I wish to move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper in respect of Clause 2. Hon. members will see from the printed amendments that it is proposed to substitute a new sub-section 1 to the new clause. The purpose of the new draft, sir, is to give effect to the assurance which I gave to the House on the occasion of the second reading, that coloured persons would be excluded from the compulsory registration provisions of the Bill. In order to effect that change, sub-section 1 has had to be recast, and there are also certain consequential amendments in sub-section 2 of the clause. In regard to my decision to exclude coloured persons, I should like to say this in order to remove any possible misapprehensions, misapprehensions which I imagine must have arisen in view of some remarks made by hon. members on both sides of the House during the second reading debate. It was suggested, sir, that some form of pressure had been brought to bear upon me or the Government to exclude coloured persons from the operation of the compulsory registration provisions. That is entirely untrue, entirely incorrect. No pressure has been brought to bear on me individually, or upon the Government in regard to this matter. I have acted in this matter purely in the interests of the coloured community itself, in the interests of departmental efficiency, and in the interests of the State as a whole. I wish to make it quite clear, on the advice of my technical advisers, that to include the coloured community in the compulsory provisions of the Bill would lead to a great many departmental and administrative difficulties, and probably would produce very few results. One knows that the members of the coloured community who are qualified to be voters on the voters’ roll are very anxious to see their names there. I am quite satisfied that it we were to extend the compulsory provisions of the Bill to potential coloured voters it would lead to departmental chaos and would not assist the potential voters in the aim which they have. I should like to remind the House of the fact that the census of 1936 shows that in the Provinces of the Cape and Natal, there were over 350,000 male coloured persons. Of this number, Mr. Chairman, 153,000 were over the age of 21 years, but according to our most recent registration figures, only 26,000 coloured persons are registered as voters.

How many in Natal?

I have not got the figures before me in regard to Natal, I am speaking from memory. I am advised that there are 284 in Natal. It will be appreciated that if we were to retain the clause as at present drafted that an onus would be thrown on every coloured person to put in an application—the obligation would be put on the coloured man not merely to fill in an application form, but he would have to make sure whether he was qualified or not. This would simply be putting a lot of hardships on these people, and it would be putting administrative difficulties on the shoulders of these officials of the department responsible for the compilátion of the voters’ roll. First of all we would be putting an onus on the person who has to have prior qualification before he can be registered. A person would first of all have to determine whether he is registered or not, and in order to escape the criminal sanctions of the Act thousands of people might possibly have to put in forms to safeguard themselves. Those forms would have to be carefully scrutinised, and in the majority of cases it would probably be found that the applicants were not qualified to be registered. Taking all the circumstances into consideration, I have come to the conclusion on the advice of my advisors that it would be inadvisable to include coloured voters in the Bill. We are dealing with two sets of voters here—the one category consists of voters entitled to be registered, merely because they have reached the age of 21. In respect of that category compulsory registration will apply. There is another category, those who have to satisfy certain qualifications and who are members of the coloured community. We say we are not placing these burdens on these persons, and a distinction is made then in respect of categories and not in respect of any colour bar or matters of that sort. Hon. members will see that sub-clause (1) has been completely re-cast. Sub-clause (2) is to be amended by the deletion of the words “person described in paragraphs (a) and (b),” and the substitution of the words “white person domiciled in the Union who is a Union national”. That is a consequential amendment. There is another amendment in sub-section (2) where we substitute the word “registering” for the word “electoral”. The effect of that is that the application form has to be sent to the registering officer of the district and not to the electoral officer. Hon. members are aware that there is an electoral officer with a large number of constituencies under his control, but each constituency has a registering officer. Then we are adding a new sub-section (5). The purpose of that subsection is to enable the penal sanctions in the Bill to be given proper effect. The onus is placed on an accused person. A person is charged with having failed to submit an application for registration. He has to show that he has in fact submitted such an application. In terms of sub-section (5) an accused person shall be presumed to have submitted such an application unless the contrary is proved. Without such a provision it would be virtually impossible to obtain any conviction. We are also adding a new proviso which in effect will mean this. At the time of a by-annual registration canvassers will go round the constituencies and where they find persons already registered living at the address on the old voters’ roll they will present a certain form, and they will give a receipt when the form has been signed; automatically these persons will be put on the roll. If canvassers find persons not previously registered, they will leave with them a new form for completion. It will be the duty of such a person to complete the form and dispatch it to the registering officer. When it has been dispatched, the person concerned will get a receipt for the form.

What happens if the form is not delivered?

Then the applicant will not receive a receipt and he will, therefore, be put on his guard and it will be his duty to make enquiries.

How does he know that the canvasser is anywhere in the vicinity?

He may have no idea, and if the canvasser does not get to him, he will know that it is his duty to get to the registering officer and get a form.

It makes it very difficult.

The department will do its best to assist every potential voter by means of the existing machinery. Canvassers will go round and reminders will be sent, but it is inevitable that canvassers will miss a number of voters and that is why this compulsory provision is put in the Bill. Before this Bill comes into operation great publicity will be given to the matter through the Press and over the wireless. The public will know that it is their duty to register. I may say that already, as a result of the second reading of this Bill, some enquiries have been made to my department as to whether persons are registered or not. When the general public realises that there is a criminal sanction attached to failure to register, the public will do what it has done in other cases, it will attempt to comply with the law. The public attempts to comply with the law in regard to other compulsory provisions on the Statute Book. There are provisions relating to the submission of income tax forms, birth and death forms and things of that sort. So, if a voter is missed by the canvasser, that will be no excuse, he will still have to submit an application, but unless he receives a receipt either signed by the registering officer or signed on his behalf, he will know that he is not safe from prosecution. The possession of a certificate will be evidence that a person has complied with the law. It is not necessary for me to argue further the question whether that is suitable or not. The principle has been accepted on the second reading, I am merely endeavouring to give this Committee some idea of how in practice this will work. Remarks I have made cover the amendment in the English text. The Afrikaans is merely a translation of the English, except that there is an amendment in line 52 — purely a verbal amendment. I move—

in lines 31 and 32, to omit “person described in paragraphs (a) and (b) of sub-section (1)” and to substitute “white person domiciled in the Union who is a Union national and”; in line 39, to omit “electoral” where it first occurs and to substitute “registering”; to insert the following proviso at the end of the clause:

to add the following new sub-section to follow sub-section (4):

and an amendment in the Afrikaans version which did not occur in the English version.

If ever we have had evidence of hurried legislation we have it here. Here we find when we get to clause 2, which is practically speaking the first clause of the Bill, the Minister has to get up at once and has to admit that the clause which he has placed before the House means nothing at all, and that it should be deleted entirely, and that he has to move a new clause. He and his department have hot paid any attention to it, but now he wants to try to insert a clause which may possibly be acceptable. The sole object of this Bill from beginning to end is to score some political advantage over this whole business. The Minister now finds that he has a majority behind him which right through, whether his proposals are right or wrong, will agree with him, and now he imagines that he is able to come along with any amendment to see how far the committee will be prepared to swallow it. Now let us look at what he is proposing here. If a person makes application and complies with the requirements he fills in the form and hands in the application where it has to be handed in, and then, even if he cannot prove that the person to whom it was addressed has received it, he may be treated as a criminal. He can even be put into gaol if he fails to pay his fine. One is here going to make criminals of people who may be really trying to comply with the provision of the Act. Now we have the amended proposal before us and the amendment is just as stupid as the proposal originally made by the Minister. If one studies it, one finds that it is provided in clause 2 that in any event if a person has filled up such an application form and completed it, and done everything he is supposed to do he will not be found guilty of a contravention of the Act, if he is in possession of a certificate, or a receipt from the official who has to receive that decument. If he can come along and produce that receipt he is not guilty. But if that is the position why allow such a person to be brought before the court when he has complied with all the requirements of the Act? He has the receipt in his possession and he cannot be found guilty, but then we have this stupid further provision. How ean he ever be found guilty if he has that voucher? Why that condition, why that proviso? It is clear that the only object is to get a law placed on the Statute Book which will give additional votes to the parties sitting on the Government benches. I say that it is not fair to place such an unreasonable onus of proof on the citizens of this country, on the people who have done everything necessary, who have completed the form, and have handed it in at the post office, and have registered it; if they have done all this, they can still be regarded as criminals and they can still be fined, or be sent to gaol if they are unable to pay the fine. That sort of thing is wrong, and the department should do its duty because it is the department’s duty to see to it that a person should register. If the department does its duty, this Bill is unnecessary, but it is because the department does not do its duty that it now wants to make criminals of the citizens of this country, it wants them to be fined, and if they are not fined they may be locked up like ordinary criminals.

I rise to support in principle the effect of clause 2 insofar as it deals with the compulsory registration of people who are entitled to vote, but I must express my regret that the Minister is deleting the coloured people from this provision. I feel that if registration is good to maintain the initiative of individuals to assume the responsibility of citizenship, we are doing a disservice to the coloured community in relieving them of what we consider the first prime essential of citizenship, namely to register oneself. The State places an obligation on everyone who is entitled to vote, to see that he is registered. We have had quite enough indignities and restrictions placed on the coloured people.

This is not a restriction.

It is a denial of the fundamental principles which the House attempts to express.

They can register themselves if they are entitled to.

Their rights are not interfered with.

Of course they are. In this Bill an obligation is placed on people. Members are surely aware of the fact that no coloured person in the whole of South Africa is a factor in returning a single member to this House.

But this Bill does not deal with that.

There are certain recommendations.

We would like all aliens excluded too.

And all Jews.

The Minister has rather over exaggerated the difficulties which would concern his department if the obligation is placed on coloured people to register. After all, it is not an obligation placed on 153,000 coloured people.

It is quite bad enough.

The obligation is placed on so many of these 153,000 who are entitled to vote. Any person who has not got the qualifications is not required to submit a form. The Minister has suggested that it is going to be very difficult. But I do not see it. The Minister’s Department is not going to be flooded with 153,000 application forms. His department would not have to go through any numbers like that at all. His department would only have to go through those forms that are submitted. I would submit that the reason why there are not more coloured voters placed on the Voters’ Roll is the fact that at the biennial registration there is not the same consideration, there is not the same assumed responsibility on the part of the canvassers to seek out the coloured voters who are supposed to be entitled to vote.

You are a stranger in Jerusalem.

hon. members laugh, but they know as well as I do that there is never a biennial registration where coloured voters make an application to register, where the hon. member for Moorreesburg and his organisation have not used every possible means at their disposal to object.

Why not?

What does that mean? Let us assume that there are 300 or 400 coloured people who want to be recorded as voters. They have all the qualifications. They submit forms, but the hon. member for Moorreesburg and his party make mass objections. In the countryside Revision Courts are held at a distance of 100 miles and more from the centre where a person has submitted his application and if the coloured man wishes to retain the privilege of voting he has to lose a few days’ work and he has to present himself at the court. My experience has been that you only have to enter an objection against any of these coloured voters for their names to disappear from the provisional roll. Automatically, by virtue of the objection the man’s name goes off the Roll.

That is not so.

The coloured people cannot go to these courts to support their claims.

No, but your side comes there with a power of attorney.

There will be no onus on any of the departments to instigate a number of prosecutions, because of people failing to register. There will be no prosecution of the non-European people. No department is going out to discover among the nonEuropeans how many were qualified by reason of education, or housing conditions or anything. This would not mean an attempt on behalf of the department to see that these people are brought on the Rolls. The Minister of the Interior is trying to render a service to the non-European people, but he is not really rendering them a service. Here is an attempt not to make the non-European people assume the responsibility of citizenship. [Time limit.]

It was perfectly self-evident that the Minister was going to delete this provision in regard to coloured people. I am pleased he has done so, but in any case he could not have done otherwise. I have a list of amendments which I wish to move, but before doing so I want to say that I am somewhat surprised at the attitude of the Minister of the Interior. After the debate which took place on the second reading, he must have realised that it was advisable to tone down this Bill somewhat, that it was advisable to make the clause dealing with compulsory registration as lenient as possible. But now he comes along to-day and he makes it even more drastic: I fail to understand why he does so. He now proposes that a person shall obtain a form, that he shall post that form to the official, and then the onus is placed on him to prove that he has posted it. That provision does not appear in the Bill as originally drafted. That provision does not mean a relaxation of the obligation to register, it makes it all the more drastic. The man now has to prove that he has posted the form and I at once wish to move an amendment which I think is reasonable, and I hope the Minister will also be reasonable and will accept it. Now that we find the whole of this provision to be concerned with Party politics, it is the duty of the House to relax these registration provisions. I repeat that when the hon. member for Kensington made his proposal in the Select Committee, it was a perfectly innocent proposal. It only dealt with the principle of compulsory registration, for which there is much to be said. But as a result of the statements made by the hon. member it has become clear that it is no longer the principle of compulsory registration which is involved, but that the question at issue is what benefit the United Party can derive from this provision. Now the Minister comes along here and makes the provision even more drastic, and for that reason I want to move an amendment and at the same time I move my other amendments to this Clause—

A person, an individual, who is 21 years of age or more, is obliged to obtain a form and to ascertain whether he is a voter, and whether his name is on the Voters’ Roll. Such a person may perhaps live 160 miles from the place where he has to register, and if he finds out that he is not on the roll he has to travel 160 miles to obtain a form, and I therefore move to delete the word “obtain” as set out in my amendment. I also move the other amendment which means that the State will have to see to it that a man knows that his name is not on the roll. When people live far away from any central areas, I ask by what right the State can insist on their proceeding to a magistrate’s court or to any other place to find out whether they are on the roll. The Minister will cause a revolution in the country if he insists on this provision. It will have consequences which he does not anticipate. The Minister is now providing that in our country with its long distances people are to go and find out whether their names are on the roll. I ask the Minister to accept my amendment that the State shall see to it that the man knows whether his name is on the roll or ont.

What is there left then of compulsory registration?

He is now compelled to fill in the form if the form is handed to him.

That is the position to-day.

Yes, if he gets the form, but the onus is here being placed on the individual and the question is not asked whether he has any knowledge of the fact that his name does not appear on the Voters’ Roll. I want to ask the Minister to accept these amendments which relieve the position, failing which he is going to get endless difficulties in practice. The Minister has told us that in practice the State will have these forms delivered to the people. Those forms are not going to be delivered to a man like the Minister, because they know that his name is on the roll. If there is a possibility in practice of forms being handed to people when their names are on the rolls, this amendment should be accepted so that we may have it put in the law. I take it that that is the object of what the Minister told us.

The people whose names are already on the rolls get the forms.

If the State is going to do it in practice why cannot it be put into the law? As it appears here now, the man is guilty even if he does not know that his name does not appear on the roll. Another amendment which I wish to move places the onus on the State to hand the forms over to the man. The Government cannot expect people to take the trouble to travel miles in order to obtain those forms.

Where are they to go and fetch them?

At the nearest magistrate’s office.

There are field cornets as well.

Where does it says so in the Bill? There is nothing about it in the Bill. Where I was born we were 72 miles away from the nearest magistrate’s office. Surely it is not fair to ask people to travel 72 miles to obtain a form, or to make them write for forms. We know that it is pretty difficult in some cases to get people to write for those forms.

Move an amendment to exempt the platteland.

hon. members must await their turn and not continually interrupt.

If the Minister is not prepared to accept this amendment he will have so many difficulties in practice that he will regret not having accepted these reasonable amendments which aim at making this Bill less drastic for the people of the platteland. I shall explain the other amendments just now.

I was a member of the Select Committee during the last ordinary session which dealt with the subject of the Electoral Law, and I regret the decision of the Minister to depart from the compulsory registration portion of the section, in so far as it relates to non-Europeans. I believe, sir, the coloured persons themselves would welcome the application of this section to their community. The whole purpose of it is to increase the aggregate of voters in the Union, and it would certainly have that effect upon those coloured persons who are entitled to exercise the vote. Undoubtedly it would lead to a large increase in the number of these voters, and I think the request emanating from the Opposition side of the House for the exclusion of non-Europeans from the section was inspired by a recognition of that fact. Coloured persons who are qualified would tend in greater numbers to get upon the roll and be entitled to exercise their vote. I think it will be found, if figures are consulted, that since 1924 there has been unfair pressure brought to bear on the coloured people in various ways and from various directions, to keep them off the effective Voters’ Roll. In the course of the evidence that was given before the committee, it was shown that many subterfuges were adopted by which these people were deluded into supposing that they were registered when they were not. In some cases they were visited by canvassers who induced them to believe that by putting in a form of application for registration completed in pencil, their claims would be recognised. That, of course, was the last they ever heard of registration, until the omission of their names from the Voters’ List came to their notice, and this practice, simple though it may seem, proved effective in removing from the roll a large number of people who were entitled to vote. Now, sir, the compulsory provision in the Bill would serve to educate these people as to their qualifications. It has been said that as their qualifications differ from those of the white voter, it would be difficult to apply the compulsory provision until it could be proved whether they are qualified or not. But the qualification is simple enough to-day, and if it were printed in intelligible English, by which I don’t mean civil service English (I have been in the civil service for my sins), if a simple statement of the qualifications were put on the back of the notice, then the man would know at once whether he was liable or not for the penalty imposed by the Act. I think it is most regrettable that the coloured people should be omitted from this clause, as they are entitled to have the aid of the state in registering themselves. Already since the decision of the Minister was made known about a week ago, I have had representations from quite a number of people, although I am largely unknown to the local coloured community, I have had representations from various sources asking that this matter should be brought up in the House, and that the wishes of the coloured people should be made known. In my own division the registrations of nonEuropeans are few in number, but nevertheless interested coloured persons in my own constituency are very keen in this matter, they wish to record their votes, and on the whole they regard voting with due regard to the circumstances of the times, and with due regard to what they consider their own interests. I hope that the Minister will reconsider this matter. I maintain that he has been led into a trap in this matter and he should reverse his decision in the fuller knowledge that he will have by the time this debate is over.

My amendments are now in the following order. The first amendment is that the Minister shall provide that the form is to be delivered to the person concerned; the second amendment provides that the form which a person receives, and completes, may be sent and delivered not only to the electoral officer, but also to any police officer, of whatever rank, who is in charge of a police post. Those police posts are spread over the whole country, and this will be a concession to the people of the platteland. The people do not write so easily and there may be practical difficulties in the way of their writing letters, and I feel that the Minister should provide that these forms may also be handed to police officials, and that police officials will also be able to issue receipts to the people concerned. Then I have an amendment which provides that a man who gets a form shall fill it in and post it, but a man who is in gaol need not do so. I also have in mind people who are physically unfit and are unable to comply with those requirements.

I am prepared to accept that.

My fourth proposal is in connection with the penalty clauses. I do not know why the Minister has made this clause so drastic — he lays it down that a person may for his first offence be fined an amount not exceeding £10. I want to propose that for the first offence the fine shall not exceed £1 and for the second offence and subsequent offences not exceed £5 provided, however, that if a summons is handed to a man or if he is notified or warned that his name is not on the roll, he shall also be notified that the provisions of the Act of 1935 in regard to criminal procedure and the onus of proof will apply which provisions lay it down that a person who may be found guilty and may be fined an amount of less than £15, is allowed to fill in a form and admit his guilt in which case he shall only pay 10s. or 5s. This is done by the provincial authorities in regard to motor licences and dog licences. I feel that the Minister should grant that concession to people whose names are not on the roll and who are liable to be punished. If they are handed a summons, they should be told that they need not appear before a court — a court which may perhaps be 100 miles away, but that they can complete a form and pay 5s. or 10s. That is a reasonable proposal. The 1935 Act has already provided for this sort of thing. We live in a country of long distances, and one should not act too drastically. These people should be notified of the provisions of the law, and be told that they can fill in a form and pay 5s. or 10s.

I should like to say a few words on the important matter raised by the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Bowen). I did not intend to take any part in this discussion at all, as I do feel that we should help the Minister to try and get this Bill through. In principle, I submit that the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) is perfectly right. There should be no discrimination between one class of voter and another class of voter. All voters are on an equal standing so far as the law is concerned, and in principle the point taken by the hon. member is sound. I have gone into this matter very carefully, and the difficulty I find appears to be administrative. It will be remembered that the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) introduced some legislation a few years ago which, in spite of the previous equality of the voters’ list, made a distinction between Europeans and coloureds, to the effect that whereas a white person got on to the roll without any further qualification at 21 years, the coloured person has to go through the laborious process of proving his qualification. One has to go to the trouble of proving his qualification and the other has not. That raises a difficulty when you come to deal with this matter because, on principle, there is no excuse for making any differentiation, but in dealing with the matter from an administrative point of view you are up against difficulties. If you make this registration compulsory, according to the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick), it is going to increase the coloured vote. That is a matter on which there are two opinions. Some people think that it will not increase the number of coloured voters because they are so afraid, possibly, of contravening the provisions of the law on the matter of qualifications that many of them will keep off the roll. On the other hand, under the original Bill they would be compelled to make application for registration. The fact is that many of them do not know whether they are qualified or not. There is, for instance, the question of wages which must be earned all the year round in the case of people of low wages, and the question of the occupation of property of a certain value, so it will be seen that there are many practical difficulties. As I understand the position, the decision to bring this in was come to before hon. members on the other side of the House raised the question. I think that the Minister should take us into his confidence and tell us whether he has it from his expert advisers that to make up this roll it would be impossible, administratively, to make registration compulsory in the case of coloured persons.

He has already said that.

The hon. member says the Minister has said that. I am sorry, I was not in the House when he said it. I think, seeing that the coloured person looks upon it as a form of differentiation, that it would be better to allow the Bill to remain as it was. I think the Bill has so many advantages that I am not going to risk losing the Bill for the reasons already advanced. I believe this Bill to be vital, and we must get it through.

[Inaudible].

I am sorry, I cannot deal with the hon. member and would remind him that in vain is the net spread in the sight of any bird. If this goes through, the feeling will be abroad that this is a new form of differentiation, and I do not like it for that reason. I think the Minister should take the necessary steps administratively to see that coloured persons who are qualified are put on the roll. As has been said over there, there are many qualified white men who do not get on the roll, but I can assure the Committee that under the present form of registration there are thousands of coloured men who are left off the roll. The hon. member was quite wrong when he said that at present there is no easy way of keeping coloured men off the roll. Under the law, as it was introduced by the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan), if an objection is laid against the coloured man whose name appears on the provisional roll, the onus of proof is upon the man against whom the objection is made. Such a person has to appear in the court himself and give evidence. That is the snag. So far as the coloured people in this country are concerned they know that if they spend a day going to see that their names are restored to the register, they would lose their jobs. The hon. member for Piquetberg found a way of keeping coloured persons off the roll, by making it possible for a man to lodge an objection against a coloured man, in the knowledge that the coloured man would not or could not go to court and endeavour to substantiate his claim. If the Minister can tell the House that he hopes to make provision in supplying particular machinery which would offer every inducement for coloured people who are qualified to vote, to be put on the roll, that would probably do away with a great deal of the difficulty raised by the amendment now being introduced. It will further ensure that people who are qualified to get on the roll will get there. I am sure that hon. members opposite will agree that if a man has a qualification to be put on the roll, no obstacle should be placed in his way of getting on the roll, whether he is a white man or a coloured person. I think in principle it is wrong to discriminate, but the difficulties will be overcome if the Minister will see that those people who are qualified get on the roll and thus do away with the unjust onus which has kept so many qualified coloured men off the roll.

Anyone wanting to get into a muddle about the provisions of a Bill only has to listen to advocates and attorneys discussing a measure. The hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) resents the fact that we on this side of the House object to certain people having their names on the Voters’ Rolls, and that we put in mass objections. We have no objection to people legally having their names on the Voters’ Rolls, but we do try to get them removed from the rolls if they have been put on illegally by the party to which the hon. member belongs. I can quite appreciate the reason why the Minister has decided to exclude coloured people from the provisions of this Bill because the courts of this country are not uniform in the verdicts they give in respect of identical cases. Let me give an example. If three coloured people live in a house worth £75 as provided for under the Act, one magistrate will hold that all three coloured people are entitled to be registered because all three of them live in a house worth £75. In another case a magistrate who has to decide the same point will say that the £75 has to be divided by three so that not one of them is entitled to be registered. The hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) should also know that one is not allowed to register mass objections before a court unless a guarantee is put up. That guarantee is demanded in order to prevent frivolous objections being made. Why does the hon. member who is a lawyer misrepresent the position? Does he do so simply with the object of influencing members of the Transvaal who have not the same difficulties to contend with that we have to contend with here? I hope the Minister, who is also a lawyer, will insist on this point. The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) is usually a fair minded man so long as the flag is not at issue. He is just and fair so long as one does not discuss a subject in which the flag is involved. I now want to ask him, and this also applies to the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Bowen), to mention one single instance where members belonging to this side of the House have raised objections without giving well founded reasons. Where the hon. member speaks of mass objections I want to ask him whether he has ever known of a court—and I think he will admit that the courts are fair—if he does not admit that then there is no object in going to court—I want to ask him whether a court has ever sat to enquire into objections where the names of coloured people have not been removed from the roll.

Are you prepared to accent the onus of proof?

I nave lust proved that if a man comes along and states that he has a house worth £75—what onus of proof is there in such a thing? The hon. member as a lawyer must realise that we only want such people on our rolls as are entitled to be there. Now the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) says that it is wrong not to compel people to become registered, but we are not pleading for people to be compelled to be registered and at the same time asking for coloured people to be left off—we want them all to be treated alike. We say that you must not compel the Europeans and leave the coloureds. That is logical, but an advocate makes money by confusing matters. I say that while we have no objections to coloured people being legitimately placed on the rolls we should always object to coloured people illegally trying to get on to the Voters’ Rolls. I hope the Minister will not allow himself to be talked over, but I want to point out that if he were to do so endless objections would be raised and endless difficulties would crop up, not only for the candidates, but for the Minister’s own office as well. The hon. member raised the question here of mass objections, but he knows that the first thing a magistrate asks anyone raising an objection is whether he has seen the House in which the coloured person lives. The man who objects knows that it is necessary for him himself to have seen the house; yet the hon. member talks of mass objections. I ask the Minister not to grant that request because if he gives in we shall continue to raise objections against this Bill until the prorogation of Parliament.

On the second reading of this Bill I expressed myself in favour of exempting coloured voters from compulsory registration on the ground that it seemed to me to be unfair to place upon a man a criminal penalty where from the circumstances and the nature of his obligation there could be no certainty of his obligation to register himself. We know that in practice a large number of these qualified to vote among the coloured people do not know whether they are, or whether they are not qualified, and if they are compelled to register there would be an element of uncertainty. I pointed out on the second reading that the difficulty with a measure of this kind was the discrimination in the sphere of rights. The discrimination is that these coloured people are subject to qualifications whereas the Europeans are not. Those are the grounds on which I expressed the view that I did on the second reading, but the coloured people themselves say that while recognising the position they are quite prepared to share the responsibility of finding out whether they are qualified or not. They are prepared on account of their enthusiasm for exercising the rights of citizenship to accept the duties of citizenship in circumstances which make it particularly difficult for them to carry out those duties. I think that is a very creditable stand to take. The African People’s Organisation, and the Joint Council of Europeans and Coloured have taken up the position that despite the difficulties which beset these people, they are prepared to undertake the criminal responsiblity if they do not register. This amendment was introduced by the Minister, I believe, for the benefit of the coloured people, but these people are prepared for the sake of the advantages of having the machinery of registration fully available to them, and for the sake of the enthusiasm they feel for exercising the rights of citizenship, to undertake the other responsibilities. I think that is a spirit which should be encouraged, and therefore I am going to add my appeal to that of other hon. members to the Minister to reconsider the matter. In asking him to do that I am asking him to do no more than I myself have done since the second reading.

It may help to shorten the discussion on this section if I deal at this stage with some of the objections raised, and particularly with the amendments of the hon. member for Moorreesburg. Before coming to his amendment I wish just in passing to correct a wrong impression under which the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Tom Naudé) appears to be. He says that this Bill would never have been necessary if the department of the interior had done its duty, that it was the duty of the Department to get in touch with all the potential voters, supply them with application forms, and ensure that they are registered. I think unwittingly the hon. member did my department an injustice and I would like to remind him of what the Select Committee said on this point. In paragraph 2 of its report the Committee says—

I merely mention this because I am sure that the hon. member would not have wished to have done my department an injustice. I now come to the amendment of the hon. member for Moorreesburg, and let me say at once that I am prepared to accept any reasonable amendments which may be proposed by members opposite, or by members on this side provided those amendments do not interfere with the principle of the Bill, the principle of compulsory registration and do not in effect nullify that principle. The hon. member has objected to the onus being placed on an accused person to show that he has submitted an application form to the required authority. He has suggested that so far from softening the provisions of the Bill by inserting the provision which I have done, I am making it harsher that it was before. The hon. member as a lawyer will know how difficult it is in these matters to obtain convictions, unless one shifts the onus of proof. We have this provision in a number of our Statutes—may I remind the hon. member of section 58 of the General Law Amendment Act of 1935. That section provides for the onus of proof in prosecutions under taxation laws, and it says that where a person is charged with any offence in regard to the failure to pay any tax or to furnish any information in regard to a tax imposed by a Union or a province—such a person shall be deemed to have failed to pay that tax or to have furnished that information “unless the contrary is proved.”

It remains an exception.

It is the difficulty of proving a negative, and while on the one hand I am seeking to add to the Bill, and to draft on this principle of placing the onus on the accused, I am giving the accused the facility to defend himself by adding this proviso in regard to the possession of a receipt.

He has to post it. What evidence has he that he has posted it?

He has to give evidence of having submitted an application. If he receives a receipt and produces such a receipt, that is proof positive.

That is when he hands it over, but when he posts it?

If he submits an application the machinery to be set up will provide that that application is to be acknowledged. He will receive an acknowledgment from the electoral officer, He may actually receive an acknowledgment at the time the canvasser meets him. In the towns he will receive an acknowledgment at once. In country districts he will have to wait.

If the form goes astray in the post he does not get an acknowledgment.

Then he knows that he must be on his guard.

Then you expect him to register.

No, I do not. I expect him to make absolutely certain that his application form has been received.

That may be too late.

No.

If he lives in the Kalahari has he to go to the nearest town— 100 miles away?

He will get an acknowledgment if he posts an application form. If he is entitled to hand in his application form to a police officer of whatever rank at the head of a police station in his district, it becomes easier still. I was going on, before the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) stopped me to deal with another point, to tell the Committee that I am prepared to accept that amendment. By accepting that amendment the difficulty which hon. members seem to have in this respect, will fall away, I mean in regard to voters living at a long distance from a registering officer. I am prepared, Mr. Chairman, to accept his amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4, that is to say I am prepared to accept that application forms may be sent not merely to the magistrate or the registering officer, but also to police officers, of whatever rank at the head of a police station. I am not prepared to accept the first amendment in the form it is at present, because it will not fit in in view of the sub-section which I am moving, but I am having the appropriate amendments drafted, and the hon. member may either move it himself or I will move it, to give effect to his desire. The same remark will apply in regard to amendments Nos. 3 and 4, that is to say where he wishes to insert “who on account of mental or physical weakness or disability, is not able to comply with the provision.” That will have to be put in in the appropriate line, but I accept the amendment. Then I am also prepared to accept the suggestion that we should make the penalty lower than it is. I accept £1 for the first offence, and £5 for subsequent offences. May I say this, however, that the hon. member for Moorreesburg will recollect that in the existing Act introduced in 1931 by the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan). the fine for failing to fill in a form, or giving information when requested, is £10. I admit there is a distinction.

The hon. member for Piquetberg administered that Act.

Well, if my hon. friend is raising that point, he ought to have even less compunction about the present position. As I said, there is a distinction, because in the 1931 Act the offence is wilful.

Yes, and the form is supplied to him.

Yes, in the present case failure to register may be inadvertent.

Is not £1 too low to be really effective?

No, I think the hon. member will probably know that in Australia where convictions have taken place, the fine generally imposed is 2s. 6d. or 5s., unless there are frequent offences. I have no doubt that for first offences a magistrate might even reprimand a person.

You don’t want to put all that rigmarole in.

No, I am not prepared to accept that accused persons must be informed, as it provided in the General Law Amendment Act. There is no necessity for that. It is not my duty or the duty of the Legislature to place in new Bills a clause drawing attention of the public to the provisions of previous Bills. It might be done administratively. The department, where it wants to prosecute, may instruct the person to be warned, and I am prepared, if it is desired, through my department to have that done. But it is not necessary to put it in the Act. I have now dealt with the three amendments of the hon. member which I am prepared to accept, and I am left now with amendments Nos. 1 and 5. The hon. member says it is not reasonable to say that the potential voter must obtain a form. Well, sir, this attempt to delete the words is linked up with amendment No. 5, in terms of which the hon. member seeks to provide that there shall be no prosecution unless an accused person has been handed a form and failed to fill it in. Now if I accept that amendment I am completely nullifying the compulsory provisions of this Bill, and I get back to the position as it exists in the law at present. We know that in practice it has been found impracticable to deliver forms to all potential voters, and that has led to a possible 10 per cent. short of full registration. The purpose of this compulsory provision is to make people realise that even though they have not had forms sent to them, a duty is cast upon them to see that they get these forms.

What about the man in the Kalahari?

I don’t want to have to quote legal maxims here, but the law does not compel a man to do the impossible. The department would never be so foolish as to attempt to prosecute some person living in the wilds of the Kalahari. If I accept the amendment which the hon. member moves, then any potential voter could always shield himself under the excuse that he has never had a form sent to him, he could in fact dodge the form, and thus he could never be compelled to register. It would nullify the Bill entirely, so I cannot accept it. I said at the outset I was prepared to accept amendments in keeping with the spirit and form of the Bill, but that amendment would kill the Bill, and in those circumstances I cannot accept it.

I should like to draw the attention of the Minister to the real compulsion provided for under this clause. The compulsion imposed on the voter is not that he must be registered, but that he must obtain an application form, complete it and hand it to the official concerned, or otherwise post it. In spite of the proviso put in by the Minister, that the admission of a receipt voucher will guarantee him from prosecution, I want to direct the the Minister’s attention to the fact that in view of the obligations placed on the voter, if he is able to prove that he has completed the form and has posted it, or handed it over, whether he be registered or not, and, whether he has the receipt in connection with the form which he has sent in or not, he can no longer be prosecuted. This is particularly clear if we look at the new subclause 5 which the Minister has proposed here and which reads as follows—

It is sufficient proof so far as that citizen is concerned if he can produce evidence of having posted such a document. In view of this provision I wish to move an amendment,. Under the law as it stands to-day the form is sent free of charge by post. If the voter has to prove that he has posted it, the best evidence is the registration receipt of the post office. If he has a registration receipt from the post office, it is the best evidence he is able to produce to the magistrate and that being so, I want to move the following amendment—

To-day he can send the application form by post, but he cannot register it free of charge, but if he is able to send it free of charge by registered post he immediately has the necessary evidence of having complied with the provisions of this Bill. I feel that my request is a very reasonable one. After all, it does not cost the department anything, and it will do away with a lot of trouble. I would suggest that the Minister consider this amendment.

Perhaps I should answer the hon. member at once. I am prepared, in principle, to accept this amendment, because I think it is a useful suggestion. I am at the moment enquiring from my advisers, whether it is competent for a private member to move an amendment which will have the effect of causing a surrender of revenue. It may also be necessary to have a Governor-General’s recommendation. That, however, is a technical matter, and if the hon. member will leave the matter in abeyance I will go into it. Meanwhile I hope he will not hold up the section, because this amendment can be introduced at the report stage.

May I ask, if I am not allowed to move this amendment, whether the Minister will move it to comply with the technical difficulties?

Yes, if necessary I shall do it at the report stage.

This Bill bears the stamp of hurried legislation. The Minister in his hurry to get this Bill passed has not considered the question whether it will be a proper Bill, and he has not taken into account the difficulties in connection with a measure of this kind, he has not taken into account the difficulties on the platteland and, in the villages, and I predict that after the first registration he will want to return to this House in order to amend this Bill. The hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) said that this Bill was of vital importance. If he had said that it was of vital importance for his party, I would be prepared to agree with him. This clause too contains a drastic change. [Quorum.] It is striking how few members belonging to the other side of the House are present in this House, and I do not see any of the platteland members on the other side. This matter primarily affects the platteland and it is of the utmost importance to the platteland, but hon. members opposite are absent. We are asking that the difficulties of the platteland should be borne in mind. The hon. the Minister mentioned the very sound work done by the registration officials. I was a member of the select committee which considered this Bill and that select committee expressed the opinion that the officials in all those instances had done very good work, but the select committee also obtained evidence that the recording officers who often have to be engaged are not always the best kind of people one is able to get. They are part time people who are not in the permanent service, they are unemployed men who happen to be available to do the work. Let us take Bloemfontein for instance. There we have always had the experience that in certain parts people are registered to the extent of practically 100 per cent., while in other parts of the town they are registered to the extent of perhaps only 75 per cent. It depends on the person who goes round and records the votes to be placed on the voters’ roll. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) suggested that if a form were sent by registered post it should be ample evidence. If a man has a receipt of having sent such a form through the post it will be adequate evidence, for the purposes of the Act, of his having been registered. There is the difficulty, however, that some people live 100 miles and further from the nearest post office, and those people would have to make a special trip to that post office. There are people in this country who do not receive any mail for months on end. Now they are to be compelled to make a special trip to the post office and visit the official there in order to find out whether their names are on the roll. Clause 6 says this—

Now we want to know from the Minister before we pass this Bill where those lists will be pasted up. We shall move an amendment later on which will provide that in the districts the lists shall be pasted up as near the voters as possible. For instance, this can be done at the offices of justices of the peace, public schools, perhaps also in shops and post offices, but in any case those lists must be pasted up in places which will make it convenient for people to ascertain whether they have been registered.

I shall go into that, I shall see what can be done administratively.

The Minister says that he will consider it, but we should like to have it laid down in the law where those lists are to be pasted up and I shall tell him why. The Minister of the Interior may decide for instance that the lists shall be pasted up in the dorps or villages only. That would mean compelling the voters to cover long distances in order to find out whether their names are on the rolls. I have held many meetings where the people had to come with donkey carts in order to attend such meetings. Now this would mean compelling people to travel long distances by donkey cart or other vehicle to scrutinise the lists. We want to have the assurance in black and white, that those lists will be distributed in such a way that the people will be able to see that they are registered. The Minister may make us a promise that the rolls will be pasted up at shops and post offices, but what about his successor? He may possibly not do so, and that is why we want to have it in the law, so that people who have to be registered will be protected. If the Minister does not agree to this, he may possibly cause a lot of bitterness on the platteland. The Minister is not conversant with the conditions of the platteland. He holds one meeting in his constituency where he meets his voters, but there is a totally different position in those extensive constituencies which are 300 or 400 miles in diameter. That is why we ask for this provision. Then there is another point in connection with the delivery in the towns. There are people who go out in the mornings, people like firemen or drivers, and they come back in the evening. The form may possibly be delivered to a child or to some one else, and the person concerned never receives it. The Minister tells us that there will be extensive publication of this whole matter, and that the man who has not received a form will then have the opportunity of getting one. But that is not so easy. Registration takes place but it is quite possible that the man may know nothing about it. The Minister now wants to introduce compulsory registration, but if he does so we must help the people concerned, and enable them to complete their forms and hand them in.

I should like to tell the hon. member who has just spoken that I am prepared to consider his suggestion. It is not, of course, germane to the present clause. The hon. member urges me to put into effect what he wishes, by way of legislation. I am prepared to consider whether it may not be possible to do so in a later clause in the Bill, but I will go into that matter. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. Strydom) is not here at the moment, but I can inform the Committee that I am now advised that his amendment is in order, and that it is competent for the hon. member to move the amendment which he did relating to the dispatch of applications through the registered post, free. I am prepared to accept his amendment. When I replied on the last occasion I omitted quite inadvertently to deal with the questions raised by the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander), the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Bowen), the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick), and the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno), namely, the question of the exclusion of coloured voters from the compulsory provisions of the Bill. I can only repeat what I said in moving my amendment, that I have given this matter very careful attention indeed. I am satisfied that through excluding the coloured voters from the compulsory provision of the Bill, we are not affirming any new colour bar. There seems to be an idea in the minds of some hon. members that this exclusion is tantamount to a new colour bar. I cannot appreciate that at all. I do not think it is so. Indeed, I am satisfied that it is not so. We have our two categories of voters at the present time, namely, those who satisfy certain qualifications, and those who are entitled to registration merely by virtue of the fact that they have reached 21 years of age. We will continue to deal with those two separate categories. Upon one of them we impose the duty of registering, we place a burden upon them. On the other category we do not place such an onus, and the reasons which have actuated me in this matter are departmental reasons. There are difficulties in the way of carrying out, in practice, such compulsory registration, and I repeat I am not satisfied even if we were able to have this provision in the Bill, I am not satisfied that it will lead to the results which hon. members wish. Hon. members seem to be confusing two issues, namely, submitting applications for registration and the question of objections to persons placed on the provisional rolls. I am not going to discuss that now, because it is not competent for me to do so on this clause, that is the question of raising objections to those persons who have placed their names on the roll. I wish to tell hon. members who are interested in the subject this, that I wish to see all qualified coloured persons on the voters’ lists, and my department will give such competent coloured persons every facility for placing their names on the voters’ lists, but I am satisfied that more can be done administratively, by a sympathetic and wise administration. By placing the provision on the Statute Book it would be really of no great effect at all. I am prepared to give the coloured community what assistance I can, by way of assistance through my department, by way of helpful advice and assistance from my department, to ensure that qualified persons of that community will be enabled to register. I hope that hon. members will not press the point any further, because I feel they are really under a misapprehension. There is no intention whatever of hurting the coloured community or of creating a fresh colour bar. It is merely a matter of administrative convenience.

We are all to-day in such a position that one hardly knows how to keep within the provisions of the law, and how to keep out of trouble. It would appear to me that the best thing is always to keep quiet so as not to get into trouble. But after this Bill is passed even that would be no use, because if one sits still and fails to register, and if one fails to make sure of one’s name being on the voters’ roll, one will be in trouble again, and if one does not obtain a form one will also be in trouble. It appears to me that the Minister is very reasonable in being prepared to accept amendments to this Bill. We appreciate his attitude, but I fail to see why in the circumstances he is unable to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Moorreesburg to delete the word “obtain”. It appears to me that the Minister has just drafted this Bill with the idea of catching a crowd of people in the towns who do not want to register, and that he is now causing all sorts of troubles and difficulties by doing so. A man on the platteland is now obliged to obtain a form which he has to deliver to the magistrate. I am pleased that the Minister is now accepting the amendment whereby one can deliver this form to the police, or one can register it free of charge at the post office. But there are people on the platteland who get their mail only once every fortnight, and most of them do not worry their heads about their names appearing on the voters’ roll or not. They find out now that if their names are not on the roll, they will be compelled to get a form. I am not a lawyer, but if the Minister is really in earnest about wanting everybody to be registered, then I fail to see why the Government should not assume the responsibility for the delivery of the forms to the people, or for seeing to it that people are given notice that they have not been registered. If the Minister accepts the amendment, it will be a great concession towards removing difficulties, especially in view of the fact that people will be apt to get into trouble without knowing anything about their obligations. We shall be pleased if the Minister will accept this amendment, and we are grateful to him for having accepted the other amendment under which a person will also be allowed to deliver his form to a police officer, because this will prove a great convenience to people living far from a magistrate’s court; the amendment which enables them to register their forms free of charge will also be a great concession; how, otherwise, are they to get a receipt for the dispatch of their forms? In the circumstances I am glad that the Minister has made those concessions, and also that he is prepared to reduce the amount of the fines; the fine was to have been £10, and now it has been reduced to £1. I am afraid that the Minister will find when the Bill is passed that there are thousands of people in the country who have not been registered and they will be brought before the courts. We are convinced that this Bill will not have the effect of the Minister’s object being achieved, and we are anxious to assist those people who know nothing about the provisions of this measure. I, therefore, want to make an earnest appeal to the Minister, and I want to urge him also to accept the first amendment, proposed by the hon. member for Moorreesburg.

I want to start by congratulating the Minister on the manner in which he is meeting the amendments from this side of the House. That spirit will naturally find reflection here, and the immediate result is that I rise here to lend what little assistance I can to the Minister and I want to come forward with a suggestion which I am sure will solve most of the immediate difficulties.

I fear the Greeks bearing gifts.

I want to, suggest that this clause should be deleted. If the Minister will accept that, he will get nothing but gratitude. I say that this clause should be omitted, because reading the report of the select committee one can only come to the conclusion that the committee disregarded the evidence of the officials who appeared before them. There appeared first of all the electoral officer for Cape Town, there appeared the electoral officer for the Witwatersrand, and there appeared the electoral officer for Pretoria. Not one of these three officials was in favour of compulsory regisstration; they were all against it. And finally there appeared the Under-Secretary for the Interior, and he also appeared to be against compulsory registration. Not only was he apparently against compulsory registration, but he informed us that the previous Minister of the Interior — the Minister who held that post in 1935 — actually discussed this question with the department and then decided against compulsory registration, and it is rather intriguing for us to see that this change has taken place in the atmosphere, that whereas in 1935, after full departmental investigation, compulsory registration was turned down, now the idea has to be pursued hotfoot and it has become an urgent necessity. I just want to read some of the evidence to convince the Minister that what I say is correct, that the select committee lost sight of some of the evidence put before it. I am quoting from the select committee report on page 2, and from the evidence by the electoral officer for Cape Town. He is now dealing with the practice as it is—

He means, of course, the South African Party—

Then he continues and he says this on page 3—

And then he goes on—

And then he says on page 4—

And then he says on page 6—

And then on page 7—

Continuing on the same page he says—

That is the first witness. And that was not all he said. After he had pointed out the deficiencies, the weak points in compulsory registration, he continued to give his advice on the matter. That was the evidence of this particular official who, in view of the important position he holds, would be entitled to speak with authority, and one might say: “Well, the committee, perhaps in view of your evidence, was entitled to disregard that because it stood on its own.” But that is not so. Let us see what the next witness said. On page 42 hon. members will find the evidence of the electoral officer for the East Rand, and this is what he said—

Were not these criticisms against the system as existing in Australia?

Yes, and he points out that that system would not be efficacious here whereas an extension of the current system in South Africa would be efficacious. You may say that possibly there is some other evidence in favour of it. Let me give you the evidence given by the next witness, the Under Secretary for the Interior. This is what he said on page 52—

And then later on he said—

There is another official who by reason of the post which he holds should know something of these electoral matters, and whose evidence should carry weight, and yet we find that although the predecessor in the incumbency of the Minister of the Interior decided, after discussing the matter, against compulsory registration the hon. gentleman over there, in a rather hasty manner, to judge of this Bill, decided on compulsory registration. I am not suggesting that these amendments which have been accepted are necessarily a sign of the Bill being a bad Bill. They may be improvements, and I am prepared to give the Minister the benefit of the doubt. Even that is not the end of the matter. There was another witness called, and that was the electoral officer from Pretoria. He gave evidence which was recorded on page 84. [Time limit.]

Fortunately I was not a member of this select committee and I am therefore not responsible for its report. We have heard a lot here about this Bill being in accordance with the report of the select committee and about the House being compelled to approve of the committee’s report as a whole. The first proof we have of its being impossible for us to approve of it is that we have been busy for three hours on this clause, which by this time has been pulled to pieces to such an extent that I should like to challenge the Minister to get up here and to read to us the exact words of the clause on which we are going to be asked to vote. The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) has moved a number of amendments, three of which have been accepted by the Minister. The Minister himself has moved two amendments, and he is going to move another one suggested by the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom). This means that so far, already, six amendments are being passed on this one clause, and now the Minister expects us to vote on this clause and to approve of it when it has been torn to pieces to such an extent that we do not know what it is, and the Minister himself is unable to tell us exactly what he expects us to vote on. This proves to us most convincingly that this Bill is a piece of hasty legislation, despite the fact that there is no need for us to be in such a hurry about this measure. I again want to bring the two amendments of the hon. member for Moorreesburg to the Minister’s notice, although he has told us that he is not prepared to accept them. The first amendment relates to the onus which is being placed on the Union citizen to obtain the form. It has been repeatedly shewn that in those very large constituencies it will sometimes be quite impossible for a man to obtain such a form. The man lives far away; he does not see the papers; he knows nothing about this Bill, and nobody explains it to him. The local member of Parliament may perhaps explain at his meetings that such a Bill has been passed by Parliament, but quite a number of people do not attend such meetings, being under the impression that they have no special interest in meetings of that kind. They have no knowledge of the law haying been amended and the result is going to be that they will experience considerable inconvenience. Another point I wish to bring to the Minister’s notice is that the person concerned may be ill. The Minister has accepted one of the amendments proposed by the hon. member for Moorreesburg providing that if a person is physically unfit this fact shall be taken into account. But that question will not be taken into account in regard to the obtaining of a form, and the result may be that a man may be brought before the courts although he may have been ill and has not had the opportunity of obtaining the form. I should like the Minister to bear this in mind and if necessary propose an amendment. Then there is another point. The onus of obtaining a form is placed on a person, but there are numerous instances in my constituency of people having had their names on last year’s roll, where their names have not appeared on the new rolls. A man may have voted last year and he is under the impression that his name is again on the voters’ roll. When the next election comes along he goes to the polling booth and finds that his name has been omitted without his knowledge. In the circumstances it would be much better if the Minister should lay it down that the department, when the new lists are framed, should have all the old names put on the list again, and that there should be a separate list of the names of people which have been omitted, so that those people could be notified, and the onus should not be placed on them to obtain the forms. As the Minister must have seen this clause as drafted by him, together with all the amendments which have now been proposed, has become a hopeless mess, and I feel he should withdraw the whole clause; it is quite impossible for the committee to vote according to its conviction as nobody can know what he is going to vote for.

I think I am not the only person in the House who is not entirely satisfied with the hon. minister’s reply to the objections that have been raised to his proposal to exclude the coloured population from the scope of this Bill. I am quite sure that the hon. minister is making this change in the original Bill in perfect good faith, but I am equally certain that he has not faced all the implications of the step that he has taken. It is the desire of the coloured population to be kept within the scope of this Bill, and that desire is not merely a question of academic principle, but is a desire that has a very practical side to it. The coloured people do desire in spite of what the Minister has said, to be kept within the scope of this Bill, because they believe it will facilitate their accession to the Voters’ Roll. They believe that if the responsibility for registering is imposed upon them, there will contingently be imposed upon the authorities the duty of seeing that all eligible persons are put on the Voters’ Roll. The process will in itself be a guarantee to a very considerable extent of the qualifications of the people who succeed in getting on to the roll. I think the Minister is making a mistake in keeping the coloured people out of this Bill, if he desires to maintain the numbers on the roll. If the Minister is not prepared to allow the coloured people to remain within the scope of the Bill, there is only one alternative, and that is to change the law as it exists at present, and put the onus of proof not on the applicant for admission to the roll, but on the objector to that admission. The whole trend of this debate to-day is towards an attempt to get the Minister to accept the principle that the onus of proof shall not lie on the European voters, and I feel that if that is a good plea in the case of the European, it can be made much more strongly on behalf of the coloured voter. I hope the Minister will reconsider his decision, and will retain the coloured voters within the scope of the Bill. But if he feels that that is not possible, I ask him to consider the introduction of a further amendment, which will reverse the present position and will relieve the coloured voter from the liability which now lies upon him to establish his claim to be on the Voters’ Roll. If he will provide such an amendment to the Bill, I am certain that the coloured people and all those who stand for their rights, will be completely satisfied.

So far as the platteland is concerned compulsory registration is certainly not necessary there. In spite of unfavourable circumstances, vast constituencies, and people who live on farms far away from the centre of the constituency, the platteland people take sufficient interest in the sound administration of the country to see to it that their names are on the Voters’ Rolls and not only their own names, but the names of their wives, their major children and of the people working under them. In my days I have had a, good deal of experience in connection with the registration of voters and in spite of the fact that the people of the platteland do their best to get on to the Voters’ Rolls, it is still sometimes necessary for us to assist, and even then some people on the platteland remain unregistered. I am pleased that the Minister has accepted this amendment proposed by the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) but I want to urge that he should try and accent the first amendment as well, so that the forms will be delivered to the voters. It is quite easy to do so. Those forms may be sent by post, or the police may hand them to the people when going through their areas from time to time. In my area I have people who live 100 miles from the nearest magistrate’s office and also from the nearest police station. Those people would have to make great sacrifices even to obtain the forms. Now let us take it that they get those forms and they send them off by registered post, as the Minister is apparently prepared to concede. But even then the form may have been wrongly filled up. This sort of thing happens often even in the case of people of whom we would not expect such a thing. Then that man again has to make a sacrifice and travel 100 miles to obtain his form. I hope the Minister will give in on this point. The Minister talks about one vote one value. Well, there is no such thing. The Minister now proposes compulsory registration which is not required so far as the platteland is concerned, and he also proposes other things because he wants to consolidate the power and the strength which he incidentally happens to have obtained. He wants to perpetuate his power and that is why he wants this compulsory registration. I would like to support the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Rooth) but I know that the Minister will not give in there and will not agree to this clause being deleted. He wants compulsory registration and that is why I want to urge him to be careful, and to meet the views of the people outside more than he is doing now. It will not affect his Bill in any way if he gives in in regard to these amendments. I want to make an appeal to the Minister to make it possible for the people to obtain those forms.

It is particularly striking again this afternoon that the representatives of natives feel themselves compelled to take part in this debate. May I ask how many white voters or how many coloured voters they represent here? One cannot help feeling annoyed when people who have nothing whatever to do with white voters and with the registration of coloured voters come and take part in the difference which we are having on this question. Hon. members have been pleading that the onus of proof in regard to qualifications resting upon the coloured people should be deleted. I want to point out that even under the existing law our experience is that in spite of the onus which rests on coloured people gross abuses take place in this connection. I can tell the Minister that during the interim registration at Malmesbury more than 300 coloured people were placed on the rolls by irresponsible persons. I may say here that a certain party—I do not want to mention the name—engaged coloured people and paid them 2s. 6d. for every coloured man they were able to get on the provisional voters’ rolls. In one magisterial district objections were lodged against 120 names; in 117 cases it was found that those coloured people did not possess the necessary qualification, and in the three other cases the coloured people were taken off the registers because they had committed perjury. I therefore want to point out that under the existing laws coloured people get on to the Voters’ Rolls although they are not entitled to be there. The hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander), and the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger), have tried to lecture us here, but they have been talking about a matter of which they apparently know nothing, or in respect of which they deliberately keep themselves in ignorance. I want to plead with the Minister that in regard to the form he will make sure that when the biennial registration takes place a registration form will be handed to every voter. Hon. members on this side of the House have already referred to the difficulties and I feel that we cannot sufficiently emphasise those difficulties. We cannot allow people living in the far distant parts to be turned into offenders against the law without their knowing anything about it. The Minister asks whether we imagine that his department is going to carry out the law in such a drastic manner. I should like to know from the Minister how such a person is going to be prosecuted when he is brought before the magistrate? Is the magistrate first of all going to ask the Minister concerned whether he should apply the law drastically, or is the magistrate going to give his judgment in accordance with the law as it stands on the Statute Book? I associate myself with the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Moorreesburg and I agree that we should at least ensure that every white voter shall have the form handed to him. The Bill is very vague, but I should like to know whether on the occasion of the biennial registration, when a voter has to fill up the registration form in front of a registering officer, a receipt will be given to him. I want to point out that I myself have in the past had the experience that when a person fills up the form before a registering officer that does not always signify that his name will appear on the roll. I know of cases where people have signed their names for registration in a certain electoral area; in spite of this their names have appeared on a voters’ roll for a different area. We have even had cases of voters being registered in more than one constituency. It is essential that people who fill in the form on the occasion of the biennial registration before the registering officer shall be given their receipt at once. We may take it that a person who signs this form before the registering officer may be inclined to regard that as the end of the matter, and yet before he knows where he is he may be charged with having contravened the Act. We cannot expect every voter in such cases to take the trouble to ascertain whether his name actually has been put on the roll.

I wish to support what the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. Loubser) has said. We are not surprised at hon. members who have a great many coloured voters in their constituencies getting up and urging that this Bill should also apply to the coloured voters. I must say that to my mind the coloured people are not at all well represented here. Hon. members here who have a large number of coloured voters are very much concerned over their votes, but apparently they are not at all concerned over the deplorable economic conditions of the coloured people, especially in Cape Town. Surely the test is whether the interests of the electors are being properly looked after, and if I put that test I have to say that the coloured people are not really represented in Parliament. A plea is being put forward here to make compulsory registration applicable to them and to get more of them on the voters rolls, but the hon. members who put up that plea are not a bit concerned about the economic conditions of the coloured people as such. I want also to express my surprise at the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) having made her contribution to the debate. Hon. members over there represent the natives but they come here and talk on subjects which do not affect their voters at all. I am opposed to this compulsion. There are several good amendments which are contained in this Bill, but I am opposed to the Bill because it will help to create criminals on a large scale. I doubt whether the Minister is familiar with the far distant parts of the country. Take constituencies such as Potgietersrust or Waterberg or Zoutpansberg where the people live miles away from the nearest police station or post office, and even as far as 200 miles from the magistrate’s office. They never read any papers, they never read any notices, and if one does not inform them personally of the implications and complications of this kind of legislation, I am afraid those people who are living so quietly and peacefully on their farms will be turned into criminals. Does not the Minister realise the consequences of this Bill in the far away parts? But as the principle of compulsory registration has been accepted I want to ask the Minister to meet us as far as he possibly can so as to make it possible to carry out the Bill. Those people should receive notice that they have to register, and they should be notified of the fact that they are not registered. This is not such an easy thing. I have to hold close on forty meetings in my constituency, and I only reach one-third or even fewer of my voters because those people do not take the trouble to attend meetings, or otherwise they are so poor that they are unable to come to the meetings, and for that reason it should be made as easy as possible for them. I further wish to support the amendment of the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) especially in regard to the question of the fines. I would even prefer to amend the proposal to make the fine on the first conviction £1, by saying that on a first conviction a warning should be given.

In consequence of the Minister’s new proposal I am obliged, for technical reasons, to withdraw part of my amendment and to substitute my amendment by other amendments.

With leave of the Committee, the amendments proposed by Mr. Erasmus in lines 29, 46 and 50 were withdrawn.

I move as an amendment to the new sub-section proposed by the Minister of the Interior—

I also want to move an amendment. I move—

This means that if anyone has knowledge, in whatever way he may have acquired it, that his name does not appear on the provisional voters’ roll, he commits an offence and he is liable. I purposely do not say that he must be given written notice. So long as he is aware of the fact and the Crown is able to prove that he had such knowledge, that his name was not on the roll, he is liable because he has failed to have himself registered. I am very sorry for the department. I can realise the difficulties they are going to have. I do not want to prophesy anything, but I can assure the Minister that even with compulsory registration he is not going to achieve the object which he thinks it will. A position will be created whereby people will without knowing that they are doing so, commit an offence, and then they may be fined. I believe that the Minister has had sufficient experience of Voters’ Rolls; I myself have had years of experience of the compilation of those rolls, and that being so, I was interested to listen to the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Bowen) who protested against it not being made compulsory for coloured people to be placed on the roll, and he told us that as a result they would not be put on the roll, I can assure the House that in the areas where there are coloured people, they are all put on the rolls. Not only do hon. members opposite see to it that all people who are qualified have their names nut on the voters’ rolls, but the position is greatly abused by people who are not qualified to be on the rolls, and for that reason I say there are hundreds, or even thousands, on the rolls to-day who should not be there. The other side of the House will always see to it that the coloured people are put on the rolls, and that is why we had this infamous prosecution at Caledon, where they tried to get people on the rolls who were not entitled to be there, and only recently we had the same thing again in Paarl. In those circumstances there is no need for the Minister to say that he is afraid of coloured people not getting on to the rolls. We can rest assured that there are more people on the rolls than have a right to be there, and I can quite appreciate their being afraid that some of those people will be deleted, but those who are entitled to be there will always be registered. A great deal depends on the officials who have to scrutinise the position to see whether people are entitled to be registered, and they have done their work very satisfactorily. The Minister will find that if those people continue their work the rolls will become more and more purified from year to year. The Minister knows that when registration takes place the papers are full of notices in which the following is stated: “Watch out, this is the final day, see to it that you register,” and these notices will continue to appear. If in those circumstances people fail to register, how is the department going to find it out? A great burden is now being imposed on the department, and the position is going to be made very difficult without improving matters. I want to put this position to the Minister. Assuming my name is on the roll and it has been there for years and I am suddenly left off. I do not know that it has happened because people whose names have been on the rolls for years do not go and study the roll on every occasion to see whether they have been left off. A man is not going to bother to find out if he is on the roll because he has been recording his vote for the last 20 years, and he still has the same qualifications, so why should he go and look? But one day it may be found that that man’s name is no longer on the roll, and what happens then? If the other side finds out that he is a man who does not hold the same political opinions as they do, they will have him charged. They will go to the police and say that John is not on the list. He may have been left off by mistake but the United. Party agents will go through the rolls and they will find out that he is not there. They know that he has not applied and so they will go to the police and the man will be brought to court.

No. I am afraid they will keep quiet if he is an opponent of theirs.

Yes, but the fact remains that a man may be brought before the courts without his knowing that his name has been left off the roll.

The test is not whether your name is not on the roll, the test is whether a man has made application, which he has to do every two years.

Yes, but he need not make application if his name is on the list already. One only fills in the form if one’s name is not on the roll. I feel that if a man has received the form and he fails to post it, he may be considered liable, but I want provision to be made so that a person shall not be made into a criminal if by some mistake he has not got his name on the voters’ roll. For that reason I regard it as my duty to move that a person shall have knowledge of the fact that his name is not on the roll before he can be held liable. If it means nothing then I think the Minister should agree to it for the protection of the electors. The Minister can have no objection to inserting these words because surely everybody must be given notice. But if there is a possibility of someone not getting notice, what objection can there be to making provision for people whose names have been left off by mistake? If he deliberately does not register he is liable, but if he has no knowledge of the fact that his name has not been registered he should not be liable. I ask the Minister to accept this amendment because it will mean protecting the individual, and I feel that the Minister can have no objection to our doing that.

I wish to associate myself with the hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. N. J. Schoeman) who a few minutes ago addressed the House and made it clear to the Minister that there are so many amendments to this clause that it is very difficult for hon. members to follow those amendments. I feel that even the Minister himself must have difficulty in saying which of the amendments are out of order and which amendments will dislocate this clause. Furthermore, we all know that this clause is so very drastic in connection with the liberty of the people, especially in the districts where farmers live long distances away from each other and are fifty to a hundred miles away from the officials, that this clause is practically imposing a penalty on those people which they do not deserve. The Minister is interfering with the freedom of the people, and he will live to rue it. In order to give the Minister an opportunity of studying the amendments and of putting the amendments which he has agreed to in proper order, and to allow the clause to be read as it should be read, I now want to move—

That will give the Minister an opportunity during the week-end to scrutinise the amendments with his legal advisers, so that afterwards there will be no cause for a wrong interpretation to be given to this clause. We have a Bill here which has been hurriedly introduced, as appears from the fact that even the Minister himself has introduced certain amendments. Why is there such a hurry with this Bill? Is the Minister expecting an election within the next six or nine months, so that even at this stage when we still have the whole of the estimates before us, this Bill has to be forced through the House? This is something quite unnecessary because this Bill is of no importance in regard to the Government’s war policy; yet we are now asked to force something through the House which is only required in a few year’s time. I hope the Minister will accept my motion to report progress.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—49:

Badenhorst, A. L.

Badenhorst, C. C. E.

Bekker, G.

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer. K.

Brits. G. P.

Conradie. J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Erasmus. F. C.

Fagan, H. A.

Fullard, G. J.

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.

Naudé, S. W.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse. P. W. A.

Pirow, O.

Quinlan. S. C.

Rooth, E. A.

Schoeman, N. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, A. P.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren. S. E.

Wentzel, J. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wilkens, Jan.

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

Noes—64:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Bell, R. E.

Blackwell, L.

Botha, H. N. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker. T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Cadman, C. F. M.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Collins, W. R.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

De Kock, A. S.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Dolley G.

Du Toit. R. J.

Egeland, L.

Fourie. J. P.

Friedlander. A.

Gilson. L. D.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hemming, G. K.

Henderson, R. H.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Lawrence, H. G.

Madeley, W. B.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Nel, O. R.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pocock, P. V.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Rood, K.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Stallard, C. F.

Steyn, C. F.

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.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

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

Motion accordingly negatived.

I am sorry the Minister of Commerce and Industries is not here, because I cannot possibly see how he can vote for this clause. If one sees what the hon. the Minister of Commerce and Industries had to say about this point last year, I for one cannot see how he can depart from the ideas which he expressed last year.

We are now dealing with clause 2 and the hon. member must not revert to the debate on the second reading.

Clause 2 provides for compulsory registration. The Minister of Commerce and Industries last year gave a very definite opinion as to the reason why he disapproved of compulsory registration. Now I want to know from that Minister how he can possibly reconcile it with his conscience to support clause 2 of this Bill. And if the Minister has changed his opinion we want to know what the reason is for such a change? An effort is being made on this side of the House to make clause 2 less drastic, but no matter how this clause is watered down, the principle of compulsory registration remains. Now let us see what the Minister of Commerce and Industries had to say about compulsory registration.

You quoted that on the second reading and we know all about it.

I do not know whether the Minister heard it properly. In any case I have not yet had a reply from the Minister of Commerce. He definitely expressed himself as being opposed to what is now contained in clause 2, but I believe that if we have a division on clause 2, the Minister of Commerce and Industries will vote for this clause, no matter how much amended or un-amended it may be. Now let us see what he said last year—

That is definitely the attitude voiced by the Minister, that he was opposed to compulsory registration. And then he goes further—

He uses the word “justification”. It is a strong word, but that is what the Minister of Commerce and Industries said last year, yet if this House should divide on this clause providing for compulsory registration I am convinced that the Minister of Commerce and Industries would vote for this clause. Now I ask the Minister of the Interior how dare he place a colleague in such a difficult position. No, I consider it absolutely essential to amend this clause in the Bill so that there shall be no compulsion, and if we want the other minor points which are mentioned in this Bill, and which are essential, let us have them. Let us take a few of the difficulties connected with compulsory registration. Every member here has had the experience in the past that a man may have been registered as a voter for ten or twelve years, and one day he arrives at the poll and finds his name has disappeared from the voters’ roll. What has happened? The registering officer has accidentally left his name off. He may have been away from his home when the forms were sent round.

He may have been in this House.

Yes, and then the registering officer visits the man’s home, and his name no longer appears on the voters’ roll. Now we are going to have the position that he will be compelled to register, and if his name is no longer on the voters’ roll he is liable to be fined. It is not only the fine we object to, but we are concerned with that part of the farming population which the Minister would also have known if he had known our farming population — that section which will prefer to suffer an injustice rather than go to court even if it is only in the witness box. That man may now be dragged before a court, and I say that our farming population which is proud of its traditions detests having to appear in court. They do not even want to go into the witness box. There is another case as well. How often does it not happen that a voter is registered in more than one constituency. I know of numerous cases where this has occurred. And with this compulsory registration how many more cases are we not going to have of people being registered in more than one constituency. A man leaves his farm to go and work in town for five or six months. While he is away he is compelled under this clause to register, but in the district where he lives his name still appears on the voters’ roll. Now this man is faced with this other difficulty, that he has to apply for transfer of his registration, he has to give his number in his own constituency and so forth. That man may be 100 miles away from the nearest voters’ roll, and we shall have all those difficulties on account of this clause imposing compulsion on those people. I am pleased the Minister of Commerce and Industries has come in and I should like to hear what he has to say about this quotation which I have read from Hansard.

You need not read it again, I have already read it myself.

But I should like to know whether you are going to vote with me against this clause or whether you are going to vote with your colleagues. If the hon. the Minister is going to vote with his colleagues then I want him to get up here and tell us why he has changed his view on this point. It was a question of principle with him. He says that we have changed our principle, and I want to know from him whether he is going to stick to his principle, i

What did you think at that time?

I kept very quiet. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I want quite seriously to ask my hon. friend the Minister whether he has not as yet come to the conviction that he has introduced a Bill which has not been given proper attention by him beforehand, before he introduced it into this House to, get approval of it? I must say that so far as the principle itself is concerned I have not given very much attention to it. I certainly did not understand the implications of the Bill as fully as I realised them this afternoon after I heard the evidence which had been laid before the select committee and which was quoted here by the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Rooth). From that it is very clear that the select committee certainly had no evidence before it in favour of this principle. It was the influence, the eloquence of the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) which apparently influenced this select committee to agree to that principle. I want to ask the Minister: Does he realise what the position is going to be if this Bill is to be carried out in relation to persons on the countryside who are 100 miles and more away from the place where the voters’ rolls are prepared? To place this obligation on the individual voters to see that they get hold of rolls and to ascertain whether their names appear on the rolls goes much too far.

In the Free State registration is practically 100 per cent.

What has that got to do with it? Up till to-day we have had machinery, canvassers have gone out to see that the names of the people are put on the rolls, but now the onus is thrown on the voter to see that he is put on the roll, and if his name does not appear on it he can be criminally prosecuted. Does the Minister realise what that means? No wonder that his officials gave evidence before the select committee that it was an unpractical proposal and that they were not in favour of it. I want to warn the Minister not to be unreasonable. He should not go on with the Bill. Hon. members opposite are expecting to get political advantages from the Bill. I warn the Minister. The department will have to force things. Just let there be a few prosecutions on the countryside— in the towns it may possibly pass; if there are just a few prosecutions on the countryside great trouble will arise. It is very clear that this Bill has not been properly considered. That is why the Minister had this afternoon to withdraw a very important principle in it. We are engaged in taking action in a hurry on dangerous lines, and we do not know what the consequences of this measure may be.

When I sat down just now I referred to the fact of the four witnesses who were called by the select committee. The four of them gave evidence against compulsory registration, and I quoted what three of them had said. I wish to refer now to the fourth witness. He was the electoral officer for Pretoria, and this is what he said—

I would stress that after this enquiry the Minister did not decide to introduce compulsory registration. He decided to do something else. He decided to institute the follow-up system. I notice the hon. gentleman has just left the Chamber otherwise I would have asked him to tell us what has come about since 1935. It cannot be said that the follow-up system is unsatisfactory. We have had it on the evidence of the electoral officer for, I think, Cape Town, that it is so efficient that the South African Party gave up its own party canvass. So it seems to me that there must be some other explanation forthcoming. I should like just to repeat what the witnesses who were called to give evidence against compulsory registration said. They said first of all that it would be impossible to devise machinery to carry it out. They said, secondly, that it was unnecessary, and they said, thirdly, that if this system were introduced it would be ineffective. I should like to add a fourth reason. It is this. This being a democratic state these compulsory methods are undesirable. We do not want to import any more Nazi methods such as the United Party has already imported. We have had quite enough of foreign methods. This system which is in vogue now is perfectly satisfactory.

You are not being a good disciple now.

I am not a disciple; I am trying to be a teacher, but I find the hon. the Minister is a dull pupil and is not quick on the uptake.

Perhaps you cannot convey the information.

I am quoting facts here from the report. I am not expressing an opinion; I am quoting facts. Ī say it is undesirable, to import these compulsory methods. When I say that, I am expressing an opinion, and I am expressing an opinion which I expect liberals like the hon. the Minister of Labour and Social Welfare to support and not to oppose. I am quite certain that before he got into the evil company in which he is now, he would have suported me.

Do you not know that it has been on our programme for years — compulsory voting?

Who is “our”?

The Labour Party.

The Labour Party was dead and buried and its tombstone was erected at Maritzburg when peace was made between the Prime Minister and the Minister of Mines.

Have you never heard about rising again? Of course, you would never experience that.

I do not need to rise again. I am satisfied to stay where I am.

Hear, hear. Stay in the slough of despond.

This Bill was introduced hurriedly. It was introduced so hurriedly that it was not properly considered by the Minister. Before we got to the Committee stage he started accepting amendments, and having got to the Committee stage he has accepted four amendments before we have properly discussed clause 2. What will happen before we have got to the end of the Bill it is difficult to say.

Don’t worry.

I am not worrying. The guilt rests on your shoulders, not on mine. Why should I worry? The real time for worry will come when the hon. member over there has to face his electors at Benoni, and not now. This idea of compulsion is entirely foreign to our law. I think we are entitled to ask the Minister, and demand of the Minister, to give a reason why this brand new principle should be imported into our legislation.

I think that if ever good and sound advice has been given to this House and to the Minister then it was that which has just been given by the hon. member for Fauresmith (Hr. Havenga). I, who also know the countryside and the difficult circumstances under which people are living there, can give the Minister the assurance that this Bill cannot be carried out in practice. This Bill is going to cause great trouble in the rural districts. For the sake of a small group of votes in the towns and in order to provide a few extra seats for hon. members there, these additional burdens have to be put on to the rural areas.

No, but if we do get a few seats by it, why not?

As a representative of the countryside I want to protest against people who are not au fait with things, people who do not read newspapers, and do not constantly attend meetings, and who do not know all the Acts, being exposed to a prosecution, which is foreign to the practice of any democratic country in the world. I make bold to say that of all the measures, I almost said the scandalous measures, which this Government has proposed since it came into office, this one is typical, but more far-reaching. The Minister clearly showed how the ground had been cut from under his feet. He vaccilated from one amendment to the other, dropped one and took another, and he does not know how he is to get himself out of the difficulty again. I think that the hon. member for Fauresmith gave the best advice to an old colleague of his, one whom we also still regard as an old colleague, and towards whom we are, as a matter of fact, well disposed. I say that it is an impracticable thing to expose people to prosecution in areas where they practically never read. It is not the well-to-do class of farmer, but the bywoner type whom the Minister is now catching in his trap, the class who does not read, which works all day; when they arrive home late at night and find a paper there then it is put on one side and the wind will blow it away and they will never think about it again. I want to make a serious appeal to the Minister on behalf of the people who live in the far-off reas. I want to ask him kindly not to force this thing on to us. He will be the most unpopular Minister if he forces this Bill through. There sits “His Master’s Voice”—the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) is the master of the Minister. Let him ask the hon. member for Kensington to tone the thing down a little or to allow it to drop. We know him too as a man who can sometimes be reasoable. He always comes along to plead with these things with pious honesty but with wicked subterfuges. I make an appeal to the Minister to reconsider the matter.

In answer to representations from this side and speeches which were made here, the Minister of Labour by way of interjection announced that the now defunct Labour Party was in the past in favour of compulsory registration and also of compulsory voting. Why then does not this Bill also make provision for compulsory voting? I just want to point out that if this Bill had made provision for compulsory voting then it might possibly in some way even have been justified, and then there would be something in the argument by the Minister who introduced the Bill, viz., that his object in this measure was to protect the democratic rights of the people, namely, that every man who had the right to vote should be put in a position to exercise the vote. Then we should possibly still be inclined to believe a little in the honesty of the intentions in connection with this Bill, but in as much as the measure only makes provision for compulsory registration and not for compulsory voting, we cannot come to any other inference than that this measure is only intended to benefit the towns at the expense of the countryside. There cannot be the least doubt about that in anybody’s mind, and the Minister himself says in his memorandum, that the system is being introduced to register thousands of people in the towns. The Minister does not worry himself about persons on the countryside simply because the Governmet has not got the confidence of the countryside. They, therefore, by that provision only aim, not at getting the people in the towns to vote, but they want to use the registration to have more seats allocated to the Witwatersrand. We as representatives of the platteland cannot approve of such a measure.

The hon. member must keep to the clause.

I say that the clause is exclusively aimed against the countryside. It is a double-edged sword to the countryside, because if you examine the seats you will see that the towns cannot get any more, without the countryside having to get less. The fact is that we have reached the full quota of 150 seats with the result that if the towns get more seats then the countryside will lose them. The Government press expects that they will get 8 to 10 seats more, apart from the persons who have not voted. If they get ten more seats on the Witwatersrand then the countryside must lose ten seats. It is, therefore, clear that the measure is aimed against the countryside and that the countryside will lose in consequence of it. The Minister may say that he has the best intentions with the clause, that it puts the elections on a better basis, but he will mislead no one by that. That is the sugar round the pill for the countryside. We are going to fight this clause to the bitter end. He will, of course, use his steam-roller and put it through, because the hon. members from the countryside sitting over there sit like popes who are tongue-tied.

Order.

Surely, Mr. Chairman, it is not unparliamentary, because a pope is a priest. There sits the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) and he allows himself to be dictated to by the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) about what he has to do. Those hon. members have not the courage to vote according to their convictions. They are dictated to by the urban hon. members, especially the hon. member for Kensington, what they are to do to the detriment of the countryside. We will fight this Bill to the bitter end.

In connection with this last amendment which is being moved here, I feel convinced that if the Minister wants in any way to be fair he cannot in that case reject this amendment. In my opinion, the difficulty which the amendment wants to get rid of is of astonishing importance. I want to point out that a person is punishable where without any action on his own part his name has disappeared from the roll. It happens that people have been on the roll for years and ultimately they are left off it without any fault of theirs. But I want to bring to the notice of the Minister that it happens that people whose names are on the roll and they go and look at the provisional, typed, voters’ roll and their names appear on it, then they are satisfied that everything is in order. But what happens? During the next 18 months or later there is an election and then inquiries are made as to whether their names are on the roll. Then they find that possibly ten or fifteen names have been left off the printed roll. I want to assure the Minister that in 1938 in the constituency of Victoria West 33 names were left off the voters’ roll, and that was simply due to some printer’s error or other. What is the result? The people will then be fined under that Act. I can assure the Minister that a great injustice will be done to the people. Even if it is only now £1 according to the amendment, the people in the rural areas regard it as the greatest disgrace for anyone to have to appear in the court, particularly the ladies. There are people who do not want to go near the court and their lives are made unpleasant if they only have to come near to a court. Now the onus is placed on such a person, if the Minister is not prepared to accept the amendment, to see that his name is on the list. I am convinced that he is absolutely unaware of the circumstances of the people, the people who are so far away from the postal and magistrates’ offices or it proves that he is absolutely unsympathetic towards those people. I want to make an urgent appeal to him to accept the amendment. We got the assurance from the Minister without Portfolio, who said that they were quite innocent, and that they did not want to make political capital out of it. But have you listeend for a bit to what is going on this afternoon? It was pointed out that Natal had 284 coloured voters and that in the Cape Province there are about 26,000. On the other hand, we heard of English-speaking persons in the Cape who argued that this clause which the Minister was prepared to remove in connection with coloured people, ought to be retained for the coloured people, and they accuse this side of the House that we have in the past deliberately been out to get the names of coloured persons, who actually had the qualifications, removed from the rolls. I say that if ever an untruth was told in the House, then it is here. But what is actually a fact is that when one gets put on the roll then 50 to 60 get put on it who are not qualified. I remember the time when there was not one coloured person on the roll in Natal, and why? Because they object to having coloured persons put on the roll. They are English-speaking persons, but here there are some English-speaking people of the Cape Province, who zealously plead for the coloured people to be put on to the rolls and that compulsion ought also to exist in their cases, because they have the hope that there may be a little group who are not yet on the roll and that that would be to their political advantage. I have here the report in connection with the coloured population of the Union, and if you read through this report you will see that they are arguing that the names of coloured people should be added to the rolls in some way or another. I see that in this report there is a recommendation that the coloured franchise in the Cape should be extended to the other provinces, and this is an almost general report with the exception of members who made a minority report, namely, that a reservation should be provided that special departments in the State Departments should be created to protect the interests of the coloured people and to promote them more than is done now. And that so far as possible suitable coloured persons should be appointed to see that the State Departments keep in close touch with the feelings and interests of the coloured people. They also want to extend the coloured franchise to the other provinces and I ask what are the feelings of hon. members over there who come from Natal? Do they want the Asiatics and coloured people in Natal to remain on the voters’ roll? No. I want to make an appeal to hon. members, because there is a certain amount of want of candour behind it. I am certain that the Bill as it stands here will give much trouble in the far-off areas who do not have the privileges of the voters in the towns. It is the easiest thing in the world to contravene this Act and if it is contravened by the carelessness of someone or other then the people are punished and these people who do not have the advantages of the coloured people are turned into criminals, although they were unable to comply with the Act. There are even people in my parts who come in for their post every 14 days and if a man’s name has been left off the roll, how is he to know it? How often does it happen that the people want to get on to the roll and they get on to it, and then they are left off without their knowing anything at all about it. To-day they have to give notice if their name is removed from the roll, but I recently went through the constituency of the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) and found that various people wanted to get on to the roll but they were too late to be registered before the fixed date. Why does that happen? Because the people live a long way off and cannot come to see the rolls in time. I, therefore, want to make an earnest appeal to the Minister to make this amendment.

Although throughout this debate which was started by the Minister, I never could see the necessity of this Bill I must honestly say that I was really shocked this afternoon by the statement which was read out here by the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Rooth) that at the time of a Select Committee on a previous occasion there was a definite objection made against such a Bill. Proof was given in that evidence that the Bill was not necessary and that the Bill would not be effective, and that its provisions would be injurious. That being so the question now really is what there is behind the forcing through of this Bill. On this side of the House there is definite opposition to the Bill. On the other side no reasons have been given for the necessity of compulsory registration. In the evidence which was submitted to a previous Select Committee definite objection was raised, and notwithstanding that we are here being faced by a Bill which is being forced on to us. I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Havenga) and with what other hon. members said here, and it seems to me that the Minister and other hon. members on his side cannot really realise the difficulties into which the people on the platteland will be thrown, if this Bill is forced on them. People will be turned into criminals who have never been such. They are fined for acts for which they are really not responsible. Really, there must be something special behind this thing if the Bill still has to be forced through, notwithstanding all those counter-arguments. I want to express the hope that the Minister will allow himself to be moved to a realisation of the difficulties into which the Union of South Africa, and especially the countryside—I might almost say exclusively the countryside—will be thrown if this Bill is put through. I want at the same time to express my thanks to the Minister for his urbanity in stating that in good time before the Bill was dealt with in detail, the compulsion which was being exercised over coloured people to register was being withdrawn. Nevertheless we heard from the side of the native representatives that they themselves were dissatisfied with the Bill, because it is not what they wanted to have. It is one of the most unpopular Bills and the Minister of the Interior will by forcing this Bill through become one of the most unpopular Ministers in the country, although he is not so otherwise. I cannot believe that a Minister can want to force such a Bill through against the wishes of the large majority in the country, and if these hon. members on the opposite side of the House can really tell us now what is going on in their hearts about this Bill, how many of them will there be who will vote for this Bill if it were not a party matter, and whether they would not vote for it unless they wanted to get political advantage. Those hon. members are deeply under the impression of the unfairness of this Bill and its not being necessary, but they are nevertheless compelled by the party whip to vote for it. Those party members, the Minister and that party will yet have to suffer in consequence of this Bill more than they think at the moment, and we want again to express the hope that they, as they were advised by the hon. member for Fauresmith (Mr. Havenga) and others, will once and for all, even at the last moment, realise that they ought not to force through this Bill on compulsory registration.

Before the debate goes further I want to ask hon. members not to repeat arguments over and over again.

The heart of the amendment of the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) is to delete the word “obtain.” The Minister does not actually seem to understand what is implicit in that particular provision. He is apparently worrying as to how that provision is going to work out in practice, but only in connection with the motive that he has in the matter, and that is what we seriously object to. If I may put it a little differently then it seems to me as if the Minister refuses to allow the word “obtain” to be deleted because if he did so then he would not succeed in attaining his object of “getting” more seats. The Minister further tells us that, through the Press and the wireless, he will give notice to the country that registration is compulsory when this Bill has been passed. This means that he is going in a serious way to discriminate against the poorer people. There are considerable numbers of these people who do not possess newspaper organs and who can even less afford to buy wireless sets. The Minister is once more giving to those who have, and not to those who have not. We say on the contrary that the state on its part has to notify the people that they are not on the voters’ roll. Give them notice so that they may know and will not commit a crime in ignorance. But it actually looks as if the Minister is only bothering about one thing, and that is to make provision for more seats for his party. That has already been mentioned in connection with this clause that the idea is not only to compel these people to register, but also to compel them to vote, but the Minister only wants to get compulsory registration because if as many more register as he expects to, then it means a transference of the voting power in this country. He does not bother himself about the practical difficulties. I want to tell the Minister that he must remember that South Africa is larger than Salt River and if he, in this Bill, is only thinking of conditions in Salt River then it is possible that there will be a boomerang effect, because the Bill will press so heavily on the countryside. We have experience of the countryside and we know. When we on this side were only a small Opposition we did everything in our power to register people on the countryside. We know how difficult that was in the stretched-out areas, and now compulsion is being applied without proper facilities being given to them for registering. The Minister accepted a few amendments and why will he not accept this one to delete the word “obtain”? The Minister refuses to throw the onus on the department to notify the people and he puts the burden on innocent people in the far-off areas. What he himself does not see his way to do through the department, the onus of is placed on those people, i.e., to register within a definite period. What was particularly striking to my mind was the role which the Minister of Finance has played in connection with this Bill. He makes me think of the “shadow before the throne,” and not “behind the throne.” Throughout the whole of the afternoon he was every now and then giving the Minister of the Interior advice, and if I rightly interpreted his advice then it was: “Colleague, accept any amendment to get the Bill through, but keep the heart of the Bill for the next delimitation.” I would very much like to see him openly telling us what that advice, that he gave, was, because if I am to judge by what is going on here then his advice to his colleague was very clear: “Swallow anything, as long as the principle of obligation goes through. Save the Government in the only way in which they can be saved, and that is by giving a strong representation to the towns at the expense of the countryside.” A lesson is here being given to the rural inhabitants as to what an intolerable position is going to be created on the countryside, and that is why we object to this Bill. I do not know whether the Minister knows conditions on the countryside. I do not think so, but he only travels there and back, between Pretoria and Salt River, and consequently he does not understand what an impossible position he is creating for the countryside. For that reason I think that we are entitled to object to this compulsion being applied to the population.

I move—

Upon which the Committee divided:

I move—

Agreed to.

HOUSE RESUMED:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again: House to resume in Committee on 15th April.