently, on the liberty of the people. I warn the hon. Minister to think twice before he takes that step, to think first what good can come of it. I really cannot see that it is going to do any particular good. If people write anything libellous, anything defamatory, anything taking away character, behind the cloak of anonymity, the law gives the fullest protection. No editor will publish anything likely to bring him in conflict with the law of libel. The history of this country shows what judges think of defamatory statements in the press. No editor, for his own sake and for the sake of his paper, is going to run risks of that kind. So far as defamation and unfair attacks are concerned, it seems to me the law gives sufficient protection. What good is it going to do to compel articles to be signed, except the keeping out from the columns of the press all people who have certain views to express, but who do not want their names brought into prominence in political controversy, because they know if they do so, certain unpleasant consequences may happen.

You are going to gag the civil service.

Well, that I do not mind so much, because I do not think it desirable for the civil servants to take part in political controversies. Another point I want to deal with is the provisions in this Bill dealing with electoral expenditure. I would like to see anything done that can be done to diminish expenditure in connection with elections, both for personal reasons and otherwise. I very much doubt if these provisions in the Bill, however, are going to do any good. I do not think they are going to be enforced if they do not carry public opinion with them. I do not think anybody-except the few hon. members who have spoken from the cross-benches, and whose prejudice is such that they cannot look at these questions impartially, wants to say that expenditure of money in connection with elections is greater in connection with one party than with another. I know that in elections on the Rand you will find as many motor cars to support the Labour or the Nationalist candidate as the South African party candidate. In so far as expenditure on elections is an abuse, it is one common to all parties, and one very difficult to stop. Does this provision of the Minister’s compelling people, individuals, associations or companies, to spend money on election purposes, to publish returns of their expenditure—is it going to stop this? I have no objection to it if it is going to be effective. There is one provision I do object to. I think it is a dangerous one and we should not allow it to continue in the Bill. The Minister not only requires a return to be made of expenditure in connection with elections, but he takes power to come down on any association and say, show me a return of your expenditure. Why does he want that? Surely the general powers of the law are quite enough? I do object to his having the power to single out one particular association and say, I want a return of your expenditure. When we put a measure like this on the statute book we should take the greatest possible precautions against the possibility of abuse on one side or the other. This provision gives the Minister inquisitorial powers against one particular association or company, and not against companies in general. If he finds there is any breach of the provisions of the law, let him set the machinery of the law in operation against the offenders These are the main points I wanted to touch upon, and I would again emphasize in regard to the provisions about the press, that in my opinion we are embarking upon a dangerous course. It is not going to clip the wings of this party or that; it is going to apply all round. If necessary in one case, it is necessary in another. That is not my reason for objecting to it; my reason is we are embarking on a dangerous course when we try to suppress the free expression of opinion or the free circulation of news, because we happen to think that an article is undesirable or that a piece of news is not true. We are embarking on a very dangerous course, because it is so easy to allow one’s ideas of what is true and desirable to be warped by our interests in a political or other sense. I think it is an undesirable step for the Government of the country and this Parliament to embark upon, that of “clipping the wings” of the press. Liberty of thought and liberty of the people is not to be obtained in that way, hut by securing, as far as we can, a high standard of education and of independence of thought among the people so as to enable them to judge for themselves what is right or what is wrong politically, and not accept spoon-meat from their political parties. I would strongly recommend the Minister to give up this idea, and to consider very carefully, first of all, whether these provisions of the Bill will have the effect which he anticipates, and secondly, whether they are not highly undesirable, in the best interests of the country. I think the idea is undesirable, and I think it is entirely un justified by any results that can possibly accrue from it.

I think, on the whole, the Minister is to be congratulated on the reception which this Bill has received, and having regard to the fact that this is the first serious attempt to reform our electoral laws since 1918, he is to be congratulated on bringing forward these reforms, some of which were advocated by a select committee in 1921. The Act has been in force for seven years. I consider that it is better to deal with a matter like this when you are far from an election, as on the eve of an election passions are heated and things cannot be decided on their merits. This Bill is as urgently required as any other reforms that are being brought forward. There are only two or three points upon which there is any serious difference of opinion so far as is shown by the criticism of the Bill expressed by the Opposition. The more important reforms in the Bill have met with acceptance from every section of the House. The first one is more continuous registration. I have not heard a word of criticism uttered in regard to that. The next reform is in regard to absent voters. One or two members of the Opposition have criticized some of the details in the schedule with regard to the way in which this vote is to be exercised, but these can be dealt with in Select Committee. The point you have to consider is that thousands are disfranchised at every election, some of them Government servants, because they are travelling about, such as men on engines and men in the catering department of the railways, and others engaged in the running of trains. Of course, you have to provide against fraud, but this is one of the most useful provisions in the measure and will give these people a chance to vote, which many of them have not had before. On the principle of this reform I have heard practically no criticism. Then in regard to the voting hours I was surprised to hear the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) say it was not fair to give the officials an extra hour’s work. I thought the object of an election was to get people to record their votes, and I think overtime should be paid, if necessary, to accomplish this, but I think to say that the officials should not be kept for another hour is reducing the argument to an absurdity.

Why not give them two days?

If it were found that all the people entitled to vote could not do so in one day, I would have no objection to extending the time, for you want a full and free expression of the opinion of the people. In this Peninsula there are numbers of people who cannot vote to-day. For instance, there are working people who leave for their work before eight o’clock in the morning and many of them could not possibly vote then, and when they come home at the end of the day, sometimes from a distance, they are tired out and have to change, and you can hardly blame them for not recording their vote then. If you made the hour 7 a.m., you would give them a chance to vote on the way to work, and I would like to see the hours extended to nine o’clock at night instead of eight, as at present people are being shut out from voting. Nine o’clock would make it practically impossible for anyone to say he did not have the opportunity to vote. There was only that one objection to this provision, and, from the silence of the other members of the Opposition, I think we may take it that they consider the Minister is right in extending the hours. Reform No. 4 deals with persons voting by means of a declaration. I think the Minister is to be congratulated on making it difficult for people to vote in more than one area. At present there is a lot of dissatisfaction because it is believed that numbers of people vote in two divisions and it is very difficult to check it under the present regulations. The Minister rightly pointed out—and we might call this reform No. 5—that there is a special provision in the Bill that the returning officer must regard it as his duty to report any infraction of the law. At present this is nobody’s job. In regard to witnesses, I would like to endorse what the hon. member for the Gardens (Mr. Coulter) said about deleting the words “European male adult person.” I think he should substitute “two witnesses who shall be adult persons.” Under the present law, as far as giving evidence in a court of law is concerned, any adult person is entitled to be regarded as equal to any other before the law. As far as I know this is the first time that a difference is made between one witness and another on the score of race or colour. I think it is an unfortunate provision, and I hope it will be removed in Select Committee. I think an injustice is done to women too—seeing that they will not be entitled to be witnesses under this Bill, whereas they are allowed to be witnesses of the most important documents. Why should women not be entitled to be witnesses under this Bill? Moreover I certainly think it is wrong to require that the witness must be a European. As regards women suffrage, I hope the Select Committee will take advantage of the opportunity to introduce it. There are only two reforms in this measure, apart from those which I have mentioned, which have occasioned serious criticism from the Opposition. One is the question of taking away the freedom of choice which is exercised by a voter in the Cape Province as to whether he will vote where he works or where he lives. As far as I can ascertain, with the exception of the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) and possibly one or two others, hon. members have spoken in favour of taking away that choice. I have an open mind on the matter, and am rather inclined to leave things as they are. I think that if the matter is referred to a Select Committee it can be thoroughly gone into. If the option is removed it will certainly bring about uniformity in regard to the residential qualification throughout the Union and it will certainly assist the Minister in regard to checking duplication. I agree that it is owing to this that difficulties arise in regard to double voting.

Why?

Because at present voters’ rolls contain an enormous number of duplications in spite of the greatest care, on account of a man being given the choice and the opportunity of changing his choice, so that men are often registered in more than one division. Under the system of the Minister there can be no duplication, and it will prevent frauds. I think, however, that the suggestion to have a freedom of choice under certain limitations deserves the consideration of the Select Committee. The most serious objection to the Bill has been in regard to the newspapers. The hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) said it was unfair that the freedom of people to express their views should be removed. I fail to follow that argument. People will be just as free to express their views as before; there is nothing in this Bill affecting the right to contribute articles, provided the writer does not contravene the ordinary law of libel. The only difference is that it enables you to trace the author of a particular statement. Generally a man is proud to sign his name as an author, but apparently there are some authors that do not want their names disclosed; they do not want publicity. That is a strange kind of author. We know at one time, when women as novelists were not popular, they wrote under the name of a man. That shows that there was something in what the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) said. An hon. member asks why we want to know the name of the author of an article. I should have thought the answer was obvious. For instance if you see a denunciation dealing with interference in a strike, or the use of force, and you see by the signature that it was supplied by a man who was guilty of that action when a Cabinet Minister, you would know what value to attach to it.

How does that affect the argument?

Because you do not put any value on the arguments from a hypocrite. Does the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) mean to say that personality counts for nothing.

An argument is an argument.

When you are trying to influence the public they should be in possession of all the facts. You want the public to know the argument, but you wish to conceal the name of the person who is using the argument, but we wish the public to know the name of the writer and then let people judge for themselves. Why disguise a portion of the truth? The wording of these particular clauses has been subjected to a great deal of criticism and they will certainly have to be altered, for they go further than is necessary. I certainly agree that there should be some control over electoral matter if for no other purpose than to arrive at a candidate’s election expenses. If you have long columns in newspapers which have been paid for but do not appear as advertisements, how are you going to trace whether a candidate has spent more than the proper amount? This would prevent—what one has a shrewd suspicion does take place—namely, that a large amount of matter which appears as news giving the programme of the party and so forth, is really paid for, and if that is so the expenditure should figure in the candidate’s expenses return. How are you going to find that out unless the newspapers distinguish between paid matter and ordinary news? With regard to the question of expenses it is not with the idea of harassing any particular organization, but with the idea of carrying out the law that it is proposed that all societies and organizations should make returns of the money they spend on elections. At present there is no obligation on these organizations to furnish any return. On the whole the Bill is going to introduce many valuable reforms. No doubt some of the clauses will be subjected to a great deal of scrutiny in Select Committee, and some of them will be re-shaped to more clearly carry out the intention behind them. Some hon. members think that the Bill is going to be used as a weapon of oppression, but I cannot see it, and if the measure is carried out according to its wording, it will lead to purity of elections, improved methods of registration, better opportunities for the public to exercise their votes, and better control over electoral literature. From the earliest times it has been considered desirable to insist on the names of printers and publishers being attached to election literature. On the whole the Minister is to be congratulated on having introduced the Bill.

I did not intend to take part in this debate, but after the oration of the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) I really must say a few words. Here we have a great constitutional democrat trying to curtail the greatest instrument of liberty— the press. I would like to ask him where he would have been to-day if there had been no press in the past and whether he would ever be sitting in Parliament if there had been no free press.

Why?

Because if you knew what the press has done to establish Parliament you would not come here to curtail the liberties of the press. It would have taken centuries longer before there would have been constitutional liberty in England and Europe if there had not been liberty of the press. We are endeavouring in this Bill to strike at the root of the liberty of the people. That instrument which brought about the liberty of the people is being curtailed under this Bill.

How is it being curtailed?

What is the interpretation put on the Bill by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North) (Mr. Barlow) what does he say? This morning in the paper I read that he declared it was to “clip the wings” of the press, thus curtailing the right of the press. There would have been no Reform Bill in England putting the constitutional liberties of the people on a safe and proper basis if there had been no press. If you have any confidence in your principles as a socialistic party, why do you fear the press, if your principles are sound. I am afraid that their confidence in their great principles is being shaken, otherwise they would not try to curtail the liberty of the press. Take what the press has done for our own country. If you think of the history of our own country you think of what men like Fairbairn and Pringle and others have done to secure liberty in South Africa, how they fought the autocrats of the last century to bring liberty to our own country. The hon. Minister can well be excused, because he is supposed to be conservative, but here the democrats of liberty are following in the footsteps of the Minister to curtail the rights of the press.

How do you curtail it?

By disclosing their names. Is there going to be liberty in the future if a man is prejudiced in the mines or in other employment when he comes forward at election time and expresses his view and has to give his name. The very victimization which you condemn you are going to promote further in this Bill. It is an onslaught on the instrument which has given me my liberty.

The discussion on this Bill has extended over a very large range and, therefore, it is impossible for me to-night to answer in detail all the arguments which have been brought forward. The Bill moreover is going to a select committee, and it is consequently unnecessary to go into all the details. I wish in the first place, however, to take the opportunity of expressing my appreciation of the manner in which the Bill has been accepted by everyone in the House, and although strong objections have come from the Opposition against certain special provisions yet on the whole the debate has been conducted in a very moderate way, and I on my part much appreciate it. I start from the supposition, and I think it is a right premise, that there is a general desire on all sides of the House to improve our legislation on this subject, and I trust that when a select committee is appointed that it also will proceed in this spirit and that in this spirit the work of the select committee will be received by the House. I shall commence by first dealing with certain questions for more information. The hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Nathan) asked a question which actually is not in point in this discussion, but is an administrative matter with reference to the existing Act. But I see that the hon. member is not here, so I will not answer the question. Then there are a few questions by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz). One of them is what actually the work, the instructions or proposed instructions, to the electoral officers will be. He complains that the work is not set out in the Bill. I may just say for the information of the hon. member that electoral officers are not unknown under the present administration of the existing Act. There is an officer in connection with registration work here in Cape Town, one in Johannesburg, and one at Port Elizabeth. I think there are only these three.

Under the existing law?

Yes, under the existing law. The electoral officers are persons who do work as full time officials, and they are busy all the year round with registration work. The hon. member will understand that if this Bill becomes law such full time electoral officers will be still more required for registration work than before, because we shall then actually have continuous registration. We shall have under the new Bill a supplementary registration every three months. They will thus be full time officials who will be doing the registration work.

In the existing law no provision is made for such officials.

That is exactly the weakness in the law which is now being taken away. Then the hon. member asked a question in connection with the return which must be made by political parties, by groups of persons or associations. He says that in the Bill it is not clearly stated of what nature the returns should be, and that the Minister possibly by regulation may demand something from them which the law does not clearly authorize. It is surely clear that nothing can be demanded of the party or association other than certain returns in connection with the election which are now asked from the candidate. The returns of the candidate are specified under certain heads and the returns from other persons in connection with the election are of the same nature and fall under the same specified heads. Then the hon. member asks why a provision appearing in the existing Act has been left out, namely, the provision for those on active service to exercise their vote. My answer is that in this Bill in the first place a means is introduced for absentees to give their vote in their constituency by post. Therefore, if such a person is within Union and on active service he will be able to vote under the new provision. As regards those on active service outside the Union, I say that it would not be a sound practice to make provision for them in this Bill, but in time of war, if the Union takes part in a foreign war, special provision will have to be made by the Government for the members of the Defence Force or troops of the Union. Then, as in the recent world war, special provision would have to be made for them as was done in the Act of 1918. But I think that such a provision as was made in 1918 should lapse at the end of the war. A war of such a nature happens very seldom.

But why not leave the law as it is?

No, we do not know what the circumstances of future wars may be and then it would mean that a change in the existing laws would have to be made. I think that it is better that Parliament should make special provision in such a case. Then another question was asked but I think it rests on a misunderstanding of what I said namely the relation of persons living in South-west Africa. I think that the hon. member said that he understood that I said that the people will be able to vote in the Cape Province. That was not my intention but the law in the Cape Province provides that to be qualified to vote one must possess certain qualifications, a certain salary or wage and that the wages in respect whereof he is registered shall have been earned in the Cape Province during the whole year before he can apply for registration in the Cape Province. Now I only wish to extend the provision of the law with reference to the place where he shall have earned his wages from the Cape Province to the whole of the Union, also South-West Africa, so that if a man has drawn the required salary or wages for a year in South-West Africa and he comes to the Cape Province, and has lived here for three months in a constituency, he can be registered. Now I come to certain improvements which have been proposed by various speakers in connection with the Bill. The hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) said that there is actually a provision in our law which sometimes operates unjustly, viz., that where three candidates stand in a constituency it can happen that one is elected without his having obtained an absolute majority of the electors. He says that we must make such provision that the elected candidate must always have an absolute majority. This is very good in theory and there are some countries in Europe where provision is actually made. It can however only be done in two ways. The first is that a second election must take place. The candidate who has obtained the least votes drops out and the election takes place between the remaining two candidates. In a country like Holland where the population is dense it does not cause so much expense and trouble. In South Africa however it is impossible. The other possibility is that of proportional representation. If we introduce this for such cases then we get all the difficulties raised which are so often mentioned here in the House against the introduction of that principle. We have here to do with voters who are not accustomed to it and of whom a great portion are fairly ignorant. It is a system which will confuse the people. Another objection is that just as soon as provision is made for such cases we will encourage the birth of more parties than we have to-day. We will then encourage more candidates to stand than now come into the field. If to-day a third candidate comes into the field then public opinion is against it and it is usually the case that the election is fought out between two parties, just as soon as we make the suggested provision the candidate will argue that his standing will not make a difference to the final result. I therefore do not know whether such a provision will be in the interest of the general public with a view to the great questions upon which the people have to decide. For this reason I do not feel justified in making such a provision. The hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) also asks if the provisional voters’ lists cannot be handed to the various parties. If this is not done now then I think that it will not be such a great difficulty to accede to his request. A copy can then be given to the representatives of the parties. This is a matter of administration and I have no objection against it if it will cause no extra expense. The hon. member for Lady-brand (Mr. Swart) has proposed another improvement, namely, the system of compulsory registration. Everyone who is qualified must in his opinion go to the registering officer and give his name and address. The hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. Coradie) has already answered this by showing what difficulties would arise in the Cape Province where various qualifications are demanded before a person can be registered so that the person himself sometimes does not know whether he is entitled to be registered or not. It is not a difficulty with us that persons are not registered but the difficulty often lies in the fact that the registration officer does not know where persons are and whether they are still entitled to registration. When they have once been registered, and even if we were to introduce compulsory registration, it will not make much difference to the machinery that we now require for registration. The hon. member for Johannesburg North (Mr. Geldenhuys) has said that we should introduce the system of compulsory voting. Now I know that it exists in some countries, e.g., in Holland and in some other countries. In South Africa it is absolutely impossible of performance under existing circumstances. If anyone is compelled by means of the law to vote then we must make provision for their getting exemption if they are prevented from voting for reasons without their control. In a land such as ours where people are often poor and live long distances from the poll, not to talk of sickness and other hindrances, I would like to ask what machinery we will not require to deal with all the exceptions. Then the hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. B. J. Pienaar) suggested something else which is fairly radical. He said that we should go so far as to introduce a register of the population. There is much to be said for it. If we had a peoples’ registration such a register would be very useful to the police who would always know where certain persons that they want can be found. This will help with the registration of voters and much of the existing machinery will fall away. This will be helpful with the census and such like things. But although there is much to be said for it I must at the same time say that it is such a far-reaching matter that much enquiry will first have to be made before we can introduce it. In the second place I am not at all certain whether the people of South Africa are ripe for this system because it lays certain obligations which are unknown upon our people, namely, that they must give up their address when they change from one residence to another. To such a thing our people are not accustomed and it is impossible to introduce such a system without first of all properly preparing the ground for it. Further, if we take a step in that direction it will take a long time before we can actually introduce the system. I asked the board for statistics (the existing board in connection with the prepartion of statistics) to thoroughly investigate this matter of a possible registration of the population and to report to me. The board is engaged upon it and I am waiting for the report. But just suppose that the statistical board should say that from the point of view of statistics and census it is advisable to have some such thing, and that in its opinion it can also be carried out, then we are still faced with the question how far from the view point of the civil service it is desirable to introduce it and how far it is desirable from the point of view of economy. Then the Public Service Commission or another special commission will have to go very carefully into the matter to see how far it affects the public service and in how far it raises financial difficulties. So it is out of the question to go into the matter at this stage. There will first have to be much more investigation. The hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. B. J. Pienaar) and one or two other members have referred to the desirability of making a change in the law with regard to hiring of transport. The hon. member says that the provision should apply to taxis. I must say that at first I also thought so, but on reconsideration I came to the view that it would possibly have the opposite result to that which he contemplates.

Second thoughts are always wrong.

The Select Committee can go into the matter and if they agree with the hon. member I will admit that second thoughts are very often wrong, but the position is that suppose it happens that it is made impossible on election day to hire taxis to take voters to the poll, what may possibly happen then? The result will be that the richest party will not only have all the available motor cars of their supporters but that they can also go and assure the hiring for themselves for the day of all the taxis. Those taxis cannot now be hired to take voters to the poll. Under the existing law the poor voter, or a couple of them, have the right to hire a taxi to take them to the poll. If we introduce the prohibition then the rich man will get all the benefit thereof and the poor man who to-day has the right of hiring a taxi will then not be in a position of doing so. Under the existing circumstances I think therefore that it is best to leave the existing law unchanged in this respect. Now I come to the criticism made by various members. In the first place with reference to the postal vote. I think the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Col. D. Reitz) was under a misapprehension when he discussed this point. As I understood him he regards it as unsafe because the official stamp will be put on the ballot papers of absent voters 14 days before the election and will then become known and imitated, and then the voting ballot papers can be used by people and be put into the ballot box. I do not think that the possibility exists. I do not think the hon. member understands quite what the intention of the Bill is. When the hon. member considers that the false ballot papers can be put into the ordinary ballot box then I think he is wrong because the ballot papers for absentee voters differ entirely from those of the ordinary voter.

Are those other forms, or do they only bear a different stamp?

No, they are entirely different both as regards stamp and form and therefore when the ballot box is emptied and checked with the return of voting papers that is sent in it will be easy to sort out the voting papers which are illegal. Then it must also be remembered that a special ballot box can be kept only for the votes that come in from absent voters and the ballot papers that are eventually falsified cannot just be put in because the ballot papers are not available for the general public. All the ballot papers which are used by the absentee voters must be handed over to the polling officer and he must put them in a box which he keeps specially for the purpose 14 days before the election in his office or where the voting takes place. Therefore I think it is not easy to abuse this, and it follows that an absentee voter must personally apply for a ballot paper and give a signature thereon which subsequently can be examined as to whether it tallies with the signature which he made in the presence of two witnesses. I think the guarantees are so strong that we need not be afraid of abuse. Then I come to the point raised by the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Mr. Coulter) and which was subsequently repeated by the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander), namely, their objection to the regulations whereby the witnesses for a postal vote must be European. I will only say that the injustice which is mentioned in connection therewith against the native and coloured voter is more apparent than real. The difficulty of the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) was that possibly such a native might not be able to find two Europeans as witnesses. I say that the difficulty is imaginary because there is during an election such a competition between the parties to get votes that the party for whom the elector wishes to vote or will probably vote will take good care that there are two witnesses. But the matter can be considered by the select committee. In my opinion, however, the provision is yet another guarantee for the vote that is given, because the magistrate must be satisfied that the person who votes is the person intended in the registration list as the qualified person. It is very probable that he will know the signature of the witnesses if they are Europeans, but the native with whom he does not come into such close touch he will not know so well, and it will, therefore, be very difficult for the magistrate to decide in the case of a native whether it is the intended person. For this reason I think the provision is a further protection of the voter. But I see the difficulty of hon. members, and I have personally no objection to their point of view. If the select committee thinks that it is in the interest of the electors to strike out the word European, I will accept the recommendation. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) raised a criticism of a more general kind. He said that a number of the provisions in this Bill were of an academic nature, “copy book provisions” as he called them. He said that however good the provisions might be an account was not kept of human nature, and that it is human nature to evade the provisions. He mentioned an instance, namely, that the Licensed Victuallers Association, when it wants to spend money in connection with the election of a candidate can so arrange that no one will find it out. With reference to another provision, he said if a third candidate came into the field no one would be in a position to prove that the candidate was being specially paid for the purpose. With reference to objections of that kind, I reply that the hon. member does not need to prove that it is relatively easy to evade the provisions, and that malpractice will occur amongst people who are out for it. I accept that. My argument is not that the hon. member has not proved his case, but that he proves too much. If he applies the same argument in another sphere then I ask him why we make laws at all. Crimes are committed by hundreds without their ever being brought to light, but must we on that account take no trouble to discover crime? I know that much is done to conceal crime. Clever advocates are often engaged to assist in keeping them concealed. This argument is no argument against the Bill in general, because it applies just as well to the existing law. The existing law is often evaded with reference to corruption and also with reference to other provision where a candidate is paid to withdraw. I, therefore, say the hon. member has proved his case, but that he has proved too much. There is another criticism raised by the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin). He says that the provision which is introduced that the person who is fully qualified to be registered can only be registered at his place of residence may give occasion to the position that upon a new delimitation a constituency such as Cape Town (Central) would have only 200 or 500 voters, while constituencies such as Rondebosch and Newlands would have 2,000 voters too much. It is quite fortunate that the next general registration under this Bill will take place at the beginning of 1927. According to the constitution the new delimitation must take place after every census. The next census takes place in May, 1926. It takes usually about a year before the figures of the census are audited and before the Delimitation Commission can be appointed. The new voters’ lists which will be prepared in 1927 cannot come into operation before August, 1927, and there is then still sufficient time to judge after the previous census and the time that is required to audit the figures. It so happens, therefore, that the one thing dovetails into the other. Mention has been made of the provision regarding charitable associations. The possibility of danger and difficulty to which the section refers is not imaginary. I have an eye to both parties. The danger exists on both sides. To mention one on the side of the South African party. The women’s South African party have plainly said that they do not confine themselves to political matters, but they can also do the work of a charitable organization. That is just the danger that they are in. It happens that branches of the Nationalist party in one or more of the provinces hold a bazaar on a certain day and advertise that half the proceeds will go to the party funds and the other half will be used for charitable purposes. This is a base and unsound principle. The opening to the danger of corruption, and I think, however, these provisions may be improved in the select committee that it is necessary in any case. Now I come to the newspapers. I do not wish to enlarge on this because I should like to come to a vote to-night. I shall thus be short. I would like to say this, that the whole discussion has convinced me more than ever before that the relative provisions are necessary. If everything is true that has been brought to light in the discussion, and which has not been contradicted, then the position in South Africa is very serious. If it is so, that there is a monopoly where a company posses seven dailies and that the shareholders consist of a few large capitalists and mining groups, and if it is true that this is the case with the greatest portion of the English press, then I say that the position is very serious. We must not look alone at the freedom of the press. I do not stand back to any member in connection with the freedom of the press, but we must also look to the freedom of the public and of the people. We are introducing legislation against monopolies. We do not want that the provision of food should be in the hands of a monopoly. Is it not more dangerous that we should permit that the mental food of the people should remain impure through one-sided information? If this is the position it is worth while that the Government should give its serious consideration to the matter. I am glad that the Opposition still have a wholesome fear of “Die Burger.” If “Die Burger” was not there the ranks of the old South African party would not have been so thinned out. If hon. members wish that it should be prohibited for associations to have a controlling power over newspapers then we will welcome it from the side of “Die Burger.” I do not know if my friends opposite will welcome it. But if they wish it I will welcome it. But now with reference to “Die Burger” hon. friends opposite allege that “Die Burger” is controlled by large capitalists. I have the particulars here before me and hon. members there can go to “Die Burger” office and examine the books of “Die Burger” or the reports of the annual shareholders’ meeting, where they will see the actual position. The nominal capital of “Die Burger” is £100,000. Shares have been issued to the amount of £96,000. The number of shareholders is not as in other cases that the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Reyburn) has mentioned four or five, but five thousand, and they are spread over the whole country.

But who are the big shareholders?

The largest is one with 5,000 shares and these are held in an estate. The original owner is dead and of the other shareholders the largest is one with 1,000 shares and I can give the hon. member the further assurance that as to the constitution of the company it is laid down that although some individual may have a large number of shares he shall not be entitled to more than a certain number of votes. Thus the fullest guarantee exists that the paper will always remain a people’s paper.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time:

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.