Before I move that the House go into Committee on this measure, I should like to move a contingent notice of motion standing in my name, as follows—

The object of this motion is to make certain additions to the schedule of the Bill, and to add thereto seven more proclamations with the regulations which they contain. These proclamations are set out in the notice of motion. The House will remember that on the second reading of this Bill when I announced that it was my intention to withdraw clause 2 of this Bill, I said that it might be necessary to make certain additions, to issue certain additional proclamations and regulations, which would have to be validated then under clause 3 of the Bill. It was my idea, and it still is, that if these additional regulations were issued and validated, for all foreseeable purposes the Government would have the necessary powers to act under this Bill when it became law, and that it would be unnecessary to go so far as to ask for other extensive powers, which might be taken to fall under clause 2. These additional regulations have since been attended to, and they have been published in the seven proclamations for addition to the schedule, and if they are validated it is possible that no further powers may be necessary. The object of this motion is therefore simply to extend the schedule by these seven additional matters. Now I may just briefly refer to them to show what they comprise. There is in the first place Proclamation No. 28 of 1940 which is embodied in the additional White Paper which I laid on the Table on the 21st February. That proclamation contains a small amendment of a previous regulation, regulation No. 33. Under regulation No. 33 hon. members will see that a shipping control committee was instituted to deal with the traffic of ships here in our harbours, the supply of coal or oil fuel, the supply of ships’ stores, and it has in practice proved to be necessary to go just a little further and for the shipping committee to be able to ask for information in regard to the destination of any export coal, or other exports which these ships intend to carry away, in order to make certain that the law in regard to contraband is not evaded. It is simply this subsidiary power to the committee to ask for further information which is asked for in this proclamation, and there is nothing more serious about it. The next proclamation, No. 30 of 1940, deals with the question of patents and trade marks, and that has already become necessary, and may become necessary for quite a number of subsidiary purposes. Enemy subjects may for instance hold trade marks or patents in this country, and these patents are protected under our law. Now that trading between enemy subjects and ourselves is prohibited, it is impossible in the ordinary course to get the material under these patents, and difficulties may arise, and do arise in that way. You have, for instance, cases of synthetic products made in Germany for medical or other purposes, which we require here in this country for medical purposes. We may either manufacture the stuff here ourselves, if we are able to do so, or this stuff may be manufactured in other countries, or it may be manufactured in Great Britain or France, and this regulation enables us, now that we are cut off from German supply, to provide ourselves either in this country by local manufacture, or by importation from Great Britain, or France, to get the stuff, and for the duration of the war, therefore, to suspend the German patents or trade marks. It is simply a step which becomes necessary for either trade purposes or medical purposes or any such purposes—purposes which become necessary in this country, and there is this temporary suspension of licences, the carrying out of licences held by Germans. I am told that a number of these cases have occurred, and more are likely to occur, material imported into this country from Germany under patents or trade marks which we could not otherwise get, unless we are free of the obligations imposed on us by these trade marks or patents. Then there is the next proclamation No. 31 of 1940 which deals with the appointment of a custodian of enemy property. I need not go into the details of that because hon. members who still remember the circumstances of the last war know that we had to appoint a custodian in charge of enemy property in this country, which otherwise might be derelict; also, we had to appoint controllers of enemy property where the owners were not here, or were interned, and could not look after their property. We had special provision in that case, and similar provision is necessary in the present emergency, and this regulation enables us to appoint a custodian of enemy property or controllers of enemy property as the occasion may warrant. Then the next regulation, No. 32, of 1940 refers to a previous proclamation No. 3 of 1940 and deals with enemy goods imported into this country from Germany, or enemy goods which do not come direct from Germany, but come from other parts in neutral vessels. This new regulation refers to the previous proclamation No. 3 of 1940. I am told that it does not actually require validation, but it is mentioned here because it refers to another proclamation on the schedule already before the House, and it is mentioned here for the purpose of reference. The next is No. 33 of 1940. And that deals with the question of volunteers who may volunteer for service outside South Africa. This is a necessary regulation should it ever become necessary for us to send volunteers outside of what may be called South Africa, whatever the meaning of the term is. If forces were sent outside South Africa, if volunteers were sent outside South Africa, the question would arise under what code they would perform their service, what discipline would apply to them, how they would be organised, and what the legal basis of their service outside the Union would be. And it is necessary, therefore, to have a regulation to be validated by law, which will lay down that such volunteers serving outside South Africa should be subject to the Union Military code, should be liable to be organised under our law and should be subject to discipline under our law, otherwise they are simply an organised mob and no law will apply to them. It is necessary, if, therefore, we should ever send volunteers outside the Union, to have them organised on a proper footing, to lay it down that they should be subject to the law, and here it is provided that the Union military code will apply to them. The next proclamation is No. 34 of 1940 and that deals with entry on land, and with compensation therefor. For military purposes it is evident that it may be necessary for the Defence Department to enter on land for defensive works, for any defence purposes, and they must have the power to do so and here the power is given them. Guns have to be placed, fortifications have to be put up, all sorts of defensive measures may have to be taken on land, and as the law stands to-day we have no legal power of entry. Even here in the Cape Peninsula, and on the coast in many cases, defensive arrangements have to be made for which there is no legal basis in our law as it stands, and power is here given for the Government to enter on land and erect or demolish works, and to pay compensation therefor. The next proclamation No. 35 of 1940 deals with three regulations. The one regulation, No. 35, regulates the control of lighthouses, navigational lights on our coast, and is, of course, quite necessary. Sometimes these lights have to be put out, and there is no legal provision at present for doing so. No. 36 deals with lights generally— lights and sounds, signals, possible blackouts that may have to be made in our large cities, in case of attacks from the sea, when a blackout has to be created. We have no power at present for enforcing any of these exceptional measures which may in exceptional conditions become necessary. So far they have not been necessary, except the occasional putting out of lighthouses. But provision must be made, and it may become necessary to do so, and therefore it is essential that we should have that power in case of blackouts in some areas. Regulation 37 also embodied in the same proclamation deals with traffic regulations and restriction for military purposes. It may be necessary to use a road or street for military purposes, for a certain limited time, to divert traffic to other roads or areas, to fix routes and speed limits for traffic in order not to interfere with military arrangements, and these special powers are also wanted and may become necessary under exceptional circumstances. As far as we can at present foresee these are the only additional powers beyond those already in the schedule before the House, which we may want; these powers have been taken by regulation and proclamation, and they are now, just as the previous set, in the schedule to the Bill, brought before this House for validation. It is possible that in the course of the war other powers may become necessary. It is difficult to foresee what exceptional circumstances may occur and what exceptional calls may be made on us. No one can foresee, and it may be that exceptional emergencies may call for further powers for which in due course we shall have to come to Parliament for ratification once more. But as far as we can foresee at the moment the Dowers already taken under clause 3, embodied in the schedule before the House, together with these additions now proposed, will probably see us through most of the exceptional emergencies which may arise, and will give us the power which we may want to contend with such emergencies. I move that the schedule to the Bill be extended by the addition of these seven proclamations and the regulations embodied therein.

I second.

The Minister of Defence asks the House this afternoon for further powers by way of regulations and proclamations in connection with the so-called “see the war through policy.” The powers and rights of the population are now being further curtailed by these powers, by these proclamations which the Minister has just read out or laid before us. For instance, as the Minister read out in connection with lights, with reference to the control of roads, in connection with commerce, and the rest. Now I would like to know from the Minister before I say anything about a definite regulation, namely No. 33 — he commenced his speech by saying that if these regulations were passed now, which he was proposing that the Committee should consider, then possibly no further powers would be necessary. Those were his words. Now I would like to know from the Minister, seeing that he is now curtailing the rights of the public generally by regulations step by step, but while on the other hand there are also certain needs and difficulties arising on the part of the public in connection with our life through those regulations and the general war conditions, I say that I want to know why the Minister says that he will probably not need any further powers. Does he then not want any powers in connection with the protection of the public, if the cost of living e.g. were to rise? Does the Minister not want powers to control the prices?

The hon. member cannot debate those matters.

I do not’ want to debate them, I do not want to go into detail on the point, but I only want to ask, if such conditions should arise, will he not take any further powers, because I do not believe that he has those powers to-day. The Minister said that if we are going to approve these regulations in Committee now, then he might possibly ask for no further powers. Now I just want to mention the points, I will not go into it, that if e.g. the production costs of the farmers go up, is the Minister then going to fix a minimum price, will he not assist the farmers by means of regulations to keep the costs of production down? I want to ask the Minister, as the mines are probably going to extend in consequence of the measures taken by the Government, and if more natives want to go to the mines, although we have already received letters and even telegrams from our constituencies to the effect that farmers cannot get any natives. I want to ask the Minister whether he will not possibly need a regulation for supplying, if necessary, compulsory native labour to the farmers. Has he those powers, or will he ask for them? Then I want further to ask the Minister with reference to the hire of buildings, and I am not now speaking of residences which come under the Rent Act, but I want to ask him if the rent of shops should go up, should he then not have power to limit it? Then I also want to ask him, has the Government power, or is it going to ask for power to take action in cases where people to-day are being discharged by the hundreds in an unnecessary and unjust way owing to the “see the war through policy.” Have we got a court of appeal to which those people can go, and have we got a court where the employer who discharges his employees unjustly can be punished, and is the Minister going to get those powers if he does not have them? Nevertheless the Prime Minister tells us that if he gets these powers then he will possibly not need to ask for any further powers. The Government asks, through the Minister of Defence, for further powers to curtail the rights and liberties of the people. When does it ask for powers to be able also to maintain the rights and liberties of the people? That is the point which we should like to have information on, and that is the question to which we would like to have an answer. When does he ask for powers to release the people who are being oppressed under war conditions to maintain their rights? That is what we want to know before we give leave for the further curtailment of the liberties of the people to be considered by the Committee. In connection with Regulation No. 33, the Prime Minister simply said that it was a necessary regulation. It is the regulation which concerns volunteers, and this regulation makes provision for the service of volunteers who are going to perform service beyond the boundaries of the South African military service. I will only read the beginning of the regulation—

Note that the Union is not referred to here, but South Africa—

It is therefore proclaimed, and regulated, that the volunteers who want to go and fight outside of South Africa will come under the Union Military Discipline Code, and under the Defence Act, and the regulations under the Defence Act of the Union of South Africa. In connection with this question. I now want to ask this. The Prime Minister now tells that this regulation which we are about to consider in Committee of the whole House is necessary. Why? The Prime Minister gave as his answer, when he said that, if volunteers go and fight outside of South Africa, then at the moment they would be “a loose mob.” They will be a loose mob, unless these regulations are agreed to, in order to make our military discipline code apply to them. In the first place, we now want to know here the boundaries of South Africa are, and where these men and volunteers are going to fight, if they go beyond the borders of South Africa. When the Prime Minister speaks of volunteers outside of South Africa, does he mean that we must interpret it in that way, because it has not yet been definitely put to us that those volunteers must go north of the equator? Is the equator the northern boundary of South Africa? If that is the case then we want to know whether it means that the Government can commandeer every male person between 17 and 60 years to go and fight right up to the equator. Under the Defence Act the military authorities can, of course, commandeer every citizen to go and fight in South Africa. Does that therefore mean that our citizens can be commandeered to go and fight in Tanganyika and in a portion of Kenya? If the Minister says that we must give our approval to this regulation, or that we must give our permission for it to be dealt with in Committee, then we want to know what the necessity for it is. If it is that our boundaries go up to the Equator, where does the Prime Minister want these volunteers to go and fight? Does the Government want to persuade us that we have to go and defend the Union of South Africa to the north of the Equator; what are our volunteers going to do there? Then we would also like to know this: When our men have once gone beyond South Africa, when once they have gone beyond the Equator, where will the stopping place be? Does it mean that the Prime Minister is asking the Union of South Africa to involve itself in the expenses of an expedition, not only in Northern Africa but also in Europe? If these regulations are passed in Committee, is it the intention that volunteers who go to fight in Europe, must be paid by the Union, and that the Union will have to bear all the expenses of it? The Prime Minister simply disposed of the matter by one sentence, and I say that if he wants us to consider and approve of these regulations, then he must indicate the grounds why they are necessary. He cannot simply tell us that, if Regulation 33 is not passed, then he is sending us, like hoi polloi (a loose mob), overseas, or to places beyond South Africa? That is no reason, and that is the only reason that he gave. The people want to know what the meaning of the Government is when it introduces regulations which enable it to send men to any place beyond South Africa. We want to know the necessity for that, and why our country should be saddled with that expense. The Government may actually be convinced that this regulation should be passed in connection with the defence of South Africa, but we on our part, insist on the Minister giving us an answer as to what the necessity is for this regulation. I hope he will answer the questions which I have put to him, whether he means that the boundary of South Africa is the Equator, and whether by South Africa he means the Union of South Africa, and whether he expects that when a force is sent to Egypt, Asia Minor and Palestine, that all the expense of it is to be borne by the Union; is it his intention that the expense of sending overseas or to those parts of such a force, is to be paid by the Union on behalf of the British Empire? I want to quote four lines in English, and I want to suggest their consideration by the Minister and the Government opposite, which is so lightly wanting to saddle South Africa with an expenditure of millions. I understand that the World War has up-to-date cost South Africa about £80,000,000. We have paid cut £13,000,000 in pensions alone. We do not yet know what this war will cost, but heaven knows what it will cost us when we remember that England is already spending twice as much per day as she did during the previous war. I quote these lines to show what the people of South Africa will feel about the matter. The Government is loyal, it is showing its loyalty by these regulations, and by the money which it is prepared to spend for the British Empire. But what will our people be left with when all this is over? To allow the Minister to understand what the people will feel about the matter, I want to quote these few lines in English—

That is what the people of South Africa will ultimately be left with. They will be overloaded with taxation, with widows, with wooden legs, and with debt, and this House is now being asked to approve that a kind of thing like Regulation No. 33 can be referred to the Committee for approval. The House is being asked here to approve of volunteers going to fight at the expense of South Africa in England and everywhere. For these reasons I want to move the following amendment—

I second. The Prime Minister said in his speech this afternoon—

He put the House under the impression that there was no intention at present to send troops beyond South Africa; that it was possibly very far off in the future that matters might so develop that it would ultimately be necessary to send troops beyond South Africa. On a previous occasion, the Prime Minister said, if the danger possibly threatened in the North, then although he was not defining the boundaries of South Africa, it would possibly be necessary to send troops out of it. But it is only just a few days ago that I put a question to the Prime Minister, and the question was—

The answer was not that there were no Union soldiers in Kenya. The answer simply was “No.” The Union Government is not responsible for the cost. By implication the Prime Minister admits that there are in fact Union troops in Kenya. Now this House would very much like to know whether the Prime Minister regards Kenya as South Africa.

It is the Pirow promise.

I am not now concerned with what the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) did or did not do, but we are now dealing with the misdeeds of the Government, and more particularly the misdeeds of the Prime Minister. This House, of course, demands to know whether the Prime Minister regards Kenya as within the boundaries of South Africa, and whether those troops which are now in Kenya were compelled to go to Kenya. If he considers Kenya to be within South Africa, then one necessarily infers from that that no choice was left to the men when they received instructions from the military authorities to go to Kenya. It is an important question which the Prime Minister ought to answer, and if he actually holds the view that Kenya is within the boundaries of South Africa, and if we are to accept what the Minister of Native Affairs said here, that that is actually their hypothesis, then we would very much like to know what their grounds for it are. But if the Prime Minister assumes that Kenya is outside of South Africa, then I put this question to him: Were those men who are in Kenya given an opportunity of stating whether they wanted to go beyond South Africa or not? Was that question definitely put to those men, whether they were prepared to go beyond the borders of South Africa or not? It is very important to know this, because the Prime Minister stated here that only volunteers would be allowed to do service beyond South Africa. But we know that members of the permanent force joined up before there was any question of war, and we want to know whether they were given an opportunity of saying whether they wanted to go beyond South Africa or not. This is an extremely important question which the Prime Minister ought to answer. Then I want to say a few words in regard to the volunteers for whom provision is being made in this proclamation, and I want to ask who is going to bear the expense which is connected with the sending of those volunteers overseas, or to the northern parts of Africa. There will be considerable expense in connection with the sending of units outside of the borders of the Union, and if the taxpayer of the Union is to bear that expense then it will mean that a heavy burden will be thrown on to our people. Already £14,000,000 has been provided for this useless war into which we have been plunged. We heard from the Minister of Finance that he was making available an additional amount of £200,000 for essential social services. But in view of the fact that there is such great need amongst the poor people in South Africa, what right have the Government and the Prime Minister to spend that money on the war, and what right has the Union Government to bear the expense of volunteers who are going to fight outside of South Africa in a war which South Africa is not concerned with at all? This is a matter of very great importance, and when the Prime Minister speaks of volunteers I want to point out that it is the duty of the Government to protect the citizens of the country against themselves. We know what the position is of many young people who join up as volunteers. They simply do it to get experience. When they join up they do not ask whether they are going to fight in or out of South Africa. They do not join up because they are filled with the great spirit of patriotism towards England with which the Prime Minister is filled. They do it to get experience, and in many cases because they have nd income, but are unemployed and suffering from hunger, because the Government is not doing its duty of seeing that employers do not dismiss their employees. That is the reason why they are joining up. And it is obvious that the persons will go to any place where they are sent, and if they are asked whether they will go outside the Union they will not refuse, because they know that if they refuse they Will not only come under suspicion, but then they will have to leave the Defence Force, and will once more have to suffer want and to live in necessitous circumstances, because they will be without work. That is why it is so necessary that not even volunteers should be allowed to go outside of the country. But what is necessary, in the first place, is that this Government should lay down where the borders of South Africa are. It ought not to be left to the Government to shift the boundaries as they think fit. To-day possibly to make it the Zambezi, to-morrow Kenya, the day after Egypt, and the day after that France and the Siegfried Line. It must be clearly laid down where the boundaries of our country are, and when the country’s boundaries have once been fixed, and there is no longer any uncertainty, then the Government ought to take up a definite attitude and say that all our troops, and all our volunteers as well, will only be used to protect the Union of South Africa, and no volunteers ought to be allowed to go outside of the country. I therefore second the motion.

I move as a further amendment—

I find that almost every regulation or every proclamation which has been submitted to us, speaks of a state of emergency. I always understood from the Prime Minister that everything was so peaceful and quiet, that there could be not the least question of a state of emergency. In this proclamation, the deletion of which I have moved, there is also a reference to a state of emergency in the country. We would like to know what terrible state of emergency is suddenly prevailing now, and what is actually the reason for this proclamation. It seems to me as if this regulation, for which confirmation is asked by means of the proclamation, is really in some parts ridiculous. Let me just quote from Regulation 35—

1. (1) Except under permission granted by or on behalf of the Minister of Defence—
   1. (a) No light, buoy, beacon, marine mark or other apparatus used for the purpose of aiding navigation in or on the water or in the air shall be discontinued, altered or removed;

Just think of the signal in the air. I do not know whether a man will be hoisted up by a rope and will dangle in the air with a light. Will that be the signal in the air? I want to give the Prime Minister the assurance that we are not keen on hanging the signal in the air or on removing it. But the regulations go further and say that the lights of lighthouses may not be changed. I just want to say that some of the lighthouses have already been darkened during the past months, with the result that ships have already collided with each other. But just see how ridiculous it is for the Prime Minister to conceal the lights of lighthouses so as not to indicate where the dangerous spots are, to the detriment of our own ships, while towns just behind them, as for instance Durban, Cape Town, East London and Port Elizabeth are lighted towns which can be seen 50, 60 or possibly 100 miles away by aeroplanes. Those places simply remain lighted, but the lighthouses are depressed and certain ships have already collided with each other. What a ridiculous kind of arrangement it is for the Minister of Defence. But we go further, and I am now reading in regard to the control of lights from the second regulation, namely, No. 36 (d)—

Take a farm, for instance. A farmer travels with an ox-wagon over a public road. His goods are going to the market. The oxwagon rattles and it is considered that it is making a noise. Then the farmer can be prohibited from taking his produce to the market. Take a mill. There are mills in the rural areas which make a noise when they mill at night, and they can be prohibited. On my own farm, for instance, I have a mill which works by steam, and am I now to understand that I shall be prohibited from milling because the mill makes a noise? A large number of our farmers have tractors and use them for ploughing on their farms. They will make a noise, and there will be some smoke, and it will be regarded as dangerous for the farmer to plough with his tractor, and he will be prohibited from making use of it. But we go still further and come to (3)—

And here I want to make a strong protest. We find that non-Europeans, natives and coloured persons also belong to the corps, and therefore a native in my house will, for instance, be able to go and give me a certain order, or prohibit me from doing certain things, and the same applies in connection with coloured people. It seems to me that the Prime Minister does not realise what the feelings of the white population are in regard to natives who have to give orders to Europeans. He is here acting diametrically in conflict with the feelings of Afrikanerdom, and they simply will not stand it. We are trying to do everything in our power to keen the people in the country quiet, but if this kind of proclamation is issued which obliterates the bar between black and white, I can give the Minister the assurance that we will not tolerate it. Regulations of this kind humiliate the Afrikaner people down to the depths of the abyss. We refuse, as Afrikaners, to submit to regulations of that kind which are being issued by the department of the Minister. I hope the Prime Minister will realise how unfair it is that this Essential Services Protection Corps, which does not consist solely of Europeans, but also has natives and coloured persons in it, will be used to occupy the land of Europeans, to enter their houses, to climb on to their wagons, to stop them when they are working with their tractors, etc. In those cases they will have to obey the commands of non-Europeans. The Voortrekkers made a dividing line, and I am very glad that Afrikanerdom has maintained the dividing line during the last hundred years, and we do not intend to abandon it. We want to apply it just as strongly as our forefathers did. Then we come to the point of discrimination. As it stands here, it seems to me that certain persons can be prohibited from performing certain acts either with a vehicle, or with light or with other things. In other words, if you are a supporter of the Government, you may, for instance, burn a light or travel along a certain road, or have lights in a certain building, but if you are not a supporter of the Government—because everyone who is not a supporter of the Government is regarded as a Nazi—then discrimination can be made against such a citizen, and I must therefore strongly protest against that also. We now come to Regulation 37. That deals with the control of transport, and it is said that for the movement of persons or supplies in connection with the operations of war, the Minister of Defence, or someone authorised by him can order that the use of a dock, harbour, road, railway, public square, or any other open space within that area, can be prohibited or restricted. Here there is also a reference to a “road.” If a road runs over the farm of a farmer, and it goes to the market, the Minister of Defence can prohibit the road from being used. It may be said that the road is only intended for defence, and that it can only be used by the defence force, so that the farmer cannot remove his produce. I think that these regulations go so far that we are making slaves of ourselves, and I think that we on this side have the fullest right of protesting against the action of the Government in placing these obstacles in connection with the transport over public roads, and over roads which run across farms. I strongly object to Regulations 35, 36 and 37. I now want to come back to proclamation 33, of which the hon. member for Marico (Rev. C. W. M. du Toit) moved the deletion. I just want to tell the Prime Minister that in my opinion it is a breach of the Defence Act. Not only that. We have often asked the Prime Minister where the boundaries of the Union are. In this proclamation there is no longer a reference to the boundaries of the Union, but it says—

It says here “outside of South Africa.” In other words, I must assume that it may also mean Flanders, France, Poland and any other country in the world. Now it seems to me that the Prime Minister is acting in conflict with what he proposed on the 4th September when he introduced his motion. I am now reading from paragraph 3 of his motion—

When these military forces are once outside of South Africa, then no one except the Prime Minister knows where they are. But the Prime Minister, in introducing the Defence Bill himself used the following words—

Then come the words as to what is meant by that—

There is not a single hon. member of this House on our side who would not be prepared to defend our country when we are attacked, but it is stated in the proposal of the Prime Minister himself not only that troops shall not be sent outside the Union, this Proclamation No. 32 is also an absolute violation of the spirit of the Defence Act. I can remember that the then Prime Minister said that if the members understood the Bill, then he would never have got it through the House. Now, after 28 years, we can see what the intention of the Defence Act was. He gave hon. members the assurance that the Act was not only intended for the defence of South Africa, and now he comes with a way out and says that the people who voluntarily join the defence force, or are in the defence force, can fight outside of South Africa. We do not know where “outside of South Africa” is. We have already repeatedly pressed the Prime Minister to tell us where the boundaries of South Africa are. It seems to me that the boundaries are constantly extending a little further. Now they are at the Suez Canal, or along the Mediterranean Sea. The time has come for the Prime Minister to say: The people that I am going to send out of the country under the Defence Act, I will send to such and such a place, and no further. But perhaps it is desirable that I should quote what the late Gen. Botha said about the Defence Act—

It is therefore as clear as day that when the Defence Act passed through Parliament, there was only one intention, and that the population of South Africa was placed under one understanding—otherwise the Bill would never have been passed—and that was that it was intended for the defence of South Africa. Now the Prime Minister comes here with his regulations, and makes the proposal—

Now I would like to know what is meant by people who have volunteered. All the members of the permanent force and of the defence force are all sons of South Africa who have voluntarily joined up. Does the Minister, by those words, voluntary joining up mean people who voluntarily joined up two, three, five or twenty years ago, and that they will not again be asked what their attitude is under the changed circumstances? I think that the Minister of Defence ought to give us an answer, and that he should tell those men—of whom I am one—who voluntarily joined up, that he will give them an opportunity of saying whether they will go as volunteers to North Africa, and if they do not want to go, that they will not then be compelled to do so. Let him tell those people that they will not be victimised, and that they will not be dismissed, because they are not prepared to go and fight on the coasts of the Mediterranean Sea or the Suez Canal. That would be fair, because all the people signed on as volunteers and no one who went there as a gunner was forced, no one was forced to enter the air force or other departments of the defence force. All of them voluntarily signed the forms, and as the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) explained, that only meant for service in and on behalf of South Africa, but not outside of South Africa. If, therefore, they are now asked to go outside of the country, then it will be a question of compulsion, because they signed on at the time under a mistaken understanding, and now have to go and serve outside of our country on behalf of interests with which we are not concerned at all, and not for purposes of the defence of South Africa. I therefore hope that the Minister of Defence will meet us in this matter. I know many of those men who signed on. They joined voluntarily, just as I did myself, with the object of defending the Union. I say that if the Union is attacked by whatever nation it may be, then I would be prepared in my old age, to put on my uniform and go and fight for the defence of the Union. But to expect in these circumstances, those lads to go and fight far outside of the Union, and on behalf of the interests of others, is one of the most unfair things which the Minister of Defence could ask for. Then there arises also another big and very important question in this connection, to which the hon. member for Marico (the Rev. C. W. M. du Toit) has already referred. Who is to pay for the volunteers who go out of the Union? Will the inhabitants of the Union be expected to pay £100,000,000 or possibly £200,000,000, or whatever the amount may be, because we do not know how long the war is going to last, for those forces outside of the Union? The Prime Minister should tell us now where they will go to, and what they are going to do. Let us be careful, otherwise it will be said to-morrow that Parliament gave its consent by the majority here—which let me say is sitting there illegally, in my opinion—and we are now allowing them to go and the public of South Africa will have to pay for it. I must protest most strongly, not only about the way in which the Minister of Defence has brushed aside the Defence Act of 1912, but also the statement of the 4th September, that we would not send troops overseas as was done in 1914-’18. Now he comes here with this sham motion, that the measure is only intended to send men to Kenya or Tanganyika, but when once the men are out of the country, then we have not got the least guarantee that they will not be sent overseas to go and fight there, as was done in the past. Then we shall in addition, also have to bear the whole of the expense. Let us go a little slowly now, we have gone very fast during the last six months, and one guarantee after the other to the Defence Force has been repudiated, and now the whole Defence Act has to be repudiated by proclamation. There are 28 proclamations here which we are asked to approve, and for which at least 28 Acts would be required to make them valid. Everything is possible now. You can arrest any person, you can hang any person, you can shoot any person under the regulations. If that is his intention, then let the Prime Minister frankly say: I am the dictator, and you must obey me. I am the dictator of South Africa, and we are now no longer fighting for the maintenance of democracy or Christendom, but we are fighting for the dictatorship of South Africa. That is the reason I am moving the amendment which I read out.

I would like to second the amendment, but before coming to that, I would like to make a few remarks about Regulation No. 28, which refers to the position of someone in Germany. I would like to bring to the notice of the Minister what trouble this regulation will cause. I do not want to say anything about the definition itself, but I would like to call attention to the fact that it does not only refer to someone in Germany, but it may also be someone who is living in any part of the world. The Prime Minister probably knows of all the difficulties the diamond buyers experienced in connection with these regulations, and these special regulations which we are now considering, are going to make those difficulties of the diamond buyers, and the export of their diamonds, still worse. The circumstances are already of such a nature that when they make application for permits, they have to wait a long time, and there are so many difficulties that they have asked for relief. These circumstances take them still further into the position when their trade with the outside world will vanish, with the result that the accumulation of diamonds in a country like England will increase. An arrangement has even been concluded with Holland that diamonds cannot be taken in transit through it, unless a special committee deals with the question. Suppose that in the diamond trade a buyer is found for Japan, Italy or America, and at the last moment it comes under this definition, so that those diamonds cannot be exported. Then it exposes that dealer to financial loss, and to a great deal of trouble. I want, in addition, to say a few words about Regulation No. 33. Reference has already been made as to by whom the additional expense will be paid, that is, of volunteers who are sent beyond our boundaries. My further difficulty is this, where forces are trained within the Union, they are possibly volunteers, they are trained for three months or so, and then during the last stage they are asked whether they are prepared to go and fight outside the Union. Suppose the Union trained those men as airmen, and other technical men, and when their training has been completed, they are expected to go and fight abroad. Then it means that the Union has borne that expense. We are not yet convinced that this war is in the interests of South Africa. We are not yet convinced that the fighting against Germany, against whom the Union declared war, is in the interests of the Union, and before we are convinced of that we are not prepared to put upon our country any of the expense and sacrifices in connection with that war, and to grant our consent for the purpose. The Prime Minister cannot expect it of us, who are opposed to the war, to give our approval to any sum of money being spent in this way, until we are convinced of the fact, and before proof has been given, that this war is also in the interests of South Africa. What we also protest most strongly against is that these severe regulations are being applied to the population in the country, while there is not the slightest proof that those regulations in the existing circumstances, are required at this stage. It has, however, not yet been proved that there is the least necessity for applying regulations such as those in connection with lighthouses and lights. Where they have been applied, it was ridiculous, because the light of the lighthouses was covered up, while all the lights of the town were left burning. We have already had, as a consequence, the collision in Durban. What also makes the matter very difficult for us—and to which we take exception in the present circumstances—is the control which is being taken over our roads. In the circumstances of the country, we cannot give our consent to the authorities laying down that only certain vehicles may travel over certain roads. We cannot give our consent at this stage that only certain vehicles shall be allowed on certain roads, and can then only be used by people who have obtained special permission for the purpose. That may cause the greatest difficulty, and we can only give our consent to it when a state of emergency in the country makes it necessary, and up to this stage the circumstances are not such as to justify what the Prime Minister is asking for here.

Hon. members opposite are making an attempt this afternoon which in my opinion, regarded as an argument or which they have tried to work up into an argument, was so weak that hon. members opposite themselves were forced to feel that their case was hopelessly weak.

He is back again.

You have probably noticed that we on this side sit patiently and listen, trying to find out what the objections of those hon. members are.

It is Hopetown that has made you people silent.

Mr. Speaker, you have probably noticed that we on this side have listened patiently, and I have not heard a single interruption from this side of the House, but as soon as one of us on this side tries to show those hon. members how weak their argument was, there is immediately a noise on the other side to bolster up the weakness of their argument by a noise. Hon. members opposite immediately try to make things impossible for us, owing to the amount of noise, such as we have now had again. It is so characteristic and so typical of hon. members opposite. When arguments are no longer of any use, then they have in some way or another to start making a noise. What seems so strange to me is that those hon. members are apparently angry that the Minister of Defence should make an attempt, in times of war such as we are living in, to regulate matters properly in the country by means of these regulations. It is strange, to my mind, that they are apparently angry, that the Minister of Defence should try, by regulations, to render safe the position of the public in all respects, in time of war. One would have expected that, as the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) has just said that they are trying to keep the people calm, they would also be helpful to the Government when they are drawing up regulations to keep the people calm, in order to bring about the peace and prosperity of the people in every respect— we would have expected that they would welcome it. But are the speeches which have been made here not sufficient proof to you, Mr. Speaker, of the necessity lor these measures being taken? The hon. member for Wolmaransstad spoke here about the regulation which might prohibit a noise, and he said that his mill might be prevented from working, and that the noise of his tractor might be prohibited.

And your noise can also be prohibited.

I am not anxious to make a noise. The hon. member who interrupted me is a typical example, and if we look at his physiological exterior, then he is a thing which should be suppressed. I say that we find that a person like the hon. member for Wolmaransstad, who a short while ago was still a Minister, comes forward with such childish things and absurdities. He says in this House that his tractor will not be able to work, and things of that kind, because power is being taken here to be able to prevent a noise. The hon. member ought to know that a proper distinction can be made between one noise and a different kind of noise, and it does not befit anyone like him, who was a member of the Cabinet, to come forward here with such childishness, and to call it argument against the regulation, that the Government will prohibit his tractor from working because it makes a noise. If the hon. member for Wolmaransstad really meant what he said here when he told us that he wanted to keep the people calm, then I would like to know from him what he meant by these words which he uttered: “The Prime Minister wants to make slaves of our people.” Is that not inciting and stirring up our people? If we heard those words from a young member on the other side, then we could have made allowances, but that hon. member is one of our most experienced members, and he ought to know better than to go and tell the people in the country that the Government is making slaves of them. I would also like to know from the hon. member whether that was language that a slave could use which he used in Johannesburg, or was that the language of a man who, in the circumstances, has more freedom than what he ought to have? Was it the language of slaves which he and his supporters used in Johannesburg, and then he comes here and says that the Government wants to make slaves of the people? I ask again whether it was the language of slaves which he and his colleagues employed when they held the protest meeting in Johannesburg.

The hon. member must confine himself to the subject which is under discussion.

I am only replying to arguments which were used here by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad.

Yes, but the hon. member must not refer to other matters.

I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but that hon. member said here that the Government was engaged in enslaving the people, and I want to show that the hon. member is wrong when he makes that statement, because he himself showed by his speeches that he has as much freedom as any citizen can have to say things both in this. House and also out of it, that his own action contradicts his accusation. But when such language is used in this House which is also blurted out throughout the length and breadth of the country, that the Government wants to make slaves of the people, then I say no, we cannot allow that to pass. It is time that that hon. member and other hon. members opposite should realise that they are responsible representatives of the people, even if they are sitting on the Opposition benches to-day. There are younger members in the House and young people in the country who look up to that hon. member, and who expect a greater sense of responsibility from him than what he is showing at the moment. He also used other words, which we cannot allow to pass in that way. He said, inter alia, that the people were deeply affected in their souls. By whom have the people been deeply affected in their souls? The rousing words which affected the people deeply in their souls, were the inflammatory language of the first quality which we have heard from hon. members opposite. Now we see this afternoon what attempt is being made here, and I want to compare the arguments of those hon. members with each other to show how hollow they are. Just compare, e.g., what they said here this afternoon, with what the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) said. He, as a man who gives a lead on the other side, said that if the Government wanted to send volunteers, he would make no objection. Here we find to-day, and I hope that I am giving the words of the hon. member correctly, that the first hon. member who spoke on the opposite side opposed it strongly. The hon. member for Gezina said that if the Government were to allow volunteers to go, then he would provide the Government with a list of names of people who ought to go. But here we find that a strong protest is being made against that. I do hot know what the object of those hon. members is, and what they are trying to link up with it. It is being said all over the countryside by the supporters of hon. members opposite: Why do you not send men overseas, so that we can fight you on that point. And although the Government is not sending people overseas, they are trying to give the colour to this proclamation that the Government really is engaged in taking steps to send people overseas. How, now, can we take hon. members opposite seriously? The hon. member for Gezina gave us the assurance that he had no objection if volunteers were sent overseas, but to-day his colleagues come here and make a fuss about the matter. When do members of the Opposition mean what they say, and when can we take their word, if they say one thing to-day and recommend it to the Government, and to-morrow they come along with a different story? It is time that the members of the Opposition realised that they have a responsibility in the country, and that they should stop that inflammatory language in stirring up the people. It is time that the Opposition, which also constitutes a section of the people, should realise its responsibility towards the liberties and the interests of South Africa. The hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel) said here that in his opinion, and in that of his colleagues, the war that was proceeding was not in the interests of the Union. The hon. member said that the day on which he was convinced, they would also wholeheartedly support the Government. Now I ask hon. members in what way and when will they be convinced? Is the independence of the Union, which is now threatened, as stated by the hon. member for Smithfield (Gen. Hertzog)—and not only is South Africa threatened, but the whole world — is that independence of South Africa not of sufficient interest to hon. members? We are fighting for the independence of South Africa.

Are you fighting?

Are hon. members not convinced of it that it is in the interests of the Union? The hon. member for Wolmaransstad asks whether I am fighting. Those hon. members over there are the people who are now objecting, because we say that if volunteers want to go….

The war has already been on six months, and you are still here.

Hon. members want it both ways. They do not want us to wage war, but on the other hand they want us to go. They want us to remain neutral, now they want us in conflict with the resolution of the 4th September, to go overseas. Hon. members opposite are in a great hurry. They probably want to exploit the present position. I agree when they criticise the Government on the merits, then they are entitled, as an Opposition to do so, but as Afrikaners—and I hope that most of them are still just as good Afrikaners as we on this side are—they must do their duty, and not be petty, not be narrow. Let them in these days drop that pettiness and be big Afrikaners, as the hon. member for Gezina was in the days when he had a broad view of the interests of South Africa, and when he still felt that South Africa was not an isolated island in the eyes of the world, but that she had interests which could be threatened, as he sometimes expressed himself, right up to the equator. I would like hon. members to associate themselves to-day with the wide vision which the hon. member for Gezina had at that time. But just notice the efforts which are now being made here. So far as the hon. member for Wolmaransstad is concerned, if he does things which one must condemn, if he does mischief in political matters, then I always have a tender spot for him, then I always try to get into contact with him and I try to get contact with hon. members opposite in order to weld the people of South Africa once and for all into one people. It is often said that our people will never be one before we have not all gone to one front together. Here there is a golden opportunity for us in South Africa to create a united people. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad and most of his colleagues have repeatedly said in the past that they will do everything in their pover to prevent the day coming when Germany will threaten the interests of South Africa. The Leader of the Opposition said that clearly last year, when he noticed that we were standing under a great shadow, a great cloud which threatened not only South Africa but the whole world. That is the position to-day, and therefore I am appealing to hon. members opposite to give up these childish actions—I cannot call them anything else — that leg-pulling in political matters, because they know better, they know there is a responsibility resting on them, but they are constantly engaged in leg-pulling. There is a time for everything. There is a time to challenge us on this side as much as they want to, but it is not the time for that to-day. To-day we must realise our responsibility, and give every possible support to the Government, and to stand by the Prime Minister. When the storms are over, we will differ once more, and once more do what we please, and once more pull each other’s legs in politics and play all sorts of youthful tricks. But, to-day the position is a serious one. The salvation and prosperity and safety of South Africa are at stake. I ask the hon. member for Wolmaransstad—he is commencing to be a little on the old side, I do not say as old as I am — but he is no longer a juvenile, and I ask the hon. member to end his political career in that way, so that he can say: “In my young days I thought as a child, but now that I have grown up I want to think and act as an experienced man.”

I move as a further amendment—

The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) a moment ago wanted to make out that we on this side, simply wanted to obstruct, that we were not serious in regard to these matters. But when he sees what is implied by this proclamation of which I have moved the deletion, then he will realise that this is not a case of leg-pulling or obstruction, but we are convinced of the fact that we are acting in the interests of the population of South Africa, because we feel that the interests of our people are threatened, and that we are obliged to allow our voice to be heard against it. Under the annexure to proclamation No. 334 of 1939, it is forbidden to any person, without the written permission of the Prime Minister, directly or indirectly to send any goods to anyone in Germany or to receive or to order any goods from anyone in Germany, or to have any commercial transactions with anyone in Germany. Now the Minister of Defence introduces his motion this afternoon, and wants under the words “anyone in Germany” to include “any person wherever he may happen to be.” We see, therefore, what is now being aimed at by the Minister is simply a curtailment of our opportunities for carrying on business and trade, selling produce to the outside world.

To the enemy.

To the outside world, and as one who has to watch over the countryside and its interests in the House, it is my duty to ask the House to delete these words. When the House, on the 4th September, decided to participate in the war against Germany, the argument came from the other side that we should participate, because if we did not do so our produce would lie and rot in the harbours. Many of us characterised the argument, in the first place, as an immoral argument, because no person had the right and no government had the right to ask their people, for the sake of the sale of their produce, to shed the blood of their sons. But we further said that the argument was doubly immoral, because it was an untrue argument. By remaining neutral you would actually obtain the chance of selling your produce. The argument of hon. members opposite was that we, by participating in the war, together with England, would be better in the position to sell our produce, but many of us felt that the Prime Minister would still go very far to carry out the instructions of Downing Street. Immediately after the outbreak of the war, the farmers began to feel uneasy, because from time to time it was stressed by English Ministers that England, in the war, would require the economic support of its dominions and colonies. In this connection I just want also to point out that a man like Malcolm MacDonald, in a speech broadcast by the radio not long ago, said that the British colonies would have to stand together in the struggle, and their assets be made available, so that England would be able to buy them at fixed prices. Immediately after the declaration of war we saw an attempt on the part of England to buy produce at fixed prices, including those of our country. England, as we then saw, bought the wool of New Zealand and Australia, and we know that attempts were made also to buy our wool at a fixed price. In consequence of that our farmers became uneasy and felt that the British Government would, along those lines, try to use our assets in the war. Our economic assets, that was the object, had to be organised and mobolised for England in her struggle against Germany. We know how strong the feeling on the countryside was when it was announced that England wanted to buy up the Australian wool, and when attempts were made to do the same thing in connection with our wool. The opposition of our farming population was so strong that the Government had to give up the idea. The farmers in the country immediately made their voice heard.

Can the hon. member tell me what proclamation he is discussing now?

No. 31 of 1940.

I do not believe that the hon. member can discuss that proclamation.

I moved as an amendment to omit Proclamation No. 31.

The hon. member may proceed.

I say that the farmers immediately felt that our Government had also been approached by the British Government to sell our produce to England at a fixed price, as they needed it in the struggle, and when they saw that the wool of Australia and New Zealand had already been bought up, they had reasons for fearing that our Government would also do so. A protest was immediately made, with the result that the Government had to abandon any intention of agreeing to the proposals of the British Government. Although the Government did not immediately accept the offer made by the British Government in connection with the wool, we noticed, at the time, that the Government, at any rate, co-operated in the attempt to depress the price of wool in South Africa. In that they succeeded, witness the market for wool before the offer and immediately after it. But the farmers were also afraid that if the Government did not do it openly, it would still later in a covert way, try to assist England to get hold of the produce of South Africa cheaply.

The proclamation does not deal with that.

Then you have not followed my argument. I now come to the point. This motion, this proclamation which the Minister is now moving, by which he can prohibit any person, it makes no difference where he lives, goes much further, because in the past under the previous proclamation, it was prohibited for any person who was in Germany, to buy here, and the Minister could also prohibit our produce being sent to any person in Germany. Now the Minister goes to this length, that he says that some one in Germany may mean any person, wherever he happens to live. If, therefore, under this proclamation, anyone comes from America or Japan or Italy to buy from us, or that wool is sent to him, then the Minister, if he gets these powers, will be able to say that that person is someone in Germany, and in that way he can prohibit our wool or other produce being sold to any person, unless he lives in England. Accordingly, the Minister now comes and takes away the open market, which he supposedly had left to the farmers, and although the market is already so restricted, he will now go the length of saying that they may only sell to England.

Mention anyone in another country whom he can prohibit.

The Prime Minister can e.g. prohibit the export to any country which is a potential enemy. In consequence of the steps which the Prime Minister has already taken, we have reasons for believing that the Prime Minister assumes that possibly Italy will join Germany to-morrow or the day after, and if we approve of these regulations, then he can prohibit any wool being sold to Italy, and the same applies to Japan. If the Minister suspects that Japan tomorrow or the day after, or in a year’s time, might be at war with us, then he can prohibit us selling wool to Japan, or also to any Japanese in America. He can prohibit any person buying our produce if he only labels such a person as “someone in Germany”. That is the effect of the powers which he wants to take here, and because we are giving all these powers to the Prime Minister, it gives him the opportunity of restricting the market for the produce of South Africa to England alone. I say that he will then have achieved his object. I felt, when the offer was made to buy our wool, that the Prime Minister would like to take the same steps as were taken in 1914, but he was afraid of public opinion. But because I know the Prime Minister as a person who gives with one hand but takes with the other, therefore. I realise that we are concerned here with an attempt to prohibit the farmers from selling to any other country than England. Therefore, I have the strongest objection to giving these powers to the Prime Minister. The hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel) has already complained that the diamond diggers feel that it will possibly be in the interests of England, that it will suit their book for all the diamonds to be sold in London, and that no diamonds should be sold directly to Japan, or Germany, or Holland, or Belgium. Now the Prime Minister, under this proclamation can prohibit the sale of diamonds to anyone unless he lives in England. The same applies to our tobacco, our meat and our wine, and in that way incalculable damage may be caused to South Africa. As we have repeatedly heard in the past from English statesmen that the dominions and colonies are being asked to give economic help, and that they need no troops, and as the Prime Minister said that he was not going to send any forces overseas, so the Prime Minister now wants to give the economic support, and to take away the open market which we used to have, in an indirect manner. Although he is doing this, and is giving economic support to England in an indirect manner, he wants to deceive the farmers, and he will cause the farmers incalculable damage. For these reasons I protest against the motion, and I ask the House not to pass this regulation.

I second that amendment, and I must say that it has really astonished me to see the Prime Minister going so far as to advocate what he is doing here. We have had a little experience of what can be done by regulations; we have already had experience as wool farmers with the quotas which are fixed for certain countries, but this regulation goes much further, and turns the farmers of South Africa definitely into nothing else but the slaves of the Prime Minister. The farmers have spent thousands of pounds to sell their wool in other countries, and here we now have a scheme by the Prime Minister where a Mussolini and a Stalin and others cannot hold a candle to the Prime Minister in breaking down everything that we have built up, by placing the matter in his hands. In the first place, the Prime Minister and his Cabinet have already gone and given their consent to the control of our wool by one country. What does it mean, our giving the control to one country? It means that they can do everything they want to with our produce: they can send buyers to other parts of the Commonwealth to keep them out of the market, but now the Prime Minister comes along and wants to determine whether a person is fit to buy our wool, yes or no. He can, in our own country, or wherever it may happen to be, he can sell our wool to the speculator for the fixed price that he wants to pay. I want to say that the Prime Minister is ruining the whole future of farming in South Africa. The boards that we have created and the propaganda that we have made against synthetic material is being nullified by a stroke of the pen. We realise that there are people behind the Prime Minister who are anxious to make the farmer a slave of the merchant, as in the past, and they have in General Jan Smuts found the man whom they can use for that purpose. There are indeed a few representatives from the countryside behind him, but they are no longer representatives of the farmers. Now you have the Prime Minister coming here and saying that the control boards amount to nothing, and they may now kill the boards. I had already commenced to be suspicious that they would like to get rid of the control boards; there is a great deal of evidence to show it, because it has already been said that if we were not careful in this matter, then they would kill the control boards. That was the reason why we were so careful, and accordingly we only said that we were not satisfied with the method of the appointments of the boards but we had nothing against the principle of the boards. We now see that the Prime Minister is engaged in impoverishing our people in all directions. There are now quite 300,000 people who have been driven off the land.

How long have they been off the land?

You represent no farmers, you represent merchants. We have felt all these years that we have been in agriculture, where we have built up our organisations by means of which we got improvements for the farmers, that there was a section in the country that wanted to crush them. We understood that, and while we were still engaged in our work, the old enemies of the farmers came to see if they could not nullify it. You find the old traders, the spectators in wheat and mealies and other produce, and they see that there is a new Government, and they try to destroy everything that we built up. Now you have the Prime Minister coming, and he is playing into their hands, and he will now say who is a fit man to buy, and who is not. We have already seen in the past that a man was put into a camp because he was a trader, and if he had been put into it innocently and he came out, then in the opinion of the Prime Minister he will no longer be a suitable man to act as buyer. They can now no longer merely do it in this country, but with regard to every person in the whole of the world. The object is merely to cut out all competition outside of the British Commonwealth of Nations. It seems to me that the Prime Minister can even say, that he will only allow a certain financial group to buy. We have to-day, for instance, a big fight between sterling and the dollar, and all the countries outside of the British Commonwealth are linked up with the dollar. Now the Minister will be able to say that he will not allow us, who are linked up to sterling, to trade with countries which are linked up to the dollar. No, Mr. Speaker, we cannot give powers like that to the Prime Minister. There is the synthetic material, which has given the farmers sleepless nights in the past. It is made in neutral countries like Japan and Italy, and it is quite possible that the Prime Minister may regard them as enemies, but he does not mind an atom what happens to the farmers, as long as he can see the war through, and we who are trying to save a little money will have to pay in order to see the war through. We have spent thousands of pounds to get Japan, Italy and other countries not to use that synthetic material, but the Prime Minister puts quotas on them, and now he wants to take further powers to restrict those people still further. That will mean that synthetic material, some day when the war is over, will be the master, and that there will be no place left for wool. We have invested £160,000,000 in our wool industry, and therefore we feel concerned about what the Government is doing to this industry. I want to point out to the Minister that all the points which are mentioned here can do nothing but harm to the farmers. I am very sorry about what the Minister did from the start with his regulations in the defence force. We have seen how things are going on there, how Afrikaans boys are kicked out, although they have done no wrong. We have seen the intimidation which is going on there, and after those things the Prime Minister cannot expect us to trust him when he asks for still greater powers from us, powers to control the produce of the farmer, and to exclude other countries from competition on our market, so that all our produce can be handed over to the empire. I do not see that there is any chance of our approving of such a thing. I am only a farmer, but I am alive, anyway; I know, however, how hard a time the farmers have in order to live. They are in a miserable state, and any restrictions to injure their market will mean that the farmers of South Africa will be ruined. I therefore, with all my heart, second the amendment of my hon. friend, that Proclamation 31 of 1940, should be deleted.

I want to move the following further amendment—

If hon. members will refer to this proclamation they will see that it deals with patents, models, trade marks and copyright. I have various reasons for thinking that I am entitled to ask the Prime Minister to accept this amendment. These matters are regulated under the ordinary law by Act No. 9 of 1916, which contains provisions about the rights, privileges and obligations, and in connection with everything that is necessary and that has hitherto been necessary in connection with patents, models, etc. My objection, in the first place, is that these regulations ought never to have been issued by proclamation. The proper way to make amendments in an Act would have been to introduce a Bill. This regulation deals with completely different matters to the other regulations, and while the position in the country remains as it is at present, it was necessary that Parliament should have the right to be able thoroughly to debate these amendments. Alterations may be necessary, but I maintain that the correct method was to make them by way of legislation, so that the matter could be properly debated. My first proof of this is that the Government itself realised, according to the wording of the proclamation, that this matter differed from the matters which were dealt with in the other proclamations. The other proclamations begin in this way—

And then it goes on that although that state of emergency existed, those regulations were being issued. With regard to this regulation we find that it starts as follows—

And then it goes on to say that the regulation is being issued for those reasons. You will therefore see that there is no question of a state of emergency so far as this regulation is concerned. A state of emergency is not pleaded in the proclamation, but it is issued because they say that certain conditions have arisen in consequence of the war which make it necessary to publish that regulation. I say, therefore, that I am entitled to ask the Prime Minister to put this regulation in the form of a Bill, just as the Minister of the Interior has drafted a Bill in regard to the incapacities of members of Parliament, so that we could deal with it separately. If the Prime Minister tackles this matter in that way, then all hon. members in this House will have an opportunity of studying the question properly and thoroughly and to discuss it properly and thoroughly. At the moment the Government comes here with a lot of regulations under a proclamation. There is no Opportunity for analysing each regulation. In the case of a Bill, each one of them would have been a clause of the Bill, and could therefore have been dealt with separately. Here we simply have a lot of regulations which are not so necessary that it is necessary to issue them for the sake of the state of war emergency. I also want to say this in connection with this matter. We are told, on the one hand, that these regulations are not martial law regulations, but simply emergency regulations. I say in my simplicity, that there is only one way in which we can regard these regulations, and that is that when a state of emergency has been caused by war, and regulations of this kind are issued, then they are martial law regulations. The hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) argued the other day that the Government publishes regulations in such cases. That is not so, because it is the King who publishes those regulations through his representative. In any case, such regulations must not go an iota further than what the circumstances necessitate. I know that authorities in connection with this matter are very hard to find, but I would like to quote a definition of martial law from an old Cape journal. It reads—

This is not a matter on which a statement is frequently made, but I nevertheless want to point out that in 1838 a statement was made by persons who subsequently became judges, and they made this declaration in regard to the matter….

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but it seems to me that he is now debating the principle, which was disposed of at the second reading. We are now only dealing with the regulations, which are before the House, and not with the general question.

I only want to bring this matter to the notice of the House, that these regulations, in my opinion, are not valid because they ought not to have been issued.

That is a question which could have been debated on the second reading, but not now.

May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that we are now dealing with new regulations.

Yes, but the hon. member must confine himself to those regulations, and he cannot debate the principle again.

My objection is that these regulations, or rather this special regulation, recognises that there is no state of emergency, and it is not issued on the ground of a state of emergency.

But the question of the principle of the regulations was disposed of on the second reading, and the hon. member cannot argue it now. He must simply confine himself to the regulations which are before the House.

I say that this particular regulation is illegal. It is a regulation which is now being added, and it was not before us during the debate on the second reading. I say that I am surely entitled to state that this regulation is illegal, and then to give my reason.

The hon. member is arguing on the general principle, which was decided on by the second reading, and he cannot debate the general principle again.

I bow to your ruling, of course, Mr. Speaker.

You are now finding yourself in the position in which I was the other day.

I do not find myself in any position in which that hon. member has been. I am arguing here that the Government admitted that this regulation was not made necessary by a state of emergency, and I say that seeing that in another case special legislation was introduced in regard to a position which was not created by a state of war, a Bill should also have been introduced in connection with these patents, models, trade marks and copyright. In the circumstances, a matter which is in fact mentioned in the preamble to the regulation, the right method was to bring a Bill before the House. I want to point out one phase of this extremely complicated matter, and this will also show the House why these rights and capacities of people should be thoroughly debated. I want to quote from this regulation to show how complicated it is, and also to what extent an injustice is being done, not only to enemy subjects, but also to Union nationals. Clause 2 of this proclamation provides that where any person in Germany is the owner or was at any time on or since the 6th day of September, 1939, the owner of a patent, model, registered trade mark or copyright, or is entitled to or was at any time on or after the said date entitled to it…. no licence in respect of that patent, model or copyright, according to the circumstances of the case, will be valid, if the transfer of the licence was made on or after the 6th day of September, 1939. We notice that there was a reference made here to the fact that the person in Germany only has an interest in the matter, and I would now like the Prime Minister to listen to the point that I want to make. A company is formed in South Africa with South African capital, but that company has to pay a commission for the privilege to use a particular patent or model. At present that company cannot send money to Germany. It is prohibited. I presume that this regulation is being made to prevent money going to Germany for patents or models, etc., in which people in Germany are interested. A subsequent regulation already prohibits money being sent to Germany, but because there is someone in Germany who is interested in this patent or model, the South African company is prevented from ceding its rights to anyone else. That is the position which arises under the clause.

What does Clause 4 say?

That goes still further. There they are stealing those people’s rights. That is the position so far as Clause 2 is concerned. If any company or any Afrikaner, it need not be a company, controls a business with his own money, and manufactures goods, and he has a right which he is using, then he is not able to transfer that right to anyone else if he has to pay a small amount for that right. In other words, Union nationals are being deprived of that right under this regulation, and I have shown that it is quite unnecessary, because no one can send money to Germany, because a regulation forbids it. Now we come to Regulation No. 3. There the position is still worse. Any person who is in the same position under that clause, and if he has a contract under which he is using a patent, then I can go to the Registrar of Patents and ask him that any stipulation of such an agreement should be set aside, and the licence is drawn or amended to the extent in which it refers to this provision. In other words, I can make use of the state of affairs to go to the Registrar of Patents and obtain the right from him to stop the payment that I have to make. It was left to the decision of the Registrar. The Minister will possibly say that you have the right of appeal to a higher court, but I want to ask him to go into the regulations again carefully. He will then find that there is no right of appeal to a court. The Registrar is the man who decides, and he can do what he likes, and he cannot be compelled to remedy the injustice. If that is the position, I want to ask whether the Minister does not agree that that is going too far, that we are concerned with serious things and the doing of an injustice, although the course of the war can surely not be influenced by the fact that no money will be sent to Germany. That being so, I want to ask him to withdraw the regulation. It is unnecessary, and if it is necessary then let them draw up the regulations in such a way that they will come before us in the form of a Bill. In the regulation under clause 4 you go further and say that any copyright, patent or model belonging to a person in Germany, any right in connection with it, can be taken away and given to someone else. What does that mean? Take, for instance, lysol. I do not know who has the patent, but I am just mentioning it. I do not know whether it is got from England or Germany, but the clause means that I can go to the Registrar and the patent can be taken away, even if it is manufactured in this country, and even if someone has obtained the right to use the patent for the preparation of it here. Who is going to be assisted by that? Will it assist us? I still have to see that. You will see that the rights will be granted in most cases to Jews, in other words, a right which was obtained and for which someone has made a payment, and for which he has paid a small commission, can be taken away if anyone in Germany was entitled to it. They can manufacture the same goods, whether the other people are entitled to the rights or not. This is so serious that I want to ask hon. members to allow me to dwell on it for a moment. I do not even want to speak about the forfeiture of rights of people in Germany. If they are enemy subjects, and you want to make war on them, then let them suffer, although I always understood that we do not want to make war against Germany but only against Hitler and Hitlerism. Here, however, the opportunity is being given to certain persons to obtain rights for a mere song, apart from the rights which have existed in connection with the preparation of such a product. Why cannot it come before us in the form of a Bill, in amendment of the Patents Act? Then we could go into the matter properly. To-day we have no such opportunity. Where is all this going to end? Here the Minister brings up the most sweeping regulations by which the greatest injustice may be done. I repeat that the correct procedure would be to bring them before Parliament in the form of a Bill. It seems to me that hon. members opposite are not taking the objections of the Opposition seriously, the objections in connection with the alteration of the definition of “German”. I think that is one of the most cunning methods which we have yet seen, of placing people in such a position that you can simply cancel their rights by a small amendment. If we examine the regulation in connection with trading with the enemy, you find that that in the first instance a German is there described as a “German in Germany.” After the regulations were issued, they now come along with an amendment, and there any person outside the Union is included in it.

Inside the Union as well.

I would like hon. members opposite to reconsider this matter. They should commence to realise that the whole tendency of the regulation should be altered. You had a regulation for which possibly there were reasons, for which in the eyes of hon. members there were reasons, but now you have a definition of “German” which completely changes the tendency. This is a very serious matter. We have granted rights according to law, and now the rights are being curtailed by a small regulation which is so complicated that it took me half-an-hour to find out what it actually meant. The consequences of this step may be very serious, not only to us but to hon. members opposite. I ask them to consider the matter. Let us find another definition, so that it will clearly be seen what is intended by the amendment. I end by making another appeal to the Minister, because this amendment includes the violation of copyright. You have, for example, a book which was written in Germany, and which has been translated and printed in England, or a hymn or a poem, and there is a small royalty payable on it. Now you are prohibited from ceding the right. Business is being unnecessarily handicapped. I ask the Minister to withdraw the regulation.

I second. I do not want to say much about the matter. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Warren) has explained it clearly, and I hope that the Prime Minister will understand his objection. I just want to say a few words about the amendment which was moved by the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. Le Roux). I am not surprised that the farmers are a little suspicious about this amendment by the Prime Minister. We are now wanting to make a German of anybody, and the farmers know the Prime Minister and his past. When the farmers’ interests were at stake, and it was just before a general election, he sent a message that nothing was to be done until after the election. We know how the Prime Minister sacrificed the interests of the farmers to the British Government. That is why the people are a little suspicious when the Prime Minister takes power to be able to change anybody into a German. He can, for example, change him into a Chinaman or a Jap or a person of any nationality, if he gets these powers. He outdoes Stalin and Hitler, because he has the power to change the nationality of people. I want to say a few words in connection with regulation 33, where the Prime Minister asks that the Defence Act, the Act in connection with the Force, should be applicable to volunteers, and the Prime Minister now wants volunteers to be sent outside of the country. We know the class of volunteers that the Prime Minister will get. The Prime Minister started here on the 4th September by making a solemn promise that he would send no one overseas. We know that the Prime Minister made the promise, not because he was convinced that the people ought not to go overseas, but because he wanted to get a majority to govern the country. He could not get the majority without that promise. But no one expected the Prime Minister to keep the promise. We all expected that he would want to put off the matter, and here he comes and the first step he is now taking is to apply the Defence Act in connection with volunteers who are being sent overseas. The volunteers will be obtained by economic conscription. I can speak from experience in my own constituency. Persons have been driven by hunger there to join the Defence Force as volunteers, and only in that way can he get the so-called volunteers, namely, by economic conscription. The same conscription is being applied by employers. We know how people could not get any work from 1914 to 1918. When a person came to an office and asked for work, and he could not produce a medical certificate that he was physically unfit to fight, then he was driven away as a coward, and in that way thousands of persons were compelled to take part in the war. The same thing will happen in South Africa. The Prime Minister is getting ready for it when the time comes, and then thousands and thousands of men will have to go overseas, and be forced to go, as volunteers, over the borders of South Africa, and fight. Why is the Prime Minister making use of volunteers? If we assume that they will be used outside of the territory of South Africa, is it then in the interests of South Africa, and because South Africa is being threatened by a danger from outside? Is it in the interests of South Africa that these men should be sent? If it were in the interests of South Africa and in the interests of South Africa alone to go and fight in Northern Africa, then it is not necessary to send volunteers, then the whole population of South Africa will be prepared to go and fight. But the Prime Minister knows that it is not in the interests of South Africa, but in the interests of the Empire, and that is why he speaks of volunteers. We know that if the British statesmen only indicate to him what they want, he is only too willing to comply with their wishes; we know his past. Take, e.g., the case of Portugal. Portugal is a friend of the British Empire, but it may happen that she may become an enemy of England, and we know that if that happened then in the view of the Prime Minister, Portugal will also be an enemy of South Africa. Then it may happen that we have to send volunteers to get hold of Portuguese territory. Now suppose that the volunteers are not strong enough to do what the Prime Minister wants to effect? What will he do then? Will he then sit still and not assist them with reinforcements? We still remember 1914, when the Prime Minister said that volunteers only would be used to conquer South-West. But subsequently men were commandeered to go to South-West. One of the consequences of that was the rebellion, and then blood was shed in a fratricidal conflict in South Africa, for which the Prime Minister was personally responsible. I repeat the question: if the persons who are sent to do what the Prime Minister wants them to do, are not strong enough for the purpose, will he then be satisfied, or will he once more commandeer people? It is quite clear that he, in that case, will once more commandeer citizens to support those troops. The promise of the Prime Minister that we would not send men overseas and beyond the borders of the Union has placed a responsibility on the Government. A great deal of play is made of this in the country, and it is said that we have all the advantages of the war and none of the disadvantages. It is used to retain the support for the Government in the rural areas. If we should have the case of Portuguese territory being invaded by volunteers, and the Portuguese defending themselves, then others will be commandeered under the cry that the Union is being threatened, and then the whole of the Union will be dragged into it, and we shall have to pay all the expenses. If then it is assumed that volunteers are going to fight in Northern Africa, or wherever it may be, not for the defence of South Africa but on behalf of the British Empire, then I ask why we should pay their wages, why should we bear the expense? Why should we, after the war, be saddled every year with the pensions? After the last war it cost us £13,000,000 in pensions, and we will still have to pay £600,000 a year for that purpose. Now the people of South Africa have again to be burdened with the extra amount for pensions of soldiers who are not fighting for us. This is happening at a time when hon. members opposite will not move a finger on behalf of our poor people in our country, who are in need. But then they insist on our sending volunteers outside the borders of the Union to fight for somebody else’s interests, and we have to bear the expense. It cannot reasonably be expected of us, that we should send troops there to fight for British interests, and then to pay the cost as well. I want to point out to the Minister that he should remember the statement that he made when he went into the war. He made a solemn statement that people would even be prohibited from leaving South Africa, because they were leaving here, and they must remain here. That is the attitude that he adopted, and it is being preached everywhere in the country. What has happened now for him to change his attitude? I see that even in a country like Australia the Labour Party has had a brilliant victory, that they do not allow their men to be sent overseas to fight. The Prime Minister should realise that he will be defeated by the people if he were to have a referendum, whether he should send volunteers or not. The Prime Minister knows that he will not have a majority behind him for a policy like that. If the Prime Minister were certain that our supporters were weaker than the supporters of his party, then he would be able to take a step of that kind, but he knows that he does not have and will not get the support of the people in the country. He knows that on that point he will suffer a defeat, and that being so, he should think twice before he and the party that he scraped together on the 4th September, force this motion through the House.

With regard to this proclamation No. 31 of 1940, I would like, in support of the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. Le Roux) to point out that the proclamation concerned, which appeared on the 5th January, 1940, gives a list of the firms with which trade cannot be carried on. I have taken the trouble to enquire into what countries they are in, and I find, inter alia, that the firms are established in the following countries—

A long list, and so far I have only briefly gone into it to see how many countries, more or less it represented, and I found that there were over 30 countries. It is very clear that this new proclamation is intended to go much further still than that list of firms in the countries that I referred to, because it says—

Now it appears to me, according to a report in the newspapers, that a very strong attempt is being made by the British Government while the war is on, to give the trade of Germany a coup-de-grace. Now we have nothing to do with it whether the English merchants have managed to get the British Government to give that trade the coup-de-grace for good. To us, as a young country, the United Party Government of late went to a great deal of trouble, more particularly to build up and to extend our markets. That we should now have issued that proclamation was a shock to those countries who were neutral, and that people here should now be prohibited from carrying on business with firms in those countries. We cannot argue it away that it was a shock to those people. Therefore I feel just as other hon. members on this side do, that there is a very real danger lurking in this proclamation. Seeing that the words are so vague, the danger is even greater than what we may suspect, and in the same proclamation we find in the addendum under 2 (a) —

I want to point out that there are people in our country who can to-day be regarded as enemy subjects; they are possibly of German extraction, and they are possibly interned to-day. There are some of these people who have been in the country for years and years who have built up their business here and married Afrikaner girls. Now there is the danger that the custodian of enemy property will liquidate their business, and the position may arise—I shall be glad if the Minister will deny it if it is not so—that the whole business will be ruined by the liquidation, and the family will suffer in consequence and be ruined. It may possibly be a person of German descent, but the wife may be a South African national, and it may be her only asset. I do not know to what extent the custodian of enemy property can go in liquidating businesses, and in that way taking away the livelihood of those families. I would very much like to know from the Prime Minister whether I was right in what I said here. If that is the position, then there is great danger, and then I think that the Prime Minister should make this language clearer. It is said that he can protect, look after or dispose of that business. We do not know in what circumstances that can be done, and I shall be glad if the Minister can explain it to us.

When one goes into these proclamations, which have been issued from time to time since the 4th September last year, then it is almost alarming when you look at the powers the Government have appropriated to themselves, and under the cloak that things are being done for the protection of democracy. One proclamation has followed the other with upsetting rapidity, and the one proclamation appropriated more absolute power than the other had done. It became so bad that one asked oneself whether we would not, in a short time, be landing in a position of a government by a Stalin or a government by a Führer, by whom the war was started to put an end to that system of government. I want to suggest that for the duration of the war the Government, inasmuch as it has now once and for all adopted that policy, should continue these proclamations, and for the duration of the war put an end to the democratic principle, and put an end to the authority of Parliament. Then we shall have a dictatorship in this country, and then there ought to be not the least difficulty in the way of the Government. This Regulation No. 31 of 1940, or this proclamation, as it is called, is of such a nature that if it is not very carefully administered, the citizens of the Union may be caused the greatest inconvenience. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. Le Roux) has already referred to the point that the definition under the proclamation is so wide and comprehensive, that in the hands of an unwise official it may constitute a threat to the liberty of the subject in our country. Anyone in Germany can surely only mean that its meaning also includes an out-and-out German subject. But according to this definition, it includes any person wherever he may be, to whom the consignment of goods, or from whom the ordering of goods, or from whom the ordering or receipt of goods is prohibited, by virtue of the powers granted under sub-regulation (3). In this sub-regulation (3) it is provided that the Minister may have certain powers—

1. (a) That the control or management of the property or business in the Union of a person in Germany has been or is likely to be affected by the state of war existing between the Union and the German Reich as to endanger its effective continuance….

What is effective continuance? That is a question of interpretation. If an unwise official is charged with the administration of this regulation, then he may act in a harsh manner, with the result that in a matter in which Union nationals are interested great loss may be occasioned to them. We know that in the Union there are numerous factories, and also other businesses which nominally belong to German subjects, but they provide a livelihood to hundreds of Union nationals, and if that regulation is unwisely applied then it may result in numbers of Union nationals suffering want because they will lose their livelihood. The second part of the clause goes on—

Now I want again to repeat that as we understand the regulation, it may happen that there is a trading company or manufacturing company in the Union of which the majority of the share capital is held by Union citizens, but the managing partner has a small interest in it, and in such a case the official can cause ruin to that business, and it will have repercussions which will be much more injurious to the Union national than to the enemy subject. Paragraph 5 of this proclamation lays down—

That is a far-reaching regulation, and the person to whom the powers may be delegated is, in my opinion, not sufficiently described in this regulation. The Minister can cede his powers wholly or in part to any person. These are very drastic powers which the Minister is appropriating to himself. If the “person” is described as a competent person, a white person or a person with full responsibility, then we might still leave it as it stands, but as the regulation now stands, the Minister may delegate his powers simply to any other person. We are prepared to assume that the Minister, in his wisdom, will think when he is delegating such powers to a competent person, and will see to it that he is a person with a feeling of responsibility. Nevertheless it seems to me that these regulations which are intended to meet a state of emergency, will have the effect of creating a state of unrest and panic instead of bringing about rest. Our country is not in such a position as to need drastic measures like these. Cannot the Government go gradually, according to how the position develops and circumstances demand new measures? Is this not a case where they should go slowly and carefully? Why draw up one regulation after the other with this bewildering rapidity, and why not keep pace with the development of the war? If emergencies really arise, and regulations are issued, then they may be justified, but I cannot associate myself with the spate of proclamations which have appeared at a time when circumstances do not justify them, and they are proclamations which handicap trade and industry, and which moreover do not promote a state of rest and peacefulness which we want in our country. These regulations are operating as a brake, and, therefore, I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Oudtshoorn that Regulation No. 31 of 1940 should be deleted.

When one reads through these regulations, then it is very difficult to guess what the Prime Minister has at the back of his head, and when the Prime Minister is a riddle, then it is a most dangerous thing for us. These regulations are asked for because we are at war to-day. But it is doubtless that so far as the Union is concerned, we are far from being at war. Why then are these drastic regulations asked for? It was stated by the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) that we are making a lot of objections about trifles. But I want to refer the hon. member to some of these regulations. When we look at Regulation No. 36 of 1940, then we find, inter alia, this—

That includes all kinds of lights, and what is the object of the Prime Minister in asking for such powers to-day? We understand from the Government that we must fight against Hitler to-day, but I very strongly doubt whether Hitler to-day possesses more powers than what are being asked for by the Prime Minister in these regulations.

These regulations interfere with the private rights of the farmers. The fruit farmers are distracted to-day, trying to put their produce on the market. The market is in many respects closed to them, and now the Prime Minister comes and asks us to give our approval to regulations which give him the right to prohibit certain markets, to close certain markets. Why does not the Prime Minister take this House into his confidence and tell us what he means by these regulations? The Prime Minister has submitted a long series of regulations to the House, and he disposed of them in a few minutes. Surely we were entitled, when private rights are being interfered with, to get details from the Minister concerned, and to expect to be taken into his confidence. In addition we have a regulation here which deals with patents, models, copyrights, trade marks, etc. What has that got to do with conditions existing in the Union to-day? We really feel that the Prime Minister is asking this House to grant him powers for which there is not the least need, and, therefore, I want, together with other hon. members to protest most strongly against it.

The rt. hon. the Minister of Defence now asks the permission of the House to validate some further regulations. It was not enough to take away most of the civil rights and liberties of the subject by regulations already in force, he has now to go a step further and take further powers unto himself. I should like to congratulate the rt. hon. gentleman on the way in which he is meeting the objections from this side of the House.

I am pleased that you are pleased.

I must say it is gratifying to all of us to see that of the nine clauses which are in the Bill no fewer than six are being altered, and radically altered, and I think the country at large has a great deal to be thankful for, for the determined stand taken up by this side of the House.

That is a good one.

Hear, hear!

The Minister of Labour says “Hear, hear!”

I say it again.

Had he been at liberty to act in accordance with his conscience, I am sure he would have supported us in this matter instead of sitting over there.

Do not make any mistake, I am still at liberty.

The Minister may be at liberty, but circumstances — let us put it that way — prevent him from exercising that liberty. Mr. Speaker, I cannot congratulate the right hon. gentleman, the Minister of Defence, on the way he has kept faith with the undertaking he gave a few days ago. During the second reading of this Bill he said that he would not withdraw or alter Clause 3 or Clause 5.

I am afraid the hon. member is now dealing with matters which are irrelevant to the debate. The hon. member must confine himself to the instruction.

I bow to your ruling, sir. The position is that I intend to move to omit regulation No. 34 of 1940. That regulation will further take away several liberties to the extent that the military authorities will now have the power to virtually expropriate private property, notwithstanding the fact that no state of emergency exists. That is the gravamen of the charge I level. It is that no state of emergency exists to justify these measures. First of all, I would like to refer to Clause 1 of this iniquitous regulation. There it is laid down that any member of the Union defence forces has the right to do any work on any land, or place anything in, or on any land. This privilege is not reserved to any responsible member of the defence force, such as a senior officer, but it applies to any member of the force. That is an entirely novel principle which is now being introduced. One could understand it if it was reserved to superior officers of the defence force. But no, that is not enough for the Minister. He has to have carte blanche and the nett result is that anybody in khaki uniform will be allowed to go on private property and do practically what he pleases. The second clause, coupled with Clause 1, makes this power tantamount to a confiscatory power. In fact, it means that the military authorities can march on to private property and take possession of it. Some solace will be left to the unhappy owner of the property in that he will be entitled to compensation, but only when the property is taken possession of, but not apparently when damage is merely done to his property. I want to know why that distinction is made. I want to know how it comes about that if a man is deprived of the actual possession of his land, in the one case he will be entitled to claim compensation, but in the other case he will not have any claim for compensation. It seems to me that we would have been well advised to follow the English precedent. In England, regulations have been drawn up which are far more effective than these are, and which go to the very root of the matter, and give the military authorities unfettered power, and yet do everything to safeguard the rights of the individual owner. To give you an idea of how fatuous this regulation is, I refer to Clause 2 again. Under Clause 2, the Minister of Defence may, under certain circumstances, prohibit or restrict the owner of property from exercising any right in connection with his property. What will happen if the Minister of Defence is 1,000 or 1,500 miles away from here? He may even be in Egypt with his troops, and I hope he will. Indeed, I think hon. members on the other side of the House will be well advised to set forth as soon as possible. In the Minister’s absence it would mean that the military authorities cannot take these measures. That is entirely fatuous. If the need arose the military authorities should have carte blanche with private property. It should not be necessary to invoke the aid of the Minister, and I quote that clause to show how fatuous it is. Ī say that we should have followed the English example, and not come forward with half-baked and ill-considered regulations, as we have done. Take just an aspect from the point of view of the man who suffers damage. His remedy is to go to a civil court and institute, probably, a supreme court action, and everybody knows how expensive such an action is and what a long and tedious business it is. I will give the House an idea of what the position is in England, and shall quote from Clause 1 of the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939. It reads—

1. 1. Compensation for action taken in the exercise of emergency powers. (1) Where, in the exercise of emergency powers during the period beginning with the 24th day of August, 1939, and ending with such day as His Majesty by Order in Council declare to be the day on which the emergency came to an end—
   1. (a) Possession of any land has been taken on behalf of His Majesty, or
   2. (b) any property other than land has been requisitioned or acquired on behalf of His Majesty, or
   3. (c) any work has been done on any land on behalf of His Majesty, otherwise than by way of measures taken to avoid the spreading of the consequences of damage caused by war operations, then subject to the following provisions of this Act, compensation assessed in accordance with those provisions shall be paid, out of moneys provided by Parliament, in respect of the taking possession of the land, the requisition or acquisition of the property, or the doing of the work, as the case may be.
2. 2. For the purposes of this section, a requirement that any space for accommodation in a ship or an aircraft be placed at the disposal of any authority shall be deemed to be a requisition of property.

Then Clause 2 deals with compensation in respect of taking possession of land—

I may say here that there is no basis fixed in these regulations for the calculation of compensation. It will be entirely a matter of speculation. The defence authorities, one assumes, will endeavour to asess their own values, whereas the plaintiff will claim such compensation as he thinks he is entitled to. It would have been far better to have adopted this principle which I have referred to, which has been adopted by the House of Commons, and lay down principles on which a claim for compensation can be based. Then there would be no argument, and very probably there would be no law suit, and there would be equal justice for all. This Clause 2 in the British Act says—

1. (a) A sum equal to the rent which might reasonably be expected to be payable by a tenant in occupation of the land, during the period for which possession of the land is retained in the exercise of emergency powers, under a lease granted immediately before the beginning of that period, whereby the tenant undertook to pay all usual tenant’s rates and taxes, and to bear the cost of the repairs and insurance, and the other expenses, if any, necessary to maintain the land in a state to command that rent, and
2. (b) a sum equal to the cost of making good any damage to the land which may have occurred during the period for which possession thereof is so retained (except in so far as the damage has been made good during that period by a person acting on behalf of His Majesty), no account being taken of fair wear and tear or of damage caused by war operations, and
3. (c) in a case where the land is agricultural land, a sum equal to the amount (if any) which might reasonably have been expected to be payable in addition to rent by an incoming tenant, in respect of things previously done for the purpose of the cultivation of the land, and in respect of seeds, tillages, growing crops and other similar matters, under a lease of the land granted immediately before possession thereof was taken in the exercise of emergency powers, and
4. (d) a sum equal to the amount of any expenses reasonably incurred, other than on behalf of His Majesty, for the purpose of compliance with any directions given on behalf of His Majesty in connection with the taking possession of the land.

In England they have even made provision to compensate farmers who are deprived of the use of their land, whereas in South Africa under the rule of the right hon. the Prime Minister no such provision is made. This» regulation is carefully prepared in such a way that a farmer who is deprived of the use of his land will have no claim for compensation. If any hon. member on the other side of the House challenges this, then I invite him to read that regulation. I know, of course, that hon. members opposite have not read the regulation, and I do not blame them. But that is the position. Then there is the almost deliberate way in which this regulation is prepared. I say “deliberate,” for it is with the intention of creating offences. Take clause 3, which makes it an offence for any person without permission, to remove, alter, or tamper with any work done, or any thing placed by the military authorities on private property. It will be noticed that the word “wilfully” has been omitted. In all our laws, the essence of an offence is that whatever is done, or whatever act is complained of, must be done wilfully. Here it is not so. Here if a man interferes with any of these works by, accident, an offence is created and he cannot set up a defence that it was created by accident. It is clear that the object is not so much to attend to the defence of the country, as it is to enable the hon. gentlemen over there to grasp autocratic powers. That is what we are concerned with here this afternoon. It seems to me that a limit has now been reached. Hon. gentlemen over there have always maintained that they were there to maintain a democratic system of government. It is usual for hon. members to say that, but in actual practice we find they are doing exactly the opposite thing. No South African, certainly nobody on this side of the House, would object to granting to the Government emergency powers in case of need, but the whole pith of the matter is that there is no need. These regulations have been in force, most of them, for six months. I think I am correct in saying that with the exception of making use of them, to throw a number of unoffending people including Union nationals into concentration camps, no use has been made of this regulation.

Good Lord!

Very well then. Let the hon. the Minister of Commerce and Industries tell us how many prosecutions have taken place for profiteering. We know that everybody who goes into a shop to make a purchase pays more for the article than he should pay.

That is entirely wrong.

[inaudible].

I am not a customer there, and I cannot say. No, Mr. Speaker, we have got ourselves into a precarious position now, and the right hon. the Minister of Defence is taking the right line. He is now beginning to scrap this Bill, and he is going well ahead with it, and I take his bowing before the storm as a sign of grace on his part. I admire him for it, and would remind him that we have an old saying in Afrikaans: “Hard-loop is ’n goeie ding, maar dan moet jy in tyd begin.” My only objection is that the hon. gentleman did not start running in time. At the first reading he had ample opportunity to withdraw his Bill, and if he had done so he would not have found himself in the ludicrous position in which he is to-day. As I said just now, six of these clauses have been scrap-ped or withdrawn, and with the passage of time I hope that the whole Bill will also be withdrawn or scrapped. I move as a further amendment—

I would like to second this amendment. I see from the annexure that it is stated—

Then comes the Regulation 6 bis. It seems strange to me that that refers to Regulation 6 (2), and if you go into that regulation you find that we are dealing with the case of a regulation which imposes burdens that are intolerable, and it is for that reason that I second that amendment. You find there, inter alia, that if any damage is caused, that compensation will be paid for it, but who will appraise the damages? Will it be the hon. members opposite who do not want to serve in a belligerent country but only here in South Africa? Will they possibly appraise the damage because, according to what we understand, those hon. members will go no further to do their duty? We find that occupation can be taken of a farm of a farmer and roads can be constructed through his lands. Now take the case of a citrus farmer who possibly already has a provincial road running through his orchards. If then a second road is to be built through the orchard, then it goes without saving that such a farm will become valueless to the farmer. If compensation is paid up to the quantum of the damage, then I can understand it, but there is no statement here as to the scale of the damage to be paid, nor how it will be appraised. That is what we would like to know here. Now I also notice in addition, under 6 (a)—

Here then a certain building can be pulled down, and I think that not only the cost can be taken into consideration which the building originally cost. Just take, e.g., the fact that since the war there has been an increase of all costs, not only of material but also of labour, and here the Minister takes powers only to repay the original cost. As the costs have risen considerably the Minister will appreciate that he ought to pay more compensation to-day. In Clause 6 (b) it is said—

If the defence force goes on to the farm of a farmer and wants to hold manoeuvres there, and there is firing with heavy guns, then possibly a crack is caused in a building or in a cement dam. Is the Minister of opinion that no damage will be caused to the farmer, and does the Minister not intend to pay such a farmer compensation? We would like to know this. Then it is also stated here in Paragraph 3—

Now I can imagine manoeuvres taking place on a farm, and to make it look like a real war there is possibly also an ambulance. The farmer comes and sees that it is an ambulance, and that amongst those who are serving, there are members of Parliament. As he knows that, he will realise that there will be no wounded there, and he will possibly inspan his donkeys and drive the ambulance off. Then, according to this regulation, he will be guilty of an offence. It is nothing but a case of merry-go-round regulations. Where it is found necessary to make roads through a farmer’s lands, I think that proper care should be taken to see that sufficient compensation is paid.

When the Minister of Defence has these regulations, for which he is now applying, on the Statute Book, then he will no longer require Section 2 of this Act, because these regulations go much further in every respect, than the regulations which he has already published.

Tell us about the women and children.

I want to confine myself here to Regulation No. 34 in connection with the—

We who get up here to-day to oppose the regulations are trying to do our duty to the country which is being put into danger to-day by these regulations. But then you have to listen to such ridiculous statements like that of the hon. member, who would be in a zoo, not to mention a worse place. I hope that the hon. member….

The hon. member must moderate his language.

I will always bow to your ruling, but the hon. member made an extremely distasteful interjection, and I was replying to that. This Regulation No. 34 will affect the interests of the farmers in the rural areas in future when these regulations have once been released in full blast on our heads. I want to point out that it reads as follows—

1. (1) Any member of the Union Defence Forces acting in the course of his duty as such, and any persons thereto authorised by the Minister of Defence may, for any purpose connected with the defence of the Union, the prosecution of the war, the securing of the public safety or the maintenance of essential supplies and services, do any work on any land or place anything in, on or over any land.

If this regulation is to be carried out according to the wording here, then no man in the country will have any say in future over his land, and then I see the danger that a farmer or any other person who owns property, will be so threatened in his activities, that it will not be possible for him to carry on. I want again to quote—

1. (2) If it appears to the Minister of Defence to be necessary or expedient to do so in the interests of the public safety, the defence of the Union, the efficient prosecution of the war or the maintenance of essential supplies and services, he may by order provide for prohibiting or restricting the doing on any particular land of any work specified in the order, or for the prohibiting or restricting the exercise of any rights to any particular land by any person.

What does it mean? It simply means that the Minister to attain his object, work that was done yesterday on any farm or property by any person, can lay down by a proclamation that it must be stopped. You find here the contradiction that in Clause 1 any person is empowered to do illegal work because it is regarded as necessary for the prosecution of the war, but the next day there is another proclamation that the continuance of the work should not go on because it is no longer regarded as necessary for the prosecution of the war. I can imagine how we shall have the same thing as in 1914, when someone in the defence force, out of hatred or jealousy of another person, injured the latter under the regulation. Now it may happen again here where a person in the defence force so interprets his duty that he can arrest and drive ahead of him on foot a farmer against whom he has some complaint, for miles and miles, just as has already happened in the past. Then they come and say: Now it is no longer in the interests of the war that we are acting in this way. It may happen that an officer gives a farmer an order to break down his fence, and that he causes such obstruction that the farmer cannot go on with his work. Just as they are half finished, the officer may say: We are now no longer continuing with the work, but we are now going to start at your neighbour’s. And then they go and continue the work on another farm. A person cannot go to the court, because this regulation makes it legal. That is what we on this side want to prevent, and although we shall hear sounds and noises which are strange to us, we on this side will nevertheless be thanked by the public for the attempts which we have made to prevent these Stalin and Hitler measures being put through. Then I read Section 3—

Now suppose that they stretch a wire over the road of a farm, which runs to his lands. If he removes it then they will punish him. That is the sort of thing which happens, and I hope that the Minister will be content with his previous regulations, and that he will not continue with this recommendation. Section 4 reads—

And Section 5—

Do you see what Clause 5 says? It says that subject to the provisions of Clause 6, compensation can be paid. But how can compensation be paid in that case? Will the farmer have to start a civil action which will cost him hundreds of pounds, and on what basis will it be done? I will quote Clause 6—

I can imagine that a farmer’s outbuildings may be demolished. For instance, his cow byres are demolished, although he is a man who makes his income out of dairy farming. The result of that is that the flow of milk from the cows will immediately become less. The position under this regulation is that he can send in a claim for the corrugated iron and the material, but his losses were not simply the corrugated iron and the material. He has lost his livelihood, and he cannot send in a claim in respect of it. Why is provision only being made for the materials which are lost, or for the damage which is done to the buildings? I think that the Prime Minister is a reasonable man, and that he will appreciate the difficulties of the farmer in that case, and that he will admit my point, that that clause in the proclamations at least ought to be altered. When a farmer’s buildings are demolished for defence purposes, then I think that it is only reasonable for him to be compensated, not only for the direct damage, but also for the damage which he suffers consequentially. The hon. member for Frankfort (Brig.-Gen. Botha) is a farmer, and I think that he will agree with me.

It will not happen on my farm.

Possibly the hon. member has the assurance of the Minister that it will not happen on his farm, but then he should assist me, because I have not got that assurance that it will not happen on my farm. But did the hon. member also obtain the assurance that it would not happen on the farm of one of his constituents?

If fighting takes place there, then it will happen, but not otherwise.

The hon. member does not want to say that it will not happen in the case of his constituents, but he is satisfied if he sits here with folded arms and can say that it will not happen to him. The hon. member must not try to get out of it in that way. It is said that the farmer will be paid out in respect of the material of his buildings which are being demolished, but when we are dealing with stables and with certain lands out of which the farmer is making his livelihood, then it is a difficult position for the farmer.

What about fowl runs?

There are numbers of people who make their living out of chicken farming, and it is a matter which is well worth our putting up a plea for. I want to mention it specially. If a farmer’s fowl runs are demolished, then he loses his means of livelihood, and under these regulations he will not have the right to institute a proper claim for the damage which he suffers in consequence of the policy which is being carried out. I think that that ought to be done, and I want to ask the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) to support me. In contradistinction of the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Sutter) he is acquainted with the difficulties with which the farmers have to battle, and he knows that if a farmer’s stables and barns are demolished, then he may suffer serious loss over and above the buildings which are destroyed. The hon. member for Springs does not know that, that is why he is shouting about fowl runs. I want to ask the hon. member for Kimberley (District) whether he thinks that it is fair for a farmer only to be compensated for the buildings and for the materials, and that he should not also be compensated for the indirect loss which he suffers because those buildings have been demolished, with the result that he, if e.g., he is a dairy farmer, suffers serious loss indirectly.

What does the Roads Board do?

The Roads Board was created under the last government, and it will never be so unreasonable as to cause people damage which will not be compensated for. I have great respect for the hon. member for Kimberley (District), and I want to ask him to assist us to see that the farmers are protected under these regulations. In drawing up these regulations it is sometimes very difficult to provide for everything, but when we, as practical farmers get up here and bring matters to the notice of the Government, the Government ought to give the necessary attention to the matters, and by adding a few words provision can be made in this regulation to protect the position of the farmers better. I would now like to go a little further and come to Proclamation No. 33, which reads as follows—

Those are the main provisions of this regulation, and it seems to me that this regulation was inserted because the Minister of Native Affairs made a certain promise in England, and that promise now has to be carried out. The Minister of Native Affairs also speaks here about the former Minister of Defence in and out of season, and whenever these things are dealt with then he shouts relevantly or irrelevantly: “It was Pirow’s promise that we would protect Kenya.” It really seems to me that the Minister of Native Affairs made that promise in England; he knows now that he will be called to account for it, and that is why he is hiding behind the big Pirow. His conscience is troubling him.

He is a brave fellow.

No one contests that. He arrived in England, and in a moment there was a stirring of his British blood; he made promises there, and he wanted to do his “little bit.” Now we cannot blame the Minister for looking for companionship, and I can also understand him, in the circumstances, seeking good company. As the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition said, he arrived in England like a cleanshaven Father Christmas. He wanted to give something to the British Empire, and he then promised our support in protecting British territories in Africa. I would like to refresh the Minister’s memory just a little, and I want to tell him that if he gave that assurance overseas, and if these regulations are now being made to give effect to those promises, and if he now feels that he must look for help, then he must go and look for help amongst his own people, and then he must not come and look to this side of the House for justification of his promises. He is right-minded by nature, and if he wants to stick to everything that is good in him then he must not now deviate from his good past and come and make himself guilty here of a thing which amounts to his distorting the words of other hon. members. I read, e.g., a statement by the Minister in the Sunday Times a little while ago. The Sunday Times is regarded as authoritative by hon. members opposite. Well, when the Minister of Native Affairs made his statement in London, the Sunday Times said in regard to it, that it was the only logical step, namely, that as Mr. Pirow, as Minister of Defence, at the time, said that South Africa would act the part of a big brother when those territories were threatened by nonEuropeans. The Minister of Native Affairs went further and said that the Union would also defend those territories against whosoever might attack them. The newspaper meant that it was the logical further step which the Minister of Native Affairs had taken. I do not remember the date when it appeared, but if hon. members will look up the files of the Sunday Times then they can satisfy themselves about it, and see what right they have to come and make the kind of interjection that was made by the Minister of Native Affairs. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) justified these regulations. I would like to see in the Hansard report what he said about the regulations. We who sit here have never heard that he touched upon the matter. I wonder whether he can tell me what the contents are of Regulation No. 34.

How many things is it necessary for you to know in order to live and die happy?

If the hon. member regards that as clever then I admit that I am stupid. He has not proved to us that he knows anything of the subject on which he spoke this afternoon. I want to give him the assurance that on this occasion he has not rendered any service to the people whom he represents.

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

When the business of this House was suspended, I was trying to reply to the speech which the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) made on behalf of the Government side in defence of the emergency regulations. Fortunately I had a little time to try and find out what the hon. member said as to the necessity for these regulations, but you will understand that after trying to find out for two hours what he said, I could not find anything at all. In the absence of facts to defend these regulations, the hon. member tried to preach morals in a cheap way. I gained the impression that the hon. member was trying to cool down after Hopetown and Douglas. I am told that the hon. member on one occasion made a trip through the air from a lorry into a tree. That convinces me that blood is thicker than water. I was pointing out that Regulation 34 and also Regulation 33 contain provisions which to my mind are very offensive and should be revised, but hon. members on the other side kept interrupting me and it was almost impossible for me to continue and to say what I wanted to say in connection with this matter. Not that hon. members found much fault with my statements, but as they are deprived of the opportunity of saying what they want to say, they make interjections. They are muzzled, and as a result we no longer hear speeches from the other side, but only noises. Had it not been for hon. members here who faithfully supported me I would have been unable to continue my speech. I am very much concerned about Regulation 33. It seems to me that once more the Prime Minister has formed a new policy. On the 4th September I understood, and I believe the nation understood, that the Prime Minister gave the assurance that, whilst we were breaking off our relations with Germany, volunteers would not be allowed to go and fight elsewhere, but our forces would be kept here for the defence of the Union. That is how we understood it. They would only be used in terms of the Defence Act, but now we find that this regulation makes provision for the sending of volunteers overseas, and of course we will have to pay pensions to the dependents of those who do not return. We will also have to pay wages to these so-called volunteers for services rendered to the country. I have in my hands a letter from a widow who writes that her young boy had to register with the Citizen Force as a citizen of the country. When he signed on, he was asked whether he wanted to join up as a volunteer or not. He told them that he did not want to be a volunteer. They replied that he could only join up as a volunteer. Now I want to know whether it is the practice to take in these boys as so-called volunteers and to force them in this manner to become volunteers and then to use them outside our borders under this regulation of the Minister of Defence? The mother writes to me and wants to know what the position is, whether her son is a volunteer or not. He has been bluffed into it and has become a volunteer, but she informs me that her child does not want to volunteer or to render any service except in defence of our country. Will the Prime Minister please explain, because I believe that there are a number of these boys who have joined up in South Africa as volunteers under the assurance of the previous Minister of Defence to the mothers of the country that their sons would be excluded from service outside our country, and that they would not be used for any service except for the protection of our own country. I think that was the explicit assurance given to the nation. Now I want to know from the Prime Minister if, when he sends volunteers to parts outside the Union, he will give them a choice, and that those who are only prepared to fight for the defence of their own country will be released from service outside. I want to know what the position is and whether the Prime Minister will give those boys who signed on under a misapprehension a chance to withdraw. I understand that an English-speaking lad of the Special Service Battalion yesterday damaged the Hitler-Chamberlain monstrosity in Adderley Street with his bayonet. I think he deserves our thanks.

The hon. member should confine himself to the motion.

I abide by your ruling, but I want to point out how even English-speaking boys who have volunteered are against this British jingoistic movement in our country and only want to defend their country and people. For those boys this kind of puppet show is too much. If the Prime Minister wants to do something useful, he should promulgate another regulation to put a stop to this kind of thing. It hurts the feelings of certain people. I know the Prime Minister does not approve of such things.

The hon. member is again out of order.

I only want to ask whether the Prime Minister will be prepared to promulgate a new regulation to that effect, because such a regulation will meet with our approval. If we do not succeed in voting down these regulations and protect the country against these regulations, then I want to ask the Prime Minister to act very carefully and tactfully in this connection. We very often have Naboth’s vineyards which are uprooted for a trifling reason. We do not want that. We would like the Prime Minister to adopt a regulation to prevent such a thing. The nine regulations in front of us are to my mind nine very important Bills. I have not got the time to discuss the matter as a whole, the House will have an opportunity to discuss them as a whole at a later stage, but I want to ask the Prime Minister to see to it, I sincerely hope he will do so, that when these regulations are passed with the assistance of his majority in the House, they should be applied in such a way that they will cause as little irritation as possible. I have referred to payment where property is damaged, and I have also discussed the matter of volunteers, and I pointed out how the Minister of Native Affairs in a moment of enthusiasm, I think it is in his blood, made a statement in London for the carrying out of which statement we have now to pass regulations, but I hope the Prime Minister will succeed in applying these regulations in a calm and considerate manner and that with his well-known administrative ability he will apply them sensibly. We will promise the Minister that if he does that, we will again do what we did after the 4th September. The hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) assisted the Minister, and as a result of his attitude these regulations are not even necessary. He took upon himself a grave responsibility, and we all share that responsibility, but the greatest responsibility in this connection is that he asked the people not to become panicky, not to revolt on account of their suspicion that something might go wrong. He said that every citizen should do his duty if necessary, and we are prepared to do our duty, but he also promised them that he would see to it that their sons would not be used for a wrong purpose. That caused general satisfaction, and the Prime Minister should be grateful to him. We all did our best to maintain peace in this country, and I plead with the Prime Minister to see to it that irresponsible persons will not be entrusted with the carrying out of these regulations.

I want to refer to the proclamation on page 3 of the reprint of these war measures, dealing with patents and copyrights of subjects of enemy countries. It says here—

1. (2) Where any person in Germany is or at any time on or after the sixth day of September, 1939, has been, the proprietor of any patent, design, registered trade mark or copyright, or entitled to any interest therein (including a licence, in the case of any patent, design or copyright)….

That is to say people who are entitled to work here under a patent—

We notice the object of this proclamation. The object is to take away all benefits attached to patents, designs and copyright from persons who own those patents, designs or copyrights in an enemy state. One can understand that in a time of war. We are also dealing in the same manner with enemy property and credits in our country and we place those temporarily in the care of a commissioner, the Government, or the state to take possession of such rights until peace is declared and we know what arrangements are made. But now we find that in the case of patents, designs and copyrights a different course is followed. There is no question of the Government on behalf of the state seizing the rights of enemy subjects, no, it says here—

1. 3. In the case of any licence of any patent, design or copyright owned as set out in Regulation 2, the Registrar may, on the application of the licensee or of any other person interested in the patent, design or copyright, by order—
   1. (a) revoke the licence;
      We notice that people in the Union, Union subjects or others who have taken out licences under certain patents, can lose those licences because they can be revoked immediately. Or—
   2. (b) revoke or vary the conditions subject to which the licence has effect;
      The conditions subject to which the licence has effect can also be varied, or—
   3. (c) revoke or vary any of the provisions of a contract relating to the licence in so far as they relate thereto.
      An order for a variation made under this sub-regulation may be revoked or varied by a subsequent order made thereunder.

In other words, the Registrar can practically do as he likes with licences which have been issued to people for all these years under patents in our country. Possibly a man has had established rights for years and has built his business upon those rights. Now his licence can be revoked and varied and they can do with it what they like. But now I come to a very serious aspect of these regulations. We find in Clause 4 that whenever the Registrar of Patents is satisfied— we know what the satisfaction of an official in such a case amounts to—it is the satisfaction of a Minister or an official, or an interested party, and it says here—

1. 4. (1) Whenever the Registrar of Patents is satisfied that it is in the public interest that the rights conferred by any patent of which any person in Germany is, or has at any time in or after the sixth day of September, 1939, been the proprietor, whether alone or jointly with another person, or in which a person in Germany has, or has at any time on or after that date had, an interest, should be exercised, he may, on the application of any approved person, at his discretion, make an order granting a licence (including an exclusive licence) under such patent to such applicant on such terms and conditions as he may think fit. Such power may be exercised notwithstanding the existence of any licence under the patent.

Here we find in Clause 4 that the Registrar receives authority to interfere with the vested rights of a licence holder. But that is not all he is authorised to do, he has also the power to grant the rights under such licences to other persons, and then we come to the very dangerous principle, the authority of the Government to do a very dangerous thing. If this matter were under the personal supervision of the Minister, if the Minister were himself responsible for the, variations in those licences, then we would be in a position to put questions to the Minister in this House, and the Prime Minister, where he is acting in his capacity on behalf of the state, would be very careful. But now we find that this matter is entrusted to the care of a person who is, I admit, in the civil service, but I ask whether in these times when we hear such a lot about graft, whether we can entrust these matters to an official. Here it says that in the case of a man who is in possession of a licence which has been granted under an overseas patent, it will not be upheld and we are not going to allow such a person to continue his business under such a licence but we are going to revoke that licence. Here we have all the elements, all the necessary conditions for the development of a terror such as we have experienced in connection with other matters which I do not want to refer to at present. We have already discussed in this House the problem of internment and we are satisfied that the Government is giving its serious consideration to this matter, but we want to point out that we do not want a repetition of such methods, methods which in this case would not be applied to persons, but to the possessions of persons. That is to say they will be applicable to money, vested rights of people who are making a living under those licences. There are numbers of Union citizens who are making a living under licences to-day. We want to have the assurance, and for that reason we are opposed to the regulations, that such methods will not be employed. I am convinced that the Prime Minister will do his utmost to prevent such methods being applied. But it is impossible for any Minister to keep an eye on every detail of his department, it is impossible for a Minister to supervise all the work of his department and to know exactly what is happening in each case. For that reason I contend that these proclamations should not be passed in their present form. We are not entitled to move amendments, we are not entitled to move the revision of these proclamations, but it is quite clear that the Government should do so. In the case of property, the state seizes the property of enemy subjects, but here that is not the position. For that reason we enter our protest. Vested interests of the greatest value are in this case not seized by the state, but the Registrar can transfer such interests to private persons. What private persons? We come to 4 (2)—

Then we come to 4 (3)—

This is the man to whom the licence can be granted by the Registrar. The Registrar has the power to grant the licence to any person, whether in the past he had an interest in that particular patent or not. If that method is applied then we know that these licences will not get into the hands of the proper people, but they will get into the hands of people who are clever enough to smell out where something may be got without paying for it, at the expense of those people who have done all the work and built up the business. Those licences will get into the hands of people who understand the art of exercising a certain amount of influence with the right people. Who are those people? In the first place we have the Registrar, and then we know also that a considerable number of officials under the Registrar can be influenced too. Pressure can be brought to bear before the matter is submitted to the Minister. We have already experienced in this country the tragedy that in our country people believe that if you offer the right price you can get into touch with the highest circles in the land. Thank heaven that is not correct. But yet we should make sure that the business interests of people who have built up their businesses over a number of years in South Africa and who have had certain licences should be protected as far as possible. We should be very careful when dealing with the interests of Union citizens. But there is a much easier way out, and that is that all the rights covered by this clause, licences, copyrights and financial interests, should be handed over by the Registrar not to other persons but to the State, to the official appointed by the Treasury to take charge of enemy property. That would be the clear and proper way, and we on this side ask why that course is not being followed, and why the Government now follows this roundabout way, this undesirable course, where rights are given to people to acquire licences from the Registrar, licences which formerly belonged to other people, also Union citizens. We next come to subparagraph (4)—

I say again that we should go very warily when granting such powers, whereby an order can be given which results in the loss of rights and properties of people. Then we come to (5)—

Yes, when money has to be paid, it is paid to the Treasury, but where profits are made under the rights mentioned by me, they are allowed to remain in private hands. In this connection I must seriously plead with the Government not to pass this measure in its present form. The Minister can effect alterations, even if we cannot do so, and after having pointed out the extremely dangerous position that is being created, I think the Minister will realise that where we cannot effect alterations, it is in the interests of the country and much more in the interests of the good name of South Africa and the Government that the Government itself should amend these revisions, that monetary interests of these people should not be taken away and handed over to other persons, but that the State temporarily should seize those financial interests itself. I earnestly plead with the Government to do that. We next come to sub-paragraph (6), and there we find—

We know what happened during and after the last war. We know that serious difficulties arose after the war because trade marks had been taken away from firms who had manufactured goods and who knew how to manufacture those articles. Sometimes it was the question of medicines with poisonous ingredients, which had been manufactured in an enemy state, and those licences had been handed over to other people. They had been handed to people of whom we were not at all sure that they knew how to manufacture these articles.

But they knew how to sell those articles, whether they contained 50 per cent, of quinine or whether they should have contained 100 per cent. of that ingredient. I say that it is a very dangerous thing, not only in connection with medicines containing poison, but also in all other respects where an opportunity is given by the State to people to rob others and to take what does not belong to them. When rights are given to people by the State to do these things, we know what is going to happen. The articles to be manufactured will not be of the right quality. They will take and steal, and we are now as a State affording them the opportunity of stealing.

That is encouraged.

Yes, in this proclamation there is an invitation to anybody and everybody to apply to the Registrar, if they take an interest in a certain article and they want to get hold of that article which formerly was manufactured by an enemy state. Now this is made legal by the State and we are faced with a very serious position. But that is not all. We have noticed how the State advances step by step in connection with these matters. First we had the procedure in respect of the internment of people. Now we are dealing with their material possessions. But there is something else besides material possessions. We next come to copyrights, rights covered by an International Agreement. In connection with those rights, which have always been protected, an attempt is also made in times of war to appropriate those rights. I notice that an hon. minister on the other side is reading Mein Kampf, and I just wondered to whom copyrights are paid. I feel inclined to apply personally, because there must be something in it when we notice how the Minister on the other side is studying the book.

Probably the Unity Fund will get the copyright.

Possibly not only individual persons but different bodies may also apply. Possibly there are bodies who will apply for the copyright of certain publications which are very popular in South Africa, and it is significant that they are popular not on the Opposition side but on the Government benches. It does not only apply to the copyright of a book like Mein Kampf, it also applies to music and all products of the brain. It covers all kinds of intellectual work, in connection with which the authors have obtained rights and in connection with which our country has agreed that those rights should be protected. I realise that during a war nobody should be allowed to forward money to an enemy state, and I, therefore, fully expected that the Government in South Africa would treat this matter of copyright in the same way as they are dealing with money belonging to the enemy. Where necessary such moneys are seized by an official who has been appointed by the Government. I expected the Government to do the same in respect of copyrights. What becomes of the money collected on practically 60 per cent. of the music played in South Africa, in our halls, in our bioscopes, at concerts and everywhere? In the ordinary course, there is a man appointed in our country by the International Art Society to collect those rights in our country. He has to pay over the money thus collected to subjects of other states, and in my opinion the money collected should be paid over to the Government. Now the Government comes along and says that any person can approach the Registrar and make application for the copyright of a certain work. That is an unheard of thing. What do we find?

The Knights of the Truth most probably want the copyright of the Horst Wessel song.

They do not need that. They are in a position to collect money without any difficulty. They simply say how much they require and they will get it. But in this instance we are dealing with an infringement such as we have never heard of before, an infringement on the rights even of artists, people who work with their brain, and there is no necessity to interfere with those rights. I suppose that what is actually happening is that the Minister thought fit to draw up certain proclamations before we come to the War Measures Bill, and those proclamations were drawn up in a hurry in order to submit something to Parliament on account until the end of the year, but these proclamations on account were drawn up so hurriedly that they should be revised. I hope the Government will revise them before going on with these measures. We cannot propose amendments, but I believe the Minister is in a position to do so. Then we come to the fifth section of the annexure—

1. (a) accept, suspend or refuse any application made by or on behalf of any person in Germany for the registration of a patent, design, trade mark or copyright; and
2. (b) seal any such patent and register any such design, trade mark or copyright.

That word “notwithstanding” is the snag. The Registrar can practically do anything, but then we come to (2)—

Here we notice that a man who is a favourite of the Registrar and who has already received favours, is not really entitled by this proclamation to take over the patent—that he cannot do—out he gets all the rights to go to a court and defend himself. He can be subpoenaed and appear before a court in connection with anything relating to a licence or a patent. In other words, he receives legal protection for what is being done to appropriate certain things. Then we come to the very important Regulations 8 and 8 bis referred to in this section. Regulation 8 says—

And then we come to 8 bis—

1. (1) In this regulation “Minister” means the Minister of Commerce and Industries or any other Minister acting in his stead.
2. (2) Any person who, without the Minister’s permission in writing, directly or indirectly, sends any goods to a person in Germany or receives or orders any goods from a person in Germany or carries on any business transactions with a person in Germany, shall be guilty of an offence, and if any person has sent or attempted to send or has received or attempted to receive goods in contravention of this subregulation, the Minister may order that the goods in question shall be forfeited to the state, and he may dispose thereof as he thinks fit.

That is quite reasonable, but now we have the extraordinary position that they are consistent in the regulations which have been carefully drawn, but in the case of the regulations which have been framed hurriedly in order to submit them to Parliament before the War Measures Bill is passed, we find that there is no consistency and no proper attention paid to the framing of these regulations. We have, for instance, No. 6 of these hurriedly drawn up regulations—

The Registrar has to keep secret any invention in connection with the patent. That is quite reasonable. All is fair in love and war. One can well understand that the Government wants to know all the particulars of a patent, and the Registrar has to keep them secret, but whereas a certain measure of common sense was used in connection with Regulation 6, we ask why the same common sense was not applied when dealing with the property of people. Why should their property be dished out to favourites? It is quite clear that we are faced again with one of these peculiar and dark matters which irritate, which give one the impression that favours are distributed, that pressure is brought to bear from outside to obtain certain things, and unfortunately the Minister cannot see far enough, does not realise why we are throwing light on these regulations. We do so in order to achieve modification of these amendments in the interests of the country. Under 9 it says—

Extraordinarily enough the Registrar does not possess the power when a patent or a licence of a value possibly of £50,000 is involved, to collect money. He has the authority to give away and to grant such a licence, but he has not got the power to say, here we have something of the value of five thousand pounds, or ten thousand pounds or twenty thousand pounds, and he cannot demand money, he may not sell, but he may give away. It is quite correct that he should not be in a position to sell. The state alone has a right to appropriate those things, as long as the law lasts, in expectation of the settlement after the war. That was done in the last war. The Registrar can have a mass of forms printed which have to be filled in. We know those forms. On those forms certain references are required, enabling the Registrar to ascertain who the possessors of those licences, copyright, patents, etc., are, who live in enemy countries. This opens up a very dangerous position for our country, a danger threatens, the danger that we will introduce in this connection what is known in America as graft. For that reason I say that we on this side have to do everything in our power to prevent the machinery of the state being used in order to dish out favours, not by the Minister or the officials, but as a result of the position created where influence can be brought to bear, the danger exists that subordinate persons are approached in order to use their influence to attain certain ends. That is what we want to prevent.

I think it is quite evident that the most striking phenomenon of this debate is the tremendous and almost noisy enthusiasm on the Government’s side in connection with this Bill. The enthusiasm of hon. members over there is such that one might almost use Macauley’s words in regard to the support which the Government is getting: “And e’en the ranks of Rondebosch could scarce forbear to cheer.”

You are really funny.

There we have the hon. member for Rondebosch (Dr. Moll) again, but I must honestly admit that I do not know what he is saying. Anyhow, we do not blame him. It is very difficult for us to analyse the arguments of hon. members opposite, because arguments from that side are conspicuous by their absence. If one considers the question why such silence is being maintained on the other side of the House, one is forced to the conclusion that a number of hon. members over there have a wrong conception of the regulations. They are apparently under the impression that the Government already has the right to put a stop to sounds and noises. Evidently we are busy here with an experiment. I understand that experiments are being made in connection with all the regulations, to test their effectiveness. They are now testing the regulations in connection with sounds and noises on hon. members opposite. When the debate started the regulation was not yet in force, but it had hardly started before the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) got up. I am afraid you will call me to order if I talk about the noises coming from that hon. member, but in any case the noisy speech made by him was of such a nature that the Whips opposite immediately received instructions to make an experiment, and exactly in the same way as blackouts take place in the large towns in Europe, so it was decided that the party opposite should be temporarily blacked out until the danger was over. It may be correct that hon. members opposite have unlimited confidence in the Prime Minister; they may believe that the Prime Minister has never in all his life done anything which was not quite right. I can conceive that hon. members like the Minister of Justice have been fooling this for a long time, together with other hon. members like the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) and the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler). They have often testified to the fact that they are consistent in their admiration of the Prime Minister, and that they are convinced that in all his life he has never yet done anything wrong. Or is it that they themselves do not believe in the regulations? Or is it that hon. members like the hon. member for Frankfort (Brig.-Gen. Botha) are in a state of slumber.

When the danger comes I shall be there, but I doubt whether you will be there.

Oh, the hon. member is awake now. It may be that hon. members themselves have no faith in the regulations, because it is unlikely that they should want to expedite the business of the House by their silence, as the Prime Minister himself has laid it down how long this debate is to last. He himself has laid it down that the debate is to last one day, consequently even if hon. members opposite should take part in the debate, it will still not last longer than one day. I therefore feel that we cannot come to any other conclusion but that the hon. member for Frankfort has failed to read the regulations for fear of being awakened from his slumbers, or that other members have studied them and feel so ashamed of these regulations that they cannot find a word of praise for them. I am opposed to the regulations because primarily I am opposed to government by regulations. There has been a tendency in the last ten or twenty years in democratic countries to govern more and more by means of regulations. The former Chief Justice of England wrote a book which was published about ten years ago, in which he warned democratic countries against this tendency. We find to-day that laws are being passed in which the Government is being given the right to make regulations to an extent far in excess of what used to be the case, and far in excess of a conception aiming at the maintenance of democracy. In view of the fact that a warning has been issued repeatedly in the past against this system of government by regulation, by nobody less than the Prime Minister himself when he was Leader of the Opposition—in view of the fact that we have heard these warnings repeatedly in the past, it is strange that the very person who warned against government by regulations should now want to abolish parliamentary government entirely, and should want to govern purely by regulations.

The remarks of the hon. member would have been applicable during the second reading, they are not relevant now.

I am pointing to the proposed regulations which are to be added to the other regulations, and I am opposed to them.

That matter was decided on the second reading, all we are concerned with now are these further regulations.

Very well, then I shall put it this way. If these regulations are to be added the danger to democracy is still greater than it was when this Bill was passed in its second reading. These regulations which we are now dealing with have been taken into the Bill, and they give the Prime Minister the power to deal with a large number of matters mentioned in the regulations; they give him, and a dozen of his colleagues, the power to appropriate even greater rights unto themselves. I do not propose going into the matter any further, but I want to make this point, that I am opposed to these regulations for the same reason that I was opposed to the second reading, because they will make something which is bad even worse. May I now be allowed to touch on a few of the regulations, and to point out why I am in general opposed to them? I do not propose going into details. I shall mention my objections to them in the light of my general views on the question of government by regulations. The first regulation which we have here is the one which says that the Government can prevent us from trading with any company, or with any person in any country in the world. My objections to this regulation is principally — in addition to the many and well founded objections raised by this side of the House, and which I do not wish to repeat — I say my objections against this regulation is that South Africa is unable to lay down who are the persons with whom we are not allowed to trade; if South Africa were able to do so., and if it were a decision taken in the interest of South Africa, and South Africa alone, our objections to this regulation would to a large extent fall away. But what is happening to this regulation is that we can take over the so-called black list of Great Britain and apply it to South Africa; That may be in the interest of Great Britain in connection with her war, and with a view to take away German trade for the future—it may be in the interest of Great Britain to place certain firms on the black list, and in that way to secure for Great Britain the trade which at present is in the hands of Germany, but although it may be in the interest of England to do this, it may not be in the interest of South Africa, because a great many of the commercial firms appearing on the list are firms which were busy, through their branches, establishing new markets for South African products. If we accept this regulation, we should accept it because it is in the interest of South Africa, but we are now asked to accept it whether it is in the interest of South Africa or not. We are slavishly taking these provisions over from another country, without enquiring whether it is in the interest of South Africa that a particular firm should be on the black list. My objection to the regulation dealing with patents is of a more general nature. It may be necessary in times of war to take over certain patent rights from an enemy country, or even patents which are not patents of an enemy country. There are certain things which are necessary for a country, for instance drugs and certain types of medicine. If those commodities are produced in another country, and it is impossible for us to obtain those medicines or drugs from such a country, whether it is an enemy country, or any other country, and friendly countries have not got sufficient stocks to export, in such a case I say, whether it is an enemy country or not, if we need those commodities here in South Africa we have the right to take over the patents and to produce the particular commodity which is indispensable to this country. Nobody can have any objection to that; that is to say where one takes over a patent in order to produce a certain article in one’s own country, when it is impossible to import it, and it is essential to have that particular commodity in the country, one is entitled to produce it. But now I want to ask this—is that the object of this regulation in regard to patents? No, it is not the object, not for one moment. Let us cast our minds back to the history of the past, and let us see what happened in the last war; nobody will pretend that the Prime Minister’s Government, and the governments of the allies are now animated by higher ethical conceptions than in the last war. First of all patent rights were taken over at that time because it was felt that the enemy trade would be hurt in that way—not only during the war, because in any case trade was stopped at that time, but after the war. It was nothing but a system of theft. The manufacture of goods at the time of the war amounted practically to theft. I particularly have in mind medicines and machinery, such as for instance the Bosch Magneto, which in those days, in 1914, was necessary for a good motor car. It has been stated that America came into the war for no other reason but the Bosch Magneto, and we have reason to believe that there was an element of truth in that contention. This regulation regarding patents has no other object but to steal the patents of other countries, so that after the war they will be able to hurt the trade of those countries. We can even go further, because this regulation gives the right, not only of taking over patents from a person who is an enemy subject, but even if that person should have a very slight interest in the patent, such a step may be taken. If a company like Satmar, for instance, desires to manufacture petrol out of coal under a German patent, and ninety per cent. of that patent is the property of South African subjects, the Government still has the right to take that patent away from the South African subjects and to hand it over to any person, whether he is a member of the knights of the truth or not A further regulation deals with the question of entering on private property. Respect for private property is one of the most fundamental rights of democracy, and where the Minister of Defence is appropriating to himself the right of expropriating practically any private property, and is assuming the right of entry on any private property, even at the command of subordinate individuals, he is undermining that fundamental right of democracy. I do not think it is necessary for me at this stage to utter a word of warning against the efforts of the right hon. the Prime Minister to undermine democracy, because we have had so much evidence of that, that if anyone does not realise this fact by now it is no use warning him again. Then we have a regulation in regard to roads and traffic; it is extraordinary, however, that this regulation does not fall under the regulation dealing with roads, but that it falls under the regulation dealing with lights and sounds. This regulation is really applicable to hon. members opposite.

The whole of the regulation is not applicable to them.

Yes, there are no lights among members opposite — it is only the reference to sounds which is applicable to them. But what does the Government mean by lights and sounds? We find this in the regulation—

Is not this evidence of the careless manner in which these proclamations have been drafted, because under 37 we also find a regulation dealing with the control of traffic, but the use of the roads on which the traffic takes place falls under lights and sounds. What is interesting and dangerous in connection with this Regulation No. 36 dealing with lights and sounds is that the carrying out of same is entrusted to a certain organisation by the name of “Essential Services Protection Corps”. It is laid down that those people shall have the right to tell me whether I shall be permitted to carry my grapes over certain roads or not, and those people will be able to exercise control in connection with traffic over those roads. If it is essential for control to be exercised over our roads, I can understand that control being placed under the military authorities, or under the police, or it may be placed under the control of a special traffic constable, or a traffic officer, but to place the traffic over such roads under the control of a body such as the Essential Services Protection Corps, which is a mixed corps of whites and non-whites, means the introduction of a new principle in South Africa. In the past we have always in our police service had coloured and Native constables. They have been good constables, but their activities have always been confined to people of their own race and colour, but where we are now proceeding to give non-whites the right to regulate the traffic over our roads, roads which are used by whites, and even to prevent the whites from doing certain things on those roads, a new principle is being established in South Africa which, in view of the relationship between whites and non-whites in South Africa, must constitute a serious danger for the future. Then we come to the other regulation in connection with light houses, and we know that under those regulations the Prime Minister is given the right to extinguish light houses. If one remembers what happened outside Durban, one would have expected ths Minister to have provided rather for a double number of light houses, instead of extinguishing the light houses which we have here to-day. But one can never know what is going to happen in Durban in any circumstances. Another interesting point emanates from the regulation applicable to our volunteers overseas. Why should the Defence Act be applied in this manner to volunteers overseas? Did not the Prime Minister on the 4th September give us the assurance that South Africa would not take part in any war beyond the Union of South Africa, or beyond South Africa? Why then should we pass this regulation which will be applicable to volunteers proceeding to other parts of the world? Are we not entitled to conclude from that that the Prime Minister has already made plans to send volunteers to go and take part in the war in other parts of the world? And I feel that this small regulation which is being introduced here, gives evidence of the policy on the part of the Government, which is in direct conflict with the policy laid down by the Prime Minister in the beginning of September. It shows us that the Government intends to throw overboard that policy of defending South Africa only in South Africa, and that South Africa will very shortly be dragged into the war by our troops being sent to other parts of the world. No, these regulations are unnecessary. There regulations are in conflict with good government, and they are bad, and for that reason I hope that they will be dealt with in the manner they should be dealt with.

I have risen to add a few words to what has already been said by previous speakers about these regulations, and I first of all wish to register my emphatic protest against the violation of democracy by the Prime Minister. At a time like the present, at a time of a Ripley war, he comes along — after we have been at war for six months, although up to the present not a single German has been discovered anywhere in Africa, at a time when we are not menaced by any danger—and he simply throws all democratic government overboard. Why has the Prime Minister, who has always pretended to be a great democrat, now suddenly decided to rule South Africa by means of regulations? We have a Parliament here with two chambers—a House of Assembly and the Senate — they have been in session for some time, and they have had every opportunity to pass ordinary legislation in the usual manner. But that does not suit the Prime Minister, for he comes here with regulations and further regulations and with additions to the regulations, as only a dictator can. I wish to confine myself this evening particularly to Regulation No. 36, and I want to say that this regulation appears to me to be very unfair to the people of this country. We notice first of all that under this regulation the Minister of Defence, or any person thereto authorised by him, may, by order, provide for a whole series of important matters. The “person” is not defined under this regulation, and it may be a coloured man, a Native, a Hottentot, or a Griqua, and the Minister may authorise such a person to carry out this particular regulation. Why is it not stated here that this “person” shall be a white person? Surely this is a white man’s country; it is the white man who has to uphold the law in this country and carry it out. But the Minister of Defence may hand over his powers to such persons, and one of those powers, for instance, is to prevent the use of certain roads and to control the traffic over those roads. He can prevent people from driving over those roads, he can prevent certain vehicles from going over those roads. He can also prevent certain lights from being used on those roads. Here in Cape Town, near Mouille Point, we have an instance where certain lights are not allowed to appear on a particular piece of road. About 500 yards of that road are closed off after 7 o’clock in the evening. Are the motor-car lights dangerous after that time, although all the other lights in the houses and on the streets are shining brightly? In this way the private life of the citizens of this country are being interfered with and all this may be done under this regulation by a native, or by a coloured man. Let me read sub-section (c) in which it is laid down that the Minister, or the person authorised by him thereto, may provide—

This person exercising this control may be a coloured man, and he need not even give his instructions in writing. If the Minister of Defence had laid it down in his regulation that such a person must be a white person and that the order must be given in writing, one might have said something for a regulation of this kind. I am not allowed to move any amendment, but this shows the careless manner in which our catch as catch can Government has had these regulations drafted, and that in time of peace! There has been six months of war, but in this country we still have peace, because not a shot has been fired here, and not a single German has made his appearance here. Yet the Government comes along with this type of regulation. Let us look at (3) which reads—

We notice that a particular corps is mentioned here, and any white person, any coloured person, and any Griqua can be a member of this corps, and they may enter any premises and enforce orders under this regulation. The stable boy of the Minister of Defence may be a member of this corps, and under the regulations he will be able to search houses, and do all the things mentioned in the regulation. In a previous regulation we have the definition of this corps, and we find that this corps is described as follows—

1. (1) For the purpose of assisting the South African Police and for the protection of buildings or premises situated in an urban area, there shall be established a corps of civic guards which shall be designated the “Essential Services Protection Corps.”
2. (2) The Secretary for Defence shall, subject to the Minister of Defence, have the command, superintendence and control of the corps, and may appoint fit and proper persons to be officers and members of the corps, and may suspend, reduce, dismiss or discharge any officer or member of the corps. Any such power may, subject to the approval of the Secretary for Defence, be exercised by any officer of the corps not below the rank of captain in respect of any portion of the corps, over which such officer exercises authority, subject to the right of appeal to the Secretary for Defence.
3. (3) (i) the ranks and designation of the corps shall be as follows, and in the order of precedence here given:
   1. (a) European officers:
      Colonel.
      Lieutenant-Colonel.
      Major.
      Captain.
      Lieutenant.
   2. (b) European other ranks:
      Regimental or Company Sergeant Major, or
      Sergeant.
      Private.
   3. (c) Non-European other ranks:
      Sergeant.
      Private.
      The officers shall perform such duties as are assigned to them by the Secretary for Defence.
4. (ii) Every European officer of the corps and every member of the crops above the rank of Sergeant and every European member of the corps who is detailed in writing by an officer commanding a company shall be deemed to have the powers of a special constable appointed in terms of section 31 of the Police Act, 1912.

It is this corps which has to exercise these functions and as is evident from the proclamation, there are also three non-white subordinates, sergeants and privates. It does not say in the regulation that only white persons, or persons above the rank of sergeant, shall be allowed to do these things. It only says that the Minister can authorise any of these persons to perform those functions. I now wish to make an appeal to the Prime Minister. Why is it necessary to defy and to taunt the people of this country with this kind of thing? Is it possible that this particular regulation has slipped in by mistake? I do not believe that the Prime Minister has had the time to go into this question, and that is why it is so regrettable that we on this side of the House should not have the opportunity of proposing the necessary amendments and of carefully scrutinising these regulations. We only have to look at the other side, the Government side. Those jabroers certainly have not taken any trouble about going into these regulations. Not one of the United Party supporters have got up here to say boo or bah on this subject. One member of the Labour Party had the temerity to get up but the Government whip was immediately applied to such effect that he was the last one to say a word. I want to say a few words in connection with regulation No. 33. I want to ask the Prime Minister whether it is not high time for him to lay down a definite policy here. Let him tell us once and for all “We shall only send volunteers to go and fight beyond the Zambesi,” and then he should at the same time tell us how far they will go; will they go as far as Central Africa, as far as the Equator, as far as Abyssinia, or even further North? We are beginning to have serious doubts. If we study the speech made by the right hon. the Prime Minister on the 4th September we find that he said there, and I want to study this very carefully, that the Union should only take emergency measures for the defence of its own territory and of its African interests. The Prime Minister said “We should” do this, but he did not say that it would be done. He said that the Government “should not,” as in the last war, send forces overseas, but he did not say that he would not do so. Now let the Prime Minister be good enough to give us the assurance that the people who have joined up as volunteers will not be sent overseas, and will not be sent across the Zambesi. I joined as a volunteer in July. I am convinced that no hon. member on this side of the House would hesitate to join if South Africa should really be in danger, and be menaced by an enemy—even if it were in Kenya. In such an eventually I and my friends will come along and we shall assist the Prime Minister to fight for the protection of our country and people. But this sort of playing fast and loose makes us uneasy—the Prime Minister comes here and tells us that we are not going to fight and that we should not go overseas, and then he comes along with this type of regulation—that sort of thing makes us very uneasy. The Minister of Native Affairs, speaking overseas, declared with great bravado that South Africa would protect British territories in Africa. What does it all mean? Are we to accept the statement of the Minister of Native Affairs that we are going to protect British territories, and are we going to do so by means of volunteers? Is there going to be any commandeering? Or how is it going to be done? The Minister spoke about the firing squads settling round the fire. If South Africa should ever be in dangér we shall defend our country, and we shall not leave our fellow-Afrikaners in the lurch, but I want the Prime Minister to take us into his confidence and to say, “Look here, that will be our enemy, and those will be our boundaries, and if possible we shall not go beyond those boundaries.” I now come to another point, and that is this, who is going to pay the expense if we have to go and fight in Kenya or Abyssinia or Palestine, or if we should have to go and fight along the Suez Canal? If we should have to go there would it be for the protection of South Africa, or of the British Empire? If it is for the British Empire, who is going to bear the cost? I hope the Minister will make it clear to us that volunteers who are sent there will go there at the expense of the Imperial Government.

I think we shall have to make a collection among your people.

Oh, yes, I am sure the hon. member will go along, because “loyal Louwtjie” is a soldier to-day.

And you are sure not to go.

When I joined in July I joined for the protection of my country, and I am not going to wait if it is for the protection of my country, and I knew that war was near.

When there was peace you joined, but when the war came you ran away.

The hon. member knows more about running away than I do. I did not run away to another constituency like the hon. member did after he got a bad beating at Wodehouse. Quite a number of people joined in the same way as I did, and we want to know what our position as volunteers is going to be. First of all we have the Special Service Battalion. The members of that battalion are volunteers. How far are we going to fight, and where are we going to fight, and whom are we going to fight? It would appear to me that the Germans are pretty well tied down, and I am pleased that that is so.

Oh!

The hon. member has a wonderful sense of humour. He always tells us how he used to be a good swimmer in the past, and I hope he will be able to swim again when it comes to fighting. I should like to have something more definite on this point from the right hon. the Prime Minister. Regulations are now being drafted, but surely it should be possible to rule this democratic country in a democratic manner. Are we to come along with one regulation after another? If the Prime Minister wants to govern the country in that way why does he not proclaim martial law. This really is nothing but a camouflaged system of martial law. The only difference is that martial law is declared in time of war, and surely South Africa is not at war to-day. I am pleased that that is so. South Africa is only in a Ripley war to-day.

I wish to confine myself more particularly to Regulation No. 33 of 1940, which deals with volunteers, and I also wish to say a few words about Regulation No. 36 (3), which deals with the Essential Services Protection Corps. If I think of volunteers my mind goes back to the days of the Boer war, when we were at Vaalbank, and when the present Prime Minister came along and asked for volunteers. This is what he said. “Look here, I want to go to Cape Town and if possible I want to get as many young burgers as I can to invade the Cape.”

Well, we did invade the Cape. When we got to Zuurberg he took certain emergency measures. We were very hungry and he said, “This is my country; here we have hottentot’s bread.” We ate that bread and it poisoned us, and the Prime Minister nearly died there on the Zuurberg, and now he comes along here and again wants us to eat that same kind of hottentot bread. There are various types of volunteers. In the first place the previous Minister of Defence established the Special Service Battalion. I want the Minister of Labour to listen to this, because I am going to take him to task by and by. That was the first corps which voluntarily offered its services to South Africa. The members of that corps were paid certain stipends and prospects were held out to them. After that we started organising the commandos more effectively, and that was also a voluntary step. Then we were drawn into the war and this Essential Services Protection Corps was established. I have Die Volkstem here of the 6th September in which it was announced that not only Europeans but coloureds and natives as well could join the corps. Let us remember this— it has always been the principle of this country—it has been the principle of the Afrikaners never to use coloured and native people against whites. Now the existing Government has asked for volunteers for this corps, and coloured and native people are able to join up. The Minister of Labour has always championed the cause of the poor man, of the unskilled labourers, and I sent him a telegram informing him that the natives and coloured people in this corps were getting more pay than the white labourers employed in the Rietspruit Dam. These natives and coloured people are paid 5s. 6d. per day and my white labourers on the Rietspruit Dam have to work for 4s. 6d. That is where the Minister betrayed those labourers like a Judas; that is where he turned against the unskilled labourers whose cause he had always pleaded—he turned in order to have a seat in the Cabinet, and because his whole soul and body are in England, and no longer with the labourers. I know you will not allow me to read the telegrams which I exchanged with the Minister, but I told him that I would raise this matter in the House, and that I would tell the House that the natives and coloured people were getting 1s. more per day than my white people were getting on those irrigation works.

I should like to enquire from the hon. member under which heading he is discussing this?

Volunteers are being mentioned here, and I am comparing their pay with the pay of other people. Who are the people employed on that dam? They are oudstryders who have fought for their freedom and independence, and who have sacrificed their lives—who have given their blood and all they had.

The hon. member must confine his remarks to the question before the House.

I am only making a comparison in regard to this question of pay, and I am opposed to these regulations because the natives and coloured people belonging to this corps are getting higher pay than the white labourers. It is my duty to the country to point this out. I only want to point out here that the oudstryders have to work for a precarious wage, and I want to say that these volunteers who are now being asked to join up will be treated in exactly the same way as the oudstryders later on. A motion was introduced here the other day that some assistance should be given to the oudstryders. What was the result of that motion? The Government turned it down, and these oudstryders have to work for less money on those irrigation works than what the coloured people and natives are getting in this volunteer corps to-day. There are two principles at stake—the first principle is that the Afrikaners in the past have never used natives to fight against whites, and the second principle is that the pay of the natives in the volunteer corps is higher than that of the whites employed on the Rietspruit Dam. And then we have the Minister of Labour who in the past has always stood for better wages for the workers, but who to-day is satisfied with this position, and is no longer concerned with the poor labourers, because he is getting £2,000 per year. Do hon. members know the difference in the wage paid to these people and the wage paid to natives and coloured people? The natives and coloured people get £100 per year, that is at the rate of 5s. 6d. per day, as stated in Die Volkstem. My oudstryders get only….

Order! I must ask the hon. member not to discuss that any further.

Very well, then I shall come to Emergency Regulation No. 8 which says this—

We, as farmers, generally have a surplus because we produce more than our country requires. To a certain extent we have obtained markets for our goods overseas, but this regulation takes certain markets away from us. Let us look at what has been said in the pamphlet issued by the Knights of the Truth. What do they say there? “We have to export in order to live.” But we find that Germany bought wool from us to the value of more than £3,700,000 and Great Britain bought to a value of £1,700,000 —less than half of what Germany bought from us, while Italy bought to a value of £916,000. I want to show that we as farmers cannot agree with this kind of regulation which is being applied by the Government against the farmers. I want to know what compensation the Government is going to give us if it deprives us of these markets? Is it going to pay us any compensation? Where is the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler), and what does he say about it? Is the Government going to pay us compensation for markets which it is depriving us of by these regulations? But as soon as the Government does that sort of thing we are told that we are being spoon fed. That sort of thing is always happening where the farmers’ markets are concerned. Our markets are taken away from us in order to feed the Imperialists and then we are told that we are spoon fed. That is what the Government aims at by its regulations. How can we, how dare we, as farmers’ representatives, approve of regulations like that? Let me give an instance to show that the farmers always get the worst of everything. This regulation is nothing but a copy of Great Britain’s regulations, as the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) has told us, and he is correct. Because Great Britain has already passed regulations under which traders who obtain products from South Africa have to prove that such a product does not go to Germany, we have to have the same regulation. But the trader does not know, once the product gets out of his hands, where it goes, and the result of this is that this trade is taken away from us and we can only export to Great Britain, the object being that we shall only feed the Imperialists.

What do you call Imperialists?

Those people who have both feet in England, whose souls are in England, and who, only after that, give a thought to South Africa. I am an Imperialist, but I am a South African Imperialist, and not an English Imperialist, nor am I an Australian Imperialist, or a German Imperialist. But while I say that, I bear in mind that we are told that we are fighting for Christianity; yet twenty-five per cent. of the people who are fighting on the side of the Allies are not Christians—are they also fighting for Christianity? So we have this position, that the anti-Christians are fighting for Christianity. I have here the publication issued by the Knights of the Truth. It contains the whole career of the Prime Minister since he was sixteen years of age, and here we have a message from the Prime Minister on the occasion of the New Year. I feel that this message of his is directly in conflict with this regulation, and I am going to prove it. The Prime Minister says here: “We are at war to-day, but you see no sign of it.” Why, then, should we have these regulations, why should we delude the people by telling them that we are observing the signs of war; why does the Prime Minister come here with a set of regulations such as Hitler and Stalin might issue? He asks us to approve of them, but how can we? How dare we do so, as democratic representatives of the people? Although Genl. Hertzog, and not he (the Prime Minister), obtained a majority at the last elections, he sounded a party cry in order to get the majority, and then he accuses the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) of having made plans for a coup d’état! Of course, it is again a case of the rt. hon. gentleman having done certain things himself which are wrong, always suspecting other people of doing those things. I am now speaking about the regulations, and I want to point out that these regulations are in conflict with the message sent out by the Prime Minister on the occasion of the New Year. That message goes on to say—

Is that not true?

Who is asking whether it is true? Where are our mealie people, the representatives of the mealie farmers on that side of the House? I want to put this question to the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet)—what does the Prime Minister mean by normal prices? We know what our policy was as a United Party; we accepted as normal the basis adopted in 1927, 1928 and 1929. What were our wool prices in those days, what were our mealie prices and our wheat prices? And what was the price of eggs in those days? Here we have the Prime Minister, and his knights of the truth, issuing a booklet in which they talk of normal prices — but the prices are sub-normal, and in addition to that the Prime Minister comes along and deprives us of our markets.

What was the price of wool in 1939?

Those were not normal prices, but I want to quote a little more from this pamphlet—

Yes, that is what we find in this Bill, because if we do not apply this Bill, Great Britain will be unable to compete with other countries. That is the way in which our farmers are being tortured and exploited by the Imperialists. We know from past experience what we have to put up with, because we have had to shed our blood for this sort of thing in the past, and we are prepared to do so again, so long as it is for the sake of South Africa. And then they go on to say this in that pamphlet—

Do hon. members realise that before the war our mealies were usually 3d. to 6d. higher in price than the mealies from the Argentine. To-day, however, 2s. more per quart is paid for Argentine mealies, and on top of that they get better shipping facilities than we do. When one is married the wife is there, but now we are married to England in this war and England turns to America and courts her by buying her products. I go on to quote from the pamphlet—

We also read that the Minister, speaking at a farmers’ agricultural show, stated that precarious conditions were ahead of the farmers. How conflicting! How can we as Afrikaners to-day approve of these regulations when we find the one Minister saying this, and the other Minister saying something else? I want to make an appeal to the Prime Minister and to ask him to uphold the principle of the Afrikaner people under which coloured people and Natives are not allowed to arrest whites or to search their houses. I know that the Prime Minister went right through the Boer War, I know that he went through South-West Africa, and I know that he is a hard man, but I beg of him not to carry out that regulation, and to lay it down that only whites shall be taken into the volunteer corps.

Under the changed conditions which prevail to-day we have to give the most careful consideration to the amended regulations placed before us, containing as they do, the previous regulations together with their amendments and additions, which we shall have to deal with particularly during the committee stage. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Dr. Bremer) has already spoken about the regulation concerning patents, models, trade marks and authors’ rights, but I also wish to say a few words on this subject, because I feel that the honour of our Government and our country is involved in this regulation. Those rights are registered rights, which means that they are safeguarded in the countries where they have been registered, and with which we have trade relations. Those rights are protected internationally and are registered internationally, and it is an international conception that it is a matter of courtesy and honour for any country to maintain these rights. Those rights should be most carefully observed by every nation for the sake of its own honour. We have safeguarded those rights in our own country under our laws, because we have in accordance with international custom, and in accordance with the expectations of the owners of those patents, trade marks and authors’ rights, given them the assurance that their secrets shall be preserved and respected. It is for that reason that international law requires one to have those rights registered so that they may be safeguarded. We considered this question of our honourable undertaking to be so important that we have laid it down in our laws what the position so far as this country is concerned will be, and we have given an undertaking to protect those rights, and to carry out our honourable undertaking. But what do we find now? A regulation is now proposed under which our law is simply set aside. I regard this as the greatest insult to our honour, just as I feel that it would be the greatest insult to my own honour if I were to disclose to a third party a secret entrusted to me by another person, even though the party entrusting me with that secret should afterwards become my enemy. If a friend of mine trusts me with his secrets, even if he should become my enemy later on, it would be distinctly wrong for me to disclose those secrets, and for this reason I object to this regulation because we place our own honour into jeopardy, and must therefore lose the confidence which other nations have in our good faith. We know that our friends of to-day may be our potential enemies of to-morrow. The tendency throughout the world to-day is for every country to be dragged into this war. The patents and such things in this country are not only German patents; what about America, Italy, France and other countries? To-day they are our friends, but they are our potential enemies of to-morrow, and I wish to make an appeal to the Government in all seriousness requesting them to maintain our honour in regard to those secrets which we have undertaken to safeguard. I am in agreement with the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) when he said that those secrets should be locked up during a time of war, and should not be handed over to anybody else; we should not disclose those secrets to a third party. If we do so, we are doing something wrong, just the same as in the last World War serious wrong were committed in this respect. Patents, models, trade marks, authors’ rights and similar valuable inventions were exploited in those days. Now I wish to say a few words in the same spirit about Regulation No. 31 and about its annexure. This is the regulation dealing with the appointment of a custodian and controller of property, and the businesses of certain people. I am in agreement that an official of that kind should be appointed, but here again we have to be on our guard. We encouraged people in the past to come to this country, and do business here. We availed ourselves of the developments and of the trade which we were anxious to carry on with all countries in the world. We sought trade with Germany, and Germany was a valued customer of South Africa. It was our own wish to have trade relations with Germany, and now we come along with this regulation, exactly as we have done with the regulation about patents, and we take these businesses of Germany under our protection. But what are we doing here? I want to say that we should act honestly. I have done business with Germany. I have been deprived of the opportunity now of carrying on that business because we are at war with Germany, but I possibly am also doing business with German concerns in Japan, and I am possibly doing business with German interests in America, but what do we find here. In this regulation “Minister means the Minister of Finance, or any other Minister acting in his stead,” and “person in Germany includes any person, wherever he may be, to whom the consignment of goods, or from whom the ordering of goods has been prohibited, under the powers conferred by subregulation (3) of Regulation 8 bis.” hon. members will therefore realise the significance of this in relation to German businesses in other countries. Let us go further and see what the regulations lay down in this respect. It is laid down that a controller may be appointed to attend to the liquidation and control of German business concerns. The regulation reads that the Minister may appoint a controller in respect of the said property or business, and by order confer upon the said controller such powers as the Minister may deem expedient for managing, liquidating or otherwise dealing with the property or business. That is the provision dealing with the control and management of business concerns of enemy subjects, but I further want to point out that it is a matter of honour, so far as we are concerned, to do the best we can so to administer those estates that the best results are obtained. The Minister may appoint a custodian, and I wish to emphasise that it is a matter of the greatest importance that the best possible person be appointed to do this class of work. How is this to be administered? Is it the intention to do the best possible thing for that business? In all the years that I have been in business I have come across numerous instances of businesses going into voluntary liquidation, or I know of instances of people having had fires, or of other causes having led to a liquidation, so that an estate has been sold up and half a crown in the £ has been paid to creditors. Now what are we doing here? We are dealing here with enemy subjects who have been living in this country and who have been given permission to carry on trade. Are we going to administer their interests in that manner? If we do not get a satisfactory answer we shall have to go into the whole question in committee. I now come to the provision under which the Minister can order that any person shall give information which is considered necessary in order to make it possible for the powers given to the Minister under the regulation to be properly carried out. How are we going to act in connection with the attachment and the handing over of the estate to the administrator of an estate? I do not want to defend anyone—I do not wish to defend the Germans or any one of our enemies, but I want South Africa to maintain its honour—I do not want our honour in any way to be affected. Then I want to say a few words finally in regard to clause 33. I remember what I said on a previous occasion. This Proclamation No. 33 comprises the whole of our Defence Act, Act No. 13 of 1912. In 1913 the Prime Minister remarked on a certain occasion that if the House had known what the Act meant it would not have passed it so easily. We know from experience what the implications of the law are, and it is therefore necessary for us to say a few words on the subject. We know that volunteers were sent overseas during the last war. Those volunteers were forced to go as a result of the emergency conditions created here. They had to join as so-called volunteers. What sort of voluntary action is it when a young fellow is forced to give up his work, is in a condition of want and has no prospects? I contributed my bit to get our young fellows to join up and to go into the Defence Force, or to go into the Police Force, which after all is our first line of defence. We are now busy establishing volunteer battalions for coloured people and natives. They will fall under the provisions of this wonderfully explicable, or inexplicable, Defence Act. What now is this definition of South Africa— how far does it go? What interpretation is to be attached to it? The world knows South Africa, North Africa and Central Africa. South Africa is not Central Africa, and does not extend to the Equator. Beyond our borders there is no South Africa. I wish to utter a word of warning to the Minister of Defence. He has told us that no emergency conditions are being created by these regulations, but I want to tell him that he is storing up a lot of trouble for himself. When we get to the next stage I shall have to move certain amendments. These regulations completely alter our line of attack, and we shall have to take the opportunity of fighting them from one stage to the other.

Do not say that.

The Minister is probably not in earnest. He stands with both his feet in England, but to me this is a very serious matter, because I stand foursquare in South Africa, and these regulations are so far-reaching that I find it impossible to remain quiet. Is that the right course to pursue, to try and rule a democratic nation in an autocratic manner? What about the high ideals which we stand for?

It is deplorable that the guillotine will fall in half an hour, and we shall no longer be able to protest against these regulations. There are quite a number of members left who would like an opportunity to register their protest. There is no doubt that there are serious dangers in these regulations, and it is a matter of surprise to me that this side of the House should realise those dangers and that the other side should not. We have only had one hon. member getting up from the other side, and he said nothing. I used to sit on the other side of the House, but we on the back benches never had the opportunity of saying anything, because there were always so many Ministers who wanted to speak. As these regulations are so full of danger, I want to know why it is that hon. members opposite say nothing. It has happened repeatedly that there have been only five or six members on the other side of the House. Are they not interested in these regulations? Have they hot studied the regulations, or have they been instructed not to speak? It would appear to me that hon. members opposite feel so secure in the imperial arms of the Prime Minister…

The hon. member must deal with the question before the House.

The regulations are dangerous, but hon. members opposite fail to say anything. Even their Press openly boasted of the fact that hon. members on that side of the House have not said a word. These regulations give such great powers that we are surprised at hon. members over there remaining silent. And what also surprises us is that the Prime Minister did not also include the Prevention of Disabilities Bill under this measure. He would then have had the opportunity of letting the House go home sooner. These regulations which we have before us now are just as drastic, perhaps even more so. I wish to touch briefly on one or two of the regulations and I shall try and emphasise one or two of the points which possibly have not been sufficiently emphasised. First of all I want to touch on regulation No. 30 of 1940. I do not want to read it in its entirety although hon. members opposite may not have seen it. We find that this regulation says this: “Whenever the registrar of patents is satisfied— that is to say if he is satisfied that the patent belongs to a person in Germany, or belongs to somebody else, while somebody in Germany is interested in it, then—and here lies the danger—

I want to point out that it is stated here that if any person in Germany or outside Germany has a patent, and any other person who may be regarded as being a German also has an interest in the business, the patent may be taken away. That is where the danger comes in, because the person in Germany may possibly only have one hundredth part of a share in the business, and the person falling under the regulation may be a South African, because it is laid down here that the person in Germany need only have a small share in the business, yet the South African person may then also be affected. This seems to me to be very unfair. But when we come to paragraph 8 of this regulation I want to point out that the danger here is very great—this is where it says this—

It seems essential that in unusual circumstances, or if a person should be on active service, such time should be extended. But in this clause we see that the circumstances are not specified. On the contrary anyone may, as a result of neglect, or the interest which he takes in it, get an extension of time under this regulation. This seems unfair to me. Now let us look at regulation No. 31 of 1940. It states here that regulation No. 8 is amended—

It has already been stated that this is a very dangerous provision, because it covers any person in any country, because such a person may be described as being in Germany. This is rather a peculiar way of prohibiting trade with any country. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. Le Roux) has already pointed out that this does not only mean the prohibition of trade with any person who is suspected under these provisions, but the danger lies in the fact that any country may be mentioned, and may be brought within these regulations. There is a danger that a country which may be looked upon as a potential enemy to the Allies will not be allowed to purchase our wool, or our other products. If we study the pamphlet of the knights of the truth in which the different quantities of wool sent to the different countries are shown, we find that the largest quantity went to Germany. I do not know why the knights of the truth admitted this, but the first amount shown in respect of wool sent to Germany is as large as the amount for the next two countries together, namely France and England. We notice that Germany bought up to nearly £4,000,000 worth, after which France comes with £1,500,000. I am speaking in round figures, but we should look a little further ahead. This war cannot go on for ever, and we must try to see how we are going to be affected as a result of this regulation when the war is over. Let us accept for a moment the fact that England would like to purchase all the wool South Africa can offer. There is a danger then that if we exclude the other countries under this regulation they will entirely give up the use of wool. What is happening in Germany to-day. I have an English newspaper here which has taken over something from a German paper, in which is stated—

The report goes on to say that the result of experiments made have been excellent. Let us see what is going on. Wool is being stopped from going to Germany, with the result that the use of this synthetic material is increasing tremendously, and in those circumstances we can expect Germany not to take any more wool from South Africa after the war. My hon. friends over there may possibly say that we do not ever again want to supply Germany with another bale of wool, but under this regulation the same sort of thing is apt to happen with Italy, Japan and other countries. What is going to happen to our farmers in South Africa then? I want to ask my hon. friends, who have only one thought, namely the promotion of Imperialism, whether they will stand by us? We have had bitter experiences. I know that I myself was hard put to it to keep going because we were unable to make a living owing to the poor prices our products were fetching. If we cast our minds back to the depression after the 1914—1918 war, and if we realise that after this war we are going to get another depression which will be twice as bad as the last one, seeing that other countries are being compelled to produce other materials, I am afraid that the wool farmers are going to suffer great hardships. Hon. members have referred to farmers who are crawling about on their knees, but this sort of talk reminds me of the race between farmers and townsmen. When the farmers began to lose somebody called out, “Let the Government help them.”

I am afraid that the hon. member is straying away from the subject.

I am afraid that as a result of these regulations we shall be faced with a very serious state of affairs. I now wish to come to another point which I also look upon as very dangerous, namely regulation No. 33 of 1940. Before pointing to the danger in that regulation I hope that I shall not be out of order if I point out that the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) pathetically exclaimed here “When will the Opposition realise the necessity of this war?” I want to ask when the hon. member for Krugersdorp came to that realisation? Was it in the lobbies or in the reading-rooms of this House that he came to that realisation? hon. members know what he said outside, and what he did five minutes afterwards in this House. The question of the Union borders has been referred to. And it has been done repeatedly, because it is an important point. When the Prime Minister stated a few weeks ago that he would tell us where the Union’s borders were I listened most attentively—I made a point of hearing what he said, but after his speech I had to walk out and ask other hon. members, “Where did the Prime Minister say our boundaries were?” Nobody could answer, so I asked hon. members opposite, but they could not tell me either. There are 85 members on the other side of the House and if each of them were to write on a piece of paper where our borders are none of them would agree. They would write down and mention the battlefields of Europe, and come right back to the Limpopo. Why cannot they tell us? In the days of my youth I heard people talk about “slim Jannie,” and we are finding that out to-day. We notice that even in the Press there is a difference of opinion about the Union boundaries. I have some cuttings from the Press here. One of the hon. members over there, after the Prime Minister’s speech, said to me, “It is the battlefields of Europe.”

Who was it who said that, mention the name.

I only want to say Port Elizabeth, then hon. members will know who it is. Let me say that I have studied the papers and I have the cuttings here. The one paper says that our boundaries are on the Zambesi, the other says the Limpopo, and another one says the Equator. They all differ, and nobody knows where our boundaries are. I hope that my hon. friend opposite, who is so anxious to speak before the debate closes, will get at least one minute to tell us where the boundaries are. The Prime Minister gave us his assurance that he would not send anyone overseas. It struck me that he was talking about overseas. But what will the position be if he sends the people overland, right up to the boundaries of the enemy state in Europe? If he does so, he will not have broken his promise. But those volunteers who go there will not go there at their own expense. No, the country will have to pay for it.

The hon. member should not repeat any arguments.

I only want to point out that we shall have to pay the costs in respect of those volunteers, and the point I wish to mention in this connection has not yet been mentioned. I want to point out that hon. members opposite are trying to bluff us—and we shall have to stand the racket. I hope you will allow me to refer to the position….

The hon. member is discussing matters which have nothing to do with this particular motion.

Then I want to say a few words about the danger which is being created owing to the fact that coloured people and natives will also be allowed to go as volunteers, and that according to this regulation a coloured man or a native may be instructed to arrest a white man. In this connection I should like to quote an instance which has already been dealt with under the Police regulations, namely that of a coloured man last year at Naauwpoort arresting a white man. If we go on with this sort of thing there is a danger that friction will occur between coloured people and whites—and surely this regulation is not worth all that. The Prime Minister has given us the assurance that there is no danger threatening this country. The war is 7,000 miles away from us, and even from head office we are continually being told that there is no danger. In those circumstances I say that these regulations are hot worth all the trouble they are likely to cause. I wish to refer to another point in connection with volunteers. That is to say, that those volunteers who have joined have done so under certain conditions. There is such a thing as moral obligations. Hon. members opposite are doing all they can to induce people to join. People are often accused of being “papbroeks” if they do not join. Well, these people do not want to be accused of that so they join in order to avoid being called “papbroeks,” and they also do so because they want to be in the fashion. Secondly, they were continually being told that they may as well join because there is no danger whatsoever of there being any fighting in South Africa, as the war is 7,000 miles away. Now I want to come to regulation No. 34 of 1940, and I want to draw attention to the compensation to be paid under paragraph 6. In this connection I want to draw attention to an example which we have already had in Cape Town, to the detriment of taxpayers—and this actually happened before these regulations had been adopted. A certain building was needed for the purpose of the Department of Defence, so the City Council entered into a contract and paid double for the use of the building. The City Council might have been faced with a big law suit. Now that this regulation exists this cannot happen, and it is possible that the City Council deliberately went to the Prime Minister and told him that they were in danger of having a big case brought against them, and asked him that this special regulation should be framed so that the particular building might be expropriated, because in that event the person concerned would not have the right to bring a case against the Council. The position in Cape Town is now that the taxpayers have to stand the expense. And those taxpayers who are 100 per cent. opposed to this mad war with which our country has no concern, have to assist in paying for it. I ask whether it is fair to come along with regulations of this kind, containing provisions like this? We also have a concrete case which has been brought to our notice. I understand that heavy guns were placed near certain buildings in East London, with the result that those buildings will have to be moved. Under this regulation compensation will only be paid for the building material at a reasonable price. The particular houses affected may have been put up during the time of depression, when building material was cheap, and the question of the cost of the material will naturally be gone into. The result will be that those people will get compensation which will be insufficient to enable them to put up such houses again. It is further laid down that if these big guns were there before the houses were built, the Department of Defence will not even have to pay the owners out. All this sort of thing is most unfair, seeing that we here in South Africa are not directly affected by the war. Yet the people of this country are in danger of having to give up their houses. The Department of Defence can simply step in and say that the houses have to be moved, and the owners have to break them down. Then I come to Regulation No. 35 of 1940.

Ayes—69:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Blackwell, L.

Botha, H. N. W.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Collins, W. R.

Davis, A.

De Kock, A. S.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Egeland, L.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Marwick, J. S.

Moll, A. M.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Nel, O. R.

Pocock, P. V.

Reitz, D.

Rood, K.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steenkamp, W. P.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Sutter, G. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and J. W. Higgerty.

Noes—48:

Bekker, G.

Bekker, S.

Booysen, W. A.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

De Bruyn, D. A. S.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Du Toit, C. W. M.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fagan, H. A.

Grobler, J. H.

Havenga, N. C.

Haywood, J. J.

Hugo, P. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Le Roux, S. P.

Liebenberg. J. L. V.

Lindhorst, B. H.

Loubser, S. M.

Malan, D. F.

Olivier, P. J.

Pirow, O.

Rooth, E. A.

Schoeman, B. J.

Schoeman. N. J.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Swart, A. P.

Theron, P.

Van den Berg, C. J.

Van der Merwe,

R. A. T.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Viljoen, J. H.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wentzel, J. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jacob

Wilkens, Jan

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

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

Motion accordingly agreed to.

House to go into Committee on the Bill on 5th March.—(Minister of Finance).