I move—

The purpose of this motion is to facilitate the conclusion of the work of this Parliament to-day if it should prove possible to do so. It is not anticipated that we here in this House will need to sit later than six o’clock this afternoon, but the work in another place may not be finished then and in that event it may be desirable that we should take power to resume our session this evening.

I second.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

This is a simple Bill but I think I may say that it is a necessary Bill. I must express regret that it is introduced at so late a stage of our present session, but I think hon. members on all sides of the House have for some time had this proposal before them and have been able to give consideration to it. The purpose of this Bill is to bring about an amendment in section 21 of our Insurance Act. Section 21 reads as follows—

Now that section has the effect of preventing life offices from having restrictive clauses in their policies in respect of war risks. Although a clause of that kind may be advisable in peace time, it does tend to defeat its own object in a time like the present, and as far as I have been able to ascertain there is no country at the present time which has such a clause, or which, when it has such a clause, has not suspended it, by the introduction of legislation on the lines of that now proposed here. At times like the present it becomes increasingly difficult for life offices to grant insurance unless all risks regarding war are excluded. The result is that either all applications for life insurance are refused, or the extent to which insurance is granted is limited. The would be policyholder therefore has to wait until after the war in many cases and then he has to pay a larger premium, either because of the fact that he is older than when he would otherwise have taken out a policy, or because his health has been impaired by war circumstances. The result is that in the first place the would-be policyholder suffers. He cannot take out a policy such as he desires. He may go to an insurance company and say: “I do not want to be insured against war risks because the Government has undertaken to compensate me or my dependents, I merely want to insure against normal risks.” The company, however, under the present law cannot meet his request. It is also to the disadvantage of the companies whose new business is being restricted in terms of the present law. But further it is also to the disadvantage of the state which has a definite interest in the maintenance of our financial structure, and cannot but use our insurance companies as part of the financial structure of the country. I think, therefore, that it is in the interest of all concerned, including the State, to surmount the difficulty to which I have referred. I should like to emphasise that there is no intention of tampering with existing policies. The rights of existing policy holders including their rights in respect of war risks are fully safeguarded. All we intend to do in this small bit of legislation is to make it possible for the future by agreement between the company and this policy holder to insert a restrictive clause in regard to war risks. They may agree to exclude war risks from the scope of the contract. On that account this Bill has been introduced. I just want to explain two other small points. In the first place the risks which may be excluded from an insurance contract are the risks in respect of which the State is liable under the War Pensions Act, but not where death occurs arising out of military service in South Africa. In other words, the risks for instance of a man dying as a result of pneumonia incurred while in training camp in South Africa cannot be excluded in terms of this clause. And in the second place where as the result of this stipulation in a contract a company is not required to nay out the amount of the policy, the company will still have to refund the amount of the premiums paid to it. I again want to emphasise that this in no way affects existing policies or policy holders. It only affects the’ question of the future insertion of a war risk clause into contracts.

I feel a certain amount of surprise at this amendment which the Minister has now introduced. I only want to deal with it very briefly. The Minister tells us that this Bill does not affect existing policies. That is the crux of the whole question. It means this — that those people of ours who are going to the Front are placed in a difficult position. Their rights are taken away. The position has been, of course, that these policies may cover death at the Front. Let us emphasise this point, that those who go to the Front in future will go under conditions different from those under which people have gone in the past. They will be penalised, because in the case of death at the Front there is no recompense. Now that is the real safety clause of insurance for the people going to war, and whatever else the country may do that has been the safety clause, and it is the only surety for the dependents.

But there is the War Pensions Act.

Now what are you getting instead of that? It seems that this is the result of a bargain, and it seems a very bad bargain indeed. What will you get instead of the provision for insuring people? You will get a refund for the premiums which you have paid. That surely is not reasonable, that these people should be penalised in this way. All they will get back is the premiums they have paid, no interest, nothing else. I regard this as a very serious position, and it is contrary to the policy of the Government so far. Look at the position of the people who have already gone to the Front under the Moratorium Act. Look at the provisions made about Hire Purchase Agreements? The soldiers are getting protection which cannot be shaken, they are also given protection in regard to bonds. That is fair to the people; they are protected, but this Bill seems to go away entirely from that policy. I must admit that I disagree entirely with the Minister. No one wants to discourage recruiting but you are putting people in a very difficult position. You are giving them the opportunity for insurance in a smaller way than they had before, and if they happen to make the great sacrifice, what happens? Their dependents get back the money that has been paid in in premiums. No, it is not a fair or a reasonable agreement even, and to my mind the duty of the Government is entirely different. There is provision for these good people being insured and their dependents getting paid in case of death. Now, it is said that the insurance companies will simply not accept any new policies. I would suggest that it would be rather the duty of the Government to tell these insurance people: “We want you to carry this risk, and we are not prepared to give you any change”. And I understand that the Government has such powers. Surely it is reasonable to ask the Government to say that those who go to the Front in future shall not be in worse conditions than those who went before. The Government should take that into consideration. This Bill is taking something away from our people who go to the Front, and I think the Government should give some reason why they make these concessions to the insurance companies, why they relieve them of some of the obligations, when other concerns are not so relieved? How can anyone suggest that it is fair to say that compensation is to be taken away from people in case of death? Because that is what the Bill means. All that the insurance companies will have to do is to pay back the money that has been paid in in respect of premiums. These are the two features of the Bill which I do not like because both these features are wrong and unfair, and I submit it will be detrimental to the people, and this Bill will be received very badly indeed by the men of the country who hope to go to the Front and who are now deprived of certain of their rights. The reason given by the Minister for the introduction of this Bill is that the Insurance people say they do not want to continue. Well, that is wrong and I cannot vote for this Bill.

The hon. member who has just sat down seems to imagine that this Bill will be relieving the insurance companies of an obligation. Nothing of the kind. It will not relieve them of any obligation. All the obligations they have to their existing policyholders will remain in force. And in regard to the future, no insurance company is under any obligation to insure anyone. What obligation is this Bill relieving them of? It does not relieve them of any obligation in respect of existing policyholders, nor in respect of would-be policyholders, because they are under no obligation to anyone who wants to insure. This Bill assists people who today cannot get insurance for ordinary war risks. The State is covering these people for war risks, and they will say now: “We do not want cover in regard to war risks, we want cover in respect of other than war risks”, and they cannot get that, or they may not be able to get it. This Bill makes it possible for them to get such cover.

It is not the insurance they want.

It is the insurance they want. They know they are covered today by the Government’s pension provision, but they cannot get cover in respect of other risks. This Bill does not penalise anyone, it merely assists people to get insurance who otherwise could not get insurance. I think the hon. member, when he considers this matter, will withdraw his objection.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on the Bill now.

House in Commitee:

Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment and read a third time.

I move—

This Bill is being introduced to give effect to the resolutions which were passed yesterday in Committee of Ways and Means. In principle, therefore, the proposals in this Bill have already been approved by the House. For that reason it is not necessary for me to say very much about them. I will merely refer to the proposals briefly. The Bill falls into two parts. The first part consists of clauses 1 to 4 and embraces the amendments in connection with the income tax. The second part embraces the amendments with regard to the customs and excise duties. Clauses 1 to 4 makes certain amendments in the Income Tax Act as passed earlier in the year. Sub-clause (1) of clause 1 contains alterations in the normal tax on individuals and on companies, including diamond companies, on the lines of the amendments we passed yesterday, and also alterations in the super-tax. Sub-clause (2) contains a provision which will have the effect of the provincial personal tax not being automatically increased in consequence of the 20 per cent, extra that we add to the income tax. I think it will be conceded that this is a fair provision. When the rebate was granted on income tax it was laid down that the Provincial Councils would not suffer in consequence of it. They therefore based their personal and income tax on the full amount of our income tax. As then we now have an extra amount added to the income tax it would be unfair for them to get the benefit of it automatically. Clause 2 provides for the addition to the special contribution of the gold mines. Clause 3 only contains a literal amendment of the Act of 1940 which became necessary to rectify a mistake which crept into the then Bill in consequence of the passing of an amendment. Clause 4 makes the new scale of taxation applicable to assessments of income tax this year. I do not think that it is necessary to say any more on that part of the Bill. Then we come to the second part of the Bill. Clause 5 contains the necessary definitions. The next clause provides for the increased customs and excise duties as they were approved in the resolutions which were passed in Committee. Clause 6 deals with the increased excise duty on spirits and beer. Clause 7 deals with increased import duties on yeast, whisky and petrol. Clause 8 deals with increased excise duty on cigarette tobacco. Clause 9 deals with excise on yeast. Clause 10 deals with excise duty on motor fuel. Clause 11 deals with motor tyres. Clause 12 deals with reconditioned or repaired tyres. Clause 13 provides for the licensing of factories which manufacture yeast, motor tyres and motor fuel. By the introduction of the excise it has become necessary to be able by means of it to control the industries. Clauses 14 and 15 are purely of an administrative nature. Clause 16 provides that stocks that were on hand on the 28th August — that is to say the date of notice of the proposal — will be subject to the increased excise duty. Clauses 17 and 18 are purely administrative. Clause 19 is of more importance. It deals with the refund of excise duties in certain cases. In the first place it is proposed that when yeast, motor fuel or tyres which are subject to excise duties are exported, a refund will be made. The object, of course, is not to handicap the export trade in those articles. It is further provided that, when the articles concerned have become unfit for use, the excise duty will be refunded. Then there is a further provision to which reference was also made on a previous occasion, namely the proposed repayment of the excise duty of yeast which is used by, bakers for the making of bread. Provision is made for that in clause 19 (3), and I refer specially to the proviso at the end of the clause which says—

It is expected that this will be a sufficient deterrent to manufacturers to prevent any abuse of the proposed rebate system. Clause 20 deals with articles which are now being made subject to excise duties when they are imported from adjoining territories with which we have commercial agreements. In order to protect our manufacturers the importation will be made subject to a customs duty equal to the excise duty. The remaining clauses, I think, explain themselves.

Mr. Speaker, before this goes on to the vote I would appeal to the Minister to give up some rebate on moneys which may be contributed by people towards the Governor-General’s Fund. At present a man who wishes to contribute towards the Governor-General’s Fund is subject to the income tax and in that way it rather penalises the fund. On the other hand, if you could give people a rebate you will probably popularise the fund and assist it very considerably. Of course, it may be said that if you do so you are really giving the man credit for what he is not doing. It was put to me some time ago that a man who may contribute £50,000 towards the Governor-General’s Fund would in reality not be contributing anything like that amount, because what with extra profits duty, super-tax and ordinary income tax and so forth, the actual net sum which that Fund would receive out of the £50,000 would be only £12,500, so that he gets credit for giving £50,000 and the Fund is only benefiting to the extent of £12,500. On the other hand it has to be remembered that the Governor-General’s Fund contributes towards the support of widows and orphans and all sorts of people who should be a charge borne by the State, so that the State is really getting very great assistance through the Governor-General’s Fund not only in helping recruiting but also in doing a lot of charitable work so that this money which might be lost to the income tax officer would certainly be of tremendous benefit to the State. In the last war such a thing was done, and with regard to all war charities, they were all exempted from income tax so that there is a precedent for this. It would be a most satisfactory thing for the Fund and to the people who wish to contribute. I hope the Minister of Finance will take into consideration this point I have raised and allow us some small rebate on money contributed to the Governor-General’s Fund.

I hope that the request which has been made to the Minister will not be regarded seriously by him because if it is granted the Unity Fund will presently be able to come along with the same request. It also surely is intended for war purposes, and they will then also ask that the Unity Fund should be exempted, but then we shall be able to come and ask for exemption for other organisations. I hope that the Minister will not listen to such a foolish request.

The hon. member for Mowbray (Capt. Hare) has raised the question of rebates from taxation in respect of contributions to the Governor-General’s Fund. Now sir, with the best will in the world, I am afraid I must say that I cannot entertain any such proposal. It is perfectly true that during the last war contributions to war funds were entitled to rebates in respect of taxation but that led to all kinds of difficulties. As the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) has foreshadowed in this case it was then proved by experience that you cannot confine that concession to certain types of contribution and ultimately all charitable contributions came to be entitled to rebate in respect of taxation. That led to a great many administrative difficulties from the point of view of the Department and ultimately very wisely I think, it was decided not to allow such rebates in future. This matter has been considered by the Government, it was raised during the last session and the Government adheres to the position that we should, not allow rebates in respect of contributions to funds of various kinds. May I just make this point perfectly clear. Any such system means that some people get the credit for contributions which are largely made at the expense of the State. You may have for instance one man who is liable for excess profits duty. He comes along and he gets the credit for making a contribution of £50,000. Of that amount probably £37,500 would have been contributed by the taxpayers. People don’t know that. But he has got the credit for his £50,000.

Who is this man?

It is an imaginary case, although such a case actually happened when this abatement was granted on a previous occasion. There was a case of a certain gentleman whom I shall not name who gave £50,000 to a very deserving cause, but he only paid £12,500, the State contributed the rest. Now alongside that you may have another man who is not liable to excess profits duty. He also gives £50,000 and he will have contributed of that £50,000 perhaps £40,000 out of his own pocket. I think my hon. friend will see that that is unfair, it leads to all kinds of anomalies and I do not think that we should recreate the position which obtained during the previous period when such an abatement was allowed. My hon. friend says that the State has an interest in the work done by the Governor-General’s Fund. That is perfectly true. That can be said of a very large number of other organisations. The State has an interest, for instance, in the work doen by Child Welfare Societies, and exactly the same argument as my friend used in regard to the Governor-General’s Fund, can be used in regard to Child Welfare Societies. The State has an interest in universities, it is very much in the interest of the State that individuals should be encouraged to make big donations to universities and exactly the same argument can be used here. No, sir, I am very sorry I cannot hold out any hope of this suggestion being entertained.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go in Committee on the Bill now.

House in Committe:

Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment and read a third time.

Business suspended at 11.16 a.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

I move—

It is not necessary for me to say much in support of this notice of motion. It will be within the recollection of hon. members that on the 4th September the Leader of the Opposition, on the motion for the House to go into Committee on the War Measures Act Amendment Bill, moved the instruction that the House should take into consideration a provision that the Speaker, acting in consultation with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, would in fixing the earlier date be able to summon Parliament if it appeared to be desirable. I had to oppose the motion, and on that occasion I suggested that there was no reason to depart from the ordinary arrangement that Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the Prime Minister, would decide whether it was considered advisable to fix the date of the session earlier and notify hon. members about it. The House on that occasion decided against the proposal of the Leader of the Opposition, and I think it was induced to take that course by the argument that there was no reason for departing from the ordinary arrangement. The ordinary arrangement which has always been followed is contained in the proposal which is now before the House, namely, that the Speaker, after consultation with the Prime Minister, if hy is convinced that it is in the public interest for the House to be summoned, and to make the date of the session earlier, can do so. That proposal is now being substantively made in the motion before the House. As a matter of fact, the question has been already decided, and it was very fully debated on the last occasion. The decision has already been made, and all that is necessary now is to leave this proposal to the decision of the House.

I second.

I want to move an amendment to this motion of the Prime Minister, and it reads as follows—

I want to start by paying the Prime Minister a compliment. He does not often get one from me, and I would like to do it on this occasion.

It is welcome.

The compliment that I want to pay him is that it now appears that he is not entirely impervious to reason. I do not think that he gave us quite a correct idea of what he originally suggested when the motion of the Leader of the Opposition was before the House. I think that his attitude was that the leading factor in regard to the summoning of Parliament should remain in the hands of the Government, and that he, when he thought Parliament should be summoned, would then consult the Speaker. What he is now proposing here is an improvement on what he suggested before. It is not he who has the say, and merely goes to consult the Speaker in order to give him advice, but the decision is left in the hands of the Speaker, and the Prime Minister is only there to give advice to the Speaker. I pay him the compliment that he is not quite impervious to reason. But now there is something which I deplore, and it is that when the Prime Minister has shown himself more amenable to reason, he does not go on to apply his attitude logically and consistently. In the first place, I want to ask him why if he thinks that the Speaker needs advice in connection with this matter, he wants to deprive the Speaker of the advice of both sides.

Of the best advice.

As my hon. friend here says, he is depriving the Speaker of the best advice. If the matter is left in the hands of the Speaker, then I ask what good reason there is to restrict him to the advice of the one side, and that he should not call in the advice of the other side of the House as well. I want also to ask why the Prime Minister, in drafting his motion, as he has drafted it here, departs from a principle that where the House has, in relation to its business, always itself laid down that in his actions here the Speaker deals with both sides of the House. He deals with the House as a whole, and with both sides of the House, and the motion makes it appear as if the Speaker is only concerned with the Prime Minister and his advice alone. I say that the principle which the House itself has laid down and follows on every occasion, is that both sides are duly taken into consideration in all proceedings of the House. If there is a Bill before the House and it is referred to a Select Committee, then the House does not appoint only members belonging to one party but members of both parties, so that the advice of all parties is made available on the Select Committee. It is the same also with regard to the other work of the House as a whole, and now the Prime Minister comes and wants to deviate from the sound rule that the Speaker deals with the House as a whole, and that the House in regard to its own proceedings takes both sides into consideration. What good reason is there for it? The Prime Minister may indeed in making this proposal have in mind that the Opposition will be too keen to advise the Speaker that the House should be summoned, because they well then have the opportunity of criticising the Government. That may be so. The Opposition exists for the purpose of representing the section of the people who are not represented on the Government side, and to interpret in the House this view of the people as far as they represent it. The work of the Opposition is to criticise, and the Opposition want to have the opportunity. Now the Prime Minister may think that the advice which they will give to Mr. Speaker will go unnecessarily far in the direction of urging the summoning of Parliament. That may be so, but now I want to ask whether the opposite is not also true, that the Prime Minister and his party will quite naturally incline to the opposite view, i.e. that they will be out to summon Parliament as little as possible. They may consider that Parliament is a bother to them, because outside in the country the opportunity is not available as there is in this House to ask the Government to render an account of their actions. In order to avoid that criticism the Government may incline towards the summoning of Parliament as infrequently as possible. We have had experience with the Prime Minister over and over again recently in this respect. But what is more, the Government now has obtained autocratic powers from Parliament. When this War Measures Bill is on the statute book, then under the autocratic powers which are being given, the Government will not be responsible to Parliament, and because it need not account to Parliament for its actions it can follow its policy without consulting Parliament; it can simply regard Parliament as an unnecessary thing and a burden. He can keep Parliament out of session and not be inclined to summon Parliament when it is necessary. For this reason, because one side may be too much inclined in one direction, and the Government in turn be inclined in the other direction, it is necessary for the decision to be left in the hands of Mr. Speaker, both by the one side and by the other side, and that he should decide after consultation with both sides. I want in addition to point out that we are undoubtedly being faced by an extremely important and critical time in our history. Everything points to the fact, in connection with the course of the war, that South Africa is at a turning point in its history. So far as the Government is concerned, it may at the moment consider that it does not need Parliament, or that it wants to summon it as little as possible in order to be relieved of the Opposition and its criticism as much as possible, but in view of the course of the war and the fact that we are at a turning point in the history of our country, it may be a good thing that the Government and the country, as a whole, should have a real need of the help of the Opposition. For this reason it is necessary for the House to meet, and for the two sides of the House to face each other here, and do the best in the interests of the country. I therefore move the amendment of which I have given notice.

I would like to second the amendment. You will remember that this side of the House has already time after time during this session emphasised the necessity for this House to be constantly in session in the circumstances in which the country finds itself. Unfortunately we could not get this point of view realised, and the next best thing was the amendment which the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) has now moved. We on this side of the House feel concerned that the Government with the powers which it has, the powers which it is now taking, will cause a state of affairs which will not so much be the consequence of the war conditions, but rather the consequence of the application of the War Measures Act, that a state of affairs will arise in the country which will make it necessary that Parliament should meet, and therefore it is certainly desirable that this side of the House should be consulted. It may be that the action of the Government will be such that the Opposition, in view of the reaction to it, considers that it is necessary to summon Parliament. It would probably be hopeless for us to go to the Prime Minister and say that in consequence of his own acts.it is necessary to summon Parliament. Therefore it is urgently necessary that you, Mr. Speaker, should have a say in deciding when Parliament should meet. We are thinking chiefly of the statements which were made by the Minister of the Interior this session. In his speeches he has said things which made us feel concerned that he would do things in the country which would definitely open the way to acts which would be undesireable. A few days ago he, with a great flourish of trumpets, came and showed us here, for instance, a tunic which he had in his possession a Voortrekker tunic which is supposed to have been found among the Ossewa-Brandwag people, with an imitated swastika on it. So far as this side is concerned, there is no one who believes in it, but I would like to point out something else to the Minister of the Interior. I have something in my possession here which is more genuine than that tunic. I have a small article here which would probably fit the smallest pocket of the Minister of the Interior, and he would possibly be proud to wear that badge. It is a swastika, a real silver swastika. I fear that if it were found on anyone—I hope that I shall not be charged with anything—then the person who has it in his possession will go to gaol, to judge by what we have already had from that Minister. I would like to warn the Minister of the Interior, seeing that he has been warning us so much. He will have to send some of his own people to internment camps owing to the possession of these swastikas, because this swastika is a badge which is issued by no one less than the Boy Scouts movement. They grant it to members for discipline and good work. This badge is issued to different members of the public, who to-day have them in their posession. I fear after what we have heard from the Minister of the Interior, that many of his own people will be put into gaol in that way, and later on I fear conditions will become so bad that there would be a revolution in the country, because his own people were being prosecuted owing to their being in possession of such things. We may expect this from the Minister of the Interior because he has already said that it is a terrible crime when forms of the Ossewa-Brandwag are found in a barber’s shop. If that is his attitude, then I fear that when he finds swastikas with people, he will immediately send them to the internment camps.

I would like to support the amendment and just refer to a few points. The Prime Minister, on a previous occasion, when the Leader of the Opposition moved an amendment, gave as the heart of his objection, that he did not want to put the responsibility on to Mr. Speaker. As we see here he has now got over the root of his objection, if I may put it so. He has now changed to such an extent that he puts sufficient confidence in Mr. Speaker, that he will be able to give a decision. Accordingly, his motion says that the Speaker after consultation with the Prime Minister, will be able to summon Parliament. I think it is right to point out that Mr. Speaker, in this special instance, has the confidence of the whole House, that he has been put in office by the whole House jointly, without any opposing vote. I think that this is the first time in the history of the Union Parliament that it has occurred, and that being so I think that we can with the fullest confidence leave the matter to the decision of Mr. Speaker to summon Parliament after consultation with the Prime Minister, but also after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition. We are living in extraordinary times. As the Prime Minister will admit, we are living in times in which we do not live from clay to day but from hour to hour. Things change from hour to hour, and extraordinary circumstances arise from hour to hour, and that being so it is necessary, possibly more than in any other country, for Parliament to be enabled to be in session to give attention to the business of the people. We are now separating after a session which will be known in the history of Parliament as the guillotine session. During the recess conditions may arise which may not only demand the attention of the Prime Minister but of the whole House. When Parliament separated last session I said that the common task rested on us, as members of Parliament on both sides, to preserve peace and order in the country. I can without any fear of contradiction testify that this side of the House has in all parts of the country recommended the population to maintain law and order, and only as a result of that good counsel and advice have we been able to get the measure of calm and quiet in these difficult times in which we live. But we are about to meet still more difficult times. Minds are more excited than ever before. The time has now come when the Government on the other side has taken extraordinary powers. We have seen what actually happened when the Government had restricted powers, what a disturbance was created in the minds of the people in the country, and that being so, the task again rests on us of maintaining peace and order in the country, seeing that feeling is now running much higher and the position is still more strained. Notwithstanding all the threats of the other side we will again go to the population and warn them to maintain peace and order, even in spite of all the provocation which has taken place, and may possibly yet take place. If we want to retain parliamentary institutions, and to allow them to continue, then we must use those institutions to keep control over the interests of the people as a whole. I remember that when Parliament is in session the Standing Rules and Orders make special provision for that purpose. There is a rule when Parliament is in session that if during the session matters of urgent public importance arise, then Parliament is obliged to, suspend all other business, and to give its attention first of all to the matter of extraordinary public importance. If that is so in normal times, then how much the more must it not be so in abnormal times, such as those in which we are now living? It is therefore urgently necessary that if we want to retain Parliament as an institution for the people, as a channel through which the people can express their interests, that Parliament should be in session when it is necessary. Only in that way can the interests of the people be really looked after. Now we are restricted and curtailed, but we say that Parliament should, as in other countries, remain in session in such abnormal times. As we did not succeed in getting the Government to agree to Parliament remaining in session, it is necessary to pass an amendment of this kind. If we want to retain parliament as an institution and as a representative of the interests of the people in their entirety, then it is necessary for Parliament to be summoned whenever the interests of the people, as a whole, are at stake. We have had examples to support what I am saying during this session. I do not want to go into the different points again, but there were things which shocked the soul of the people to the depths, and only in consequence of this session were we able to calm the feeling to a certain extent. I want specifically to refer to the commandeering of rifles. Honourable Afrikaners have been thrown into gaol, and it was only because Parliament was in session and because the Opposition made a strong protest that the Prime Minister allowed himself to be induced to allow the people to be released. What was attained by that? That we retained the franchise for those honourable Afrikaner citizens, sons of South Africa, whose franchise would have been taken away. Now that franchise which is regarded as sacred by them, has been saved. I want with all the seriousness of my nature to ask why the Prime Minister wants to deprive the Opposition of the right of pointing out once more in the same way, possibly through our criticism, what the state of mind of the people is, so that the Prime Minister will be able to form a thoroughly objective judgment. I am sorry that the Minister of the Interior is not in his place. He will, during the recess, have control to a great extent over the application of the extraordinary powers which are being given to the Government. If the Minister of the Interior goes to work on the lines he has threatened us with, then it will definitely be necessary to summon Parliament during this recess. It ought to be possible to convene Parliament at any moment to consider the interests of the public. We have given full proof about the provocation which has already taken place. We pointed out the vague charges which were made against people, and it is necessary that we should at this time be able to look each other squarely in the face, and that the Opposition should be consulted when the public interest demands it. That is a democratic principle. Parliament, if it wishes to continue as an institution, should be the channel along which the people can express their opinions. If that is stopped, a blow is struck at democracy. In view of all these things and the confidence which we all have in the Speaker, it is urgently necessary for our amendment to be passed, and I hope that the Prime Minister will still accept it.

It is very difficult to satisfy members of the Opposition. The Prime Minister in this motion has gone further than anyone hijs gone before. If one studies the Votes and Proceedings one does not find anything like this. There has been a similar motion to this in the Senate but a motion of that kind is passed in the Senate only to give the President of the Senate the right to call members of the Senate together at a time when the Senate stands adjourned and other business arises before the date to which the Other Place has been adjourned. Mr. President then has the right after consultation with the Prime Minister to call the Senate together. This is done in order to save the time both of the Senate and of Parliament. But that is the only precedent for a motion of this kind.

I should point out to the hon. member that a similar motion to this has been passed before.

Of course I submit if that is so, but when one previous occasion arose the motion passed was not in this form. It was a motion passed in 1931 and simply adjourned Parliament to a specified time.

For the information of members I had perhaps better read the motion as agreed to in 1933. That motion reads as follows:

I thank you. I was referring to the 1931 precedent, but I quite see that the later precedent is as you pointed out. But it strengthens my argument from the very fact that the present Leader of the Opposition, who was then Prime Minister, did not in any way incorporate in his motion, consultation with the Leader of the Opposition.

Because there was no Opposition.

There may have been a very small and disgruntled one, but there certainly was some one who could have been called the Leader of the Opposition, but at any rate the Prime Minister of that time only wanted the Prime Minister to be consulted by Mr. Speaker. This motion goes very far indeed because the Prime Minister as a rule, as Prime Minister, is in charge of the business of the country and in the ordinary course if he did not have a motion like this it would be the Prime Minister who would have to decide. He might consult the Speaker and the President of the Senate, but his decision would have to be given effect to whereas in the motion now before the House the Prime Minister gives the authority to. Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister might not think that Parliament should be called together, but here Mr. Speaker even against the advice of the Prime Minister can call Parliament together. Surely hon. members opposite should be satisfied" with that. Mr. Speaker can take a decision against the will of the Prime Minister and I think it is really going too far to ask Mr. Speaker to consult the Leader of the Opposition.

We want the whole hog.

I do not want any part of the hog at all. I think it would be very much better to proceed on ordinary lines, and when the Prime Minister goes so far as to leave it to the Speaker to decide only imposing as a condition that he should be consulted—that is as far as any self respecting Prime Minister can be expected to go.

I cannot exactly congratulate the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) on the thoroughness with which he has examined this subject. He, for instance, knew nothing about the previous motions of this kind. But possibly that is typical of the interest which is taken on that side of the House in the few shreds of the democratic system which we still have. With the present Prime Minister in office, it may easily happen that these may be the last hours of the last session of the last Union Parliament. [Laughter.] It seems to me that those hon. members opposite are glad about it. We can understand it. Then they can go on drawing double salaries, although they will be doing nothing to earn one salary, at any rate. The position simply is that it may happen that these are the last hours of the last session of the last Union Parliament. If we enquire for a little how easily the Prime Minister has appropriated dictatorial powers to himself in the past, and how difficult it was to get those powers out of his hands again, then I tremble when I think of the powers which are given to him under this legislation. I tremble on behalf of the champion of democracy and liberalism, who is now not in his place, namely the Minister of Finance. We have heard that he in the past acted as the protector of minorities, even if all those minorities were not all European minorities. He is not in his place now, but we hope that he will at least make himself heard on the principle. We are in the strange position that á judge is being appointed to decide in extraordinary circumstances, but that judge is only being allowed to hear one side of the matter, and he can only listen to one side. As the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) said, he cannot make use of the best advice. He is deprived of that. That is in conformity with what lias already taken place in connection with the commandeering of rifles. The Supreme Court has already decided that there was no crime, but this House has by means of legislation, turned the contravention of a useless and illegal proclamation into a crime. We may expect that there will be further proceedings in the law courts of the country, and that they will only be allowed to hear and consider one side of the matter, the side of the Government. It may even happen that the law courts will subsequently not be allowed to take notice of any matter. While we are on this dictatorial course, would it not also be a good thing if we laid down here that the Speaker should be given power, even on a point of order, only by hon. members opposite. Let us be consistent in our action. But what about the rights of prorogation, on which the Prime Minister stood so strongly when the motion was before the House on the first occasion? He then quite angrily — I almost wanted to say impudently if it were not the Prime Minister — said here that he would see to it that the Governor-General issued a proclamation to prorogue Parliament if the Speaker were to go against his advice, and to accept that of the Leader of the Opposition to allow Parliament to meet. At that time he used the threat of the right of prorogation. If he differs from you, Mr. Speaker, and if you in the public interests wanted to allow Parliament to meet, then he would advise the Governor-General to prorogue Parliament. We would like to know what the present attitude of the Prime Minister is, and whether he has abandoned that intention. Suppose that under this motion he differs from you, is he then going to make use of prorogation to frustrate a session of Parliament? The attitude of the Government is definitely ungrateful. They realise this, but they will not admit their debt to the Opposition. Just take the question of the commandeering of rifles. There cannot be the least doubt that in connection with the commandeering of rifles the Opposition saved the Government from the results of its folly. At the moment there are no people in gaol. We have saved the Government from that. The Government caused people to be illegally sentenced and sent to goal, but the Opposition ultimately succeeded in saving the Government from the results of that folly. Take the gold mines taxation. If it were not for the Opposition, then no additional taxation would have been put on the gold mines at all. Then the Government, as it did in the past, would have yielded to its natural feelings to allow the mines to escape, but the Opposition saved it and caused it to a certain extent to bear in mind the feelings of the people. In other words, it is due to the Opposition that the Government did merely foolish things, and not mad things as well. May I now make an appeal to the Prime Minister if he will not recognise us as a national Opposition, then let him recognise us as “His Majesty’s Opposition.” That probably sounds better to him. Whatever may happen in future, we are in the meantime “His Majesty’s Opposition” and then let the Prime Minister treat us as such.

You are Goering’s opposition.

I fear that that hon. member speaks better before dinner than after it. He is a first-class speaker who usually puts his points clearly, but then he should see to it that he does not first of all handicap himself as he has apparently done to-day. I would like to find out from the Government what their attitude is, why they want to treat the Opposition, to whom they really owe gratitude because we have prevented them from doing mad things, in this way. Is it only old-fashioned pettiness, or is it the new-fangled dictatorship? Is it because we have removed their souls during this session? [Laughter.] I of course do not refer to those who have no souls. Either it is a part of that dictatorship which we have experienced since the commencement of this session, or it is the foretaste of what is coming and which different Ministers wanted to prepare us for.

Mr. Speaker, as one who is deeply convinced of the importance of Parliament and the maintenance of parliamentary traditions and institutions, I wish to say a few words upon this motion. The motion and the amendment are concerned with the, adjournment of this House. Now if there is one thing which is more certain in parliamentary procedure than another, it is that this House, and this House alone, has got the power and authority to determine to what date and when it shall adjourn, and no other power, so far as I am aware, can possibly override that, certainly not the power of the Crown, nor the power of the Government, nor any other power. This House, and this House alone, can determine when and to what date it shall adjourn. When Parliament is not sitting, this House is represented by yourself, sir, and therefore it is right and proper that a discretion should be given, not arbitrarily but by the vote of this House, and by this House only, to Mr. Speaker as to any modification of the date which may be thought to be necessary. But it is in accordance with parliamentary procedure and our constitution that the Crown in whom, in theory at any rate, and in practice also, the government of the country is vested, may make representations to this House through Mr. Speaker, as to the desirability or otherwise of the date which the House has adopted being varied or altered. It is not an order, it cannot be an order, it is a request, and under present procedure the Crown is represented in the Government by the Prime Minister, and therefore it is quite in accordance with parliamentary practice and procedure that Mr. Speaker may be asked to modify the date by the Minister who represents the Crown, that is the Prime Minister, who is charged with the duty of the government of the country, and with taking any measures which may be deemed necessary to protect or advance its interests. And therefore it is in accordance with parliamentary practice, and procedure that the House, in whom the ultimate responsibility lies, may adopt the resolution for an adjournment to a particular date, giving leave to Mr. Speaker after consultation with the Crown, as represented by the Prime Minister, to vary that date in accordance with the exigencies of the position at the time. For that there is precedence in this country, as in every part of the Empire, and it is the accumulated experience and wisdom of centuries, not a few years, but of centuries, that a practice of that kind is necessary in order, on the one hand, to safeguard the prerogative and rights of this House, and at the same time to allow the necessities of government and of safety to be duly observed. That is all that is embodied in the motion introduced by the Prime Minister, and that safeguards the prerogative of this House and also public safety and public interest. Now the amendment which was introduced by the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) cuts right across the whole of this. Instead of this House having the final say as to whether we shall adjourn or whether we shall not, it is to be made, may I use the phrase, a dog-fight as between the Leader of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition, as to when the adjournment is to take place, and whether the resolution adopted by this House is to be modified. It places Mr. Speaker, I venture to say, in an impossible position, certainly a most invidious one.

You prefer the pressure to be from one side only.

The pressure, certainly. The House is represented by Mr. Speaker, and if the Grown, represented by the Prime Minister, considers ….

Are we not His Majesty’s Opposition?

I will deal with your attitude as His Majesty’s Opposition in one moment, but let me not be diverted from the thread of the argument at this particular juncture. I say that it is in accordance with parliamentary practice and procedure, and with the elementary precautions which must be taken for the safety of the country, to allow representations to be made to Mr. Speaker, that is to say to this House through you, sir, by the Crown. Let it be upon the Government to make a representation or request that the date be varied. Mr. Speaker is not ordered to do this; the terms of this resolution do not adopt any language of the kind or give colour to any sort of suggestion of that kind; it is a request from the Government through the Prime Minister, that the interests of the moment require an earlier summoning of this House. But to introduce the Leader of the Opposition into this, is to introduce an element which is entirely foreign both to this House and to the Crown. The Leader of the Opposition, except by a sort of convention, has no special position in this House or in the country.

Neither has the Cabinet.

Oh yes, the Cabinet has. The hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) forgets his law on this, as on other occasions. The Government, consisting as it does of Ministers of the Crown, has a position. Ministers as members of the Executive Council represent the Crown, and the Prime Minister is the head of the Executive Council, which advises the Crown. He has a position well known in law. The Leader of the Opposition has none, absolutely none. He has no position of privilege, importance or power beyond any other member in this House, and now this amendment proposes to put him into a position which is unknown to the law, unknown to parliamentary procedure, and therefore entirely outside the constitution under which we work, and as I say, the result would be, if this resolution were adopted, to put the Speaker into the position of a sort of arbitrator between a representation here and a representation there. That is not Mr. Speaker’s office, he has nothing of that kind to do; Mr. Speaker is the mouthpiece of this House.

Of the whole House.

He is not an arbitrator; he has to carry out—I say this with respect—he has to carry out the behests of this House without question. And this amendment which is introduced is cutting right across the position of Mr. Speaker, and places him in a position, as it were, to override the House and to act as arbitrator as between the Minister of the Crown and the Leader of the Opposition, who is simply a private member of this House.

Is not the House the whole House?

I am very interested in this new role which the hon. member for Gezina is taking to himself.

It may not be for long.

He would like to be accepted as the mouthpiece of His Majesty’s Opposition. I am very glad to see signs of repentance in him. I hope I am right in assuming that at the very last hour and moment of this session he recognises that he has some duty to observe the oath which he took to His Majesty the King and to owe allegiance to him even at this hour. If he really wishes us to believe that he is concerned with anything of the kind then I can only say that his attitude and his speeches and the speeches of those with whom he is associated have a very queer way indeed of indicating any allegiance to the Crown or any desire to see His Majesty functioning in the Government at all. If the hon. member adopted this attitude before the audiences which he has been accustomed to address I venture to think he would leave that hall in quick time. The question at issue here is the maintenance of the authority of this House and the prevention of its subversion which is embodied in the motion moved by the Prime Minister and the amendment of the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) is destructive of that.

We have just had an interesting speech from the Minister of Mines. I do not want to compare my legal knowledge with that of the Minister, but when he told the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) that he had apparently forgotten his knowledge of law a little, I want to point out to him that he has undoubtedly forgotten his knowledge of law so far as the theory is concerned, which he has laid down about the Cabinet, because it is very clear that the Act of Union does not even mention the Cabinet.

I referred to the Executive Council.

You spoke at first about the Cabinet, and then you abandoned it.

The Act of Union clearly lays down that the legislative body of the country rests in the Parliament of the Union of South Africa, and the Parliament consists of the King, the Senate and the House of Assembly. The Cabinet does not count legally.

The Prime Minister represents the Crown.

Let us accept that for the sake of argument. I do not want to argue with the Minister about that. Let us assume that the King is represented here by the Prime Minister, then the Act of Union still says that the legislative authority, that is the Parliament, consisting of the King— let us assume now that that means the Prime Minister—and then of the Senate and the House of Assembly. We are in the House of Assembly here, and accordingly the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) said that when he spoke about the House of Assembly he did not mean only the other side of the House. More particularly at this time in which we are living, where there is so much bitter difference of opinion we must bear in mind that the House of Assembly does not mean only one side of the House. I am certain that the Prime Minister will agree with me that it is in the interests of the people as a whole, that the Opposition should, at this time also, be consulted. But now we find that the Prime Minister’s motion says this—

Why is the responsibility placed upon the Speaker of only getting the advice of one section of the population? It says here that Parliament must be summoned if the public interest requires it. The public interest is the interest of the people as a whole, and therefore we say that the Speaker ought to consult both sections in this House. It is hypocrisy to leave it to the Speaker if he is compelled to consult only one side. If it was left to the Speaker alone to decide, then we would find no fault with it, because we know that you, Mr. Speaker, will take both sides of the House into consideration. But seeing that it is stated in this motion that you should only consult one side, then we say that that is wrong, because the House of Assembly must be summoned in the public interest, and the public interest demands that you should consult both sections of the country. That is our attitude, and that is why we would like to see the amendment of the hon. member for Piquetberg agreed to, so that the people as a whole, so that the real public interest, will be consulted as to when Parliament is to meet. Conditions outside this House are very serious. They are more serious than the Prime Minister apparently is aware of, and it is therefore in the interests of the population for both sections to be consulted. Some time ago on the occasion when the peace by victory petition was handed over to the Prime Minister by certain ladies, he made an appeal to the people to be more tolerant. I hope that he will make that request again, that there should be more tolerance, especially to his side of the House. On our side we can give him the assurance that it is our desire to be tolerant, but that there ought to be more tolerance from the Government and its supporters, especially in small towns. The view there is that if one does not hold the views of the Government, then you have no right to exist in the country, and life is practically made intolerable for you. Then I want to make another appeal to the Prime Minister in connection with the rifles question, which has caused so much dissatisfaction in the country. I am glad about the concession made by the Government as a result of our action in this House. The penalties have been reduced, and there is the option of a fine. But I want to make an appeal on behalf of the people who did not ask for exemption before the fixed date. I think that that date was 17th July. There are people who were not aware of that date, in any event people who did not before that date make an application for exemption. They did so shortly afterwards, and the magistrates said that they could not grant exemption because it had been applied for too late, I may point out that they were people living in the northern parts of the Transvaal, and if they needed the rifles before that date for the protection of themselves and their families, then they needed them just as much after that date as well. I hope that the Prime Minister will take that into consideration or that the Minister of Justice will do so if he has to deal with the matter, and that he will make provision for those people being met in the matter.

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by suggesting to the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) in reference to a phrase of his about “before and after lunch” that if the hon. member for Gezina wishes to make parliamentary procedure a mere repetition of lobby talk and extra lobby talk, then, of course, we are quite prepared to do that, and I would suggest that the hon. member for Gezina might be very sorry that he ever suggested any such thing.

What do you suggest?

I am not suggesting anything. I am just telling him, and also the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Dr. Bremer). If parliamentary discussions are going to be made a question of what has occurred in the lobby or elsewhere, well, we are quite prepared to accept that and quite prepared to stand by it, in which case I am quite sure the hon. member for Gezina would not show up in the best light. The most extraordinary thing about the speech of the hon. member for Gezina was that he started by saying he regretted the Minister of Finance was not in his place. That is an extraordinary statement to be made by the hon. member for Gezina who is now apparently in very close confab with his ancient enemy the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan.) [Pause.]

The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact I assume that at the present moment the hon. member for Gezina is not aware that I am mentioning his name. I am quite sure neither is the hon. member for Piquetberg. Perhaps this may be a variation of the attitude adopted by the hon. the exPrime Minister who, perhaps not so shrewd, gets up and shows his bad temper by walking out of the House. I am quite sure the hon. member for Gezina is not deaf.

Neither am I interested.

I know you are not interested, but you might appear interested. I know that the hon. member for Gezina has such an opinion of his own monumental intelligence that he is not very much interested in anything that anybody else in the world says. I want to suggest that it is an important point that the hon. member for Gezina may feel that his monumental intelligence is such that he can afford to ignore every other hon. member in the House, but somehow or other it does not work, not with his speech of a few minutes ago, where he spoke on behalf of democracy. And surely the essence of democracy is that whatever you may feel about your own intelligence—and in the case of the hon. member for Gezina, he does not only feel it, but radiates it, and he tells us on every available occasion what intelligence he has—but in spite of that, if he is interested in democracy to the extent he says he is, then surely he should listen to even an obscure back-bencher like myself. He started by saying that he regretted the absence of the Minister of Finance, but I seem to remember that the hon. member for Gezina himself has been absent from this House for at least a fortnight.

When was that?

Just now.

I was absent for four days.

Well, then I withdraw. The hon. member is so obscure that I thought he was absent for a fortnight.

I think the hon. member should now commence to deal with the motion.

I am trying to reply to the speech of the hon. member for Gezina in which he regretted the absence of the Minister of Finance, well knowing—and he should know, having been a Cabinet Minister himself—that the Minister of Finance is engaged in another place. And he comes along here, after allowing his back-benchers full free reign and he tells us that he was absent for four days, although it seems a lot more to me—but he comes along at the final moment, after allowing his backbenchers unrestricted reign, and he gets up and deplores the absence of the Minister of Finance.

Are you for or against the motion?

I am trying to show the absurdity of the argument.

Are you for or against the Minister of Finance.

Order! The hon. member should discuss the motion before the House.

I am trying to reply to the interjections, which I am entitled to do, and incidentally I really cannot make a speech because there is so much interjection that I cannot hear myself talk. We are dealing with the question of calling Parliament together. It is a question which is based on the principles of democracy.

Are you in favour of it or against?

It is no use calling me to order, Mr. Speaker, when I cannot hear myself speak through the interjections of the hon. member for Gezina and others. Of course, the hon. member for Gezina does not want me to speak and does not want me to be heard for which he has very good reasons. [Interruptions.]

Order!

Thank you, sir. We are discussing the question of democracy.

We are discussing the motion.

We are discussing a motion concerning the calling together of Parliament.

I did not think you knew that much.

And to our astonishment we find that the chief protagonist of parliamentary government is the hon. member who has just been away for what seems a fortnight. We find that the hon. member for Gezina is standing up here insisting on the rights of Parliament, insisting incidentally on your rights, Mr. Speaker, and insisting that in a period of crisis certain provisions should be made for the calling together of this House. Now that is what the hon. member for Gezina is doing, a gentleman who during the last five or six years has made it abundantly clear that he himself looked upon members of Parliament with contempt. I can remember the hon. member for Gezina reiterating his point of view that democracy was a failure. I can remember many speeches in which he paid a tribute to the new German system, a country where there is no parliament. I can remember many instances in which he pointed to the failure of democracy, the slowness of democracy; I can remember sand being put into the axle, into the grease, to prevent democracy from working, and I can remember his paying a sort of second-hand tribute to dictatorships, and yet we find he is the individual who stands up before this House posing as the protagonist of democracy. I presume he has just come back from Pretoria where he has been trying to pick up the threads of a practice which he lost many years ago.

I must ask the hon. member to deal with the subject before the House. What he is saying now is quite irrelevant.

Very well, I shall withdraw that. I shall say that the hon. member has been absent and I think that is relevant to the subject before the House. But when the hon. member pleads for democracy and for Parliament being called together, it is rather peculiar that that plea should come from a member who attends as irregularly as the hon. member does. Even though the hon. member is a front-bencher it is peculiar that that plea should come from him who is absent 24 days out of every 25.

The hon. member must confine himself to the motion. What he is saying is irrelevant.

I am, replying to the hon. member for Gezina, and I suggest that it is my duty and my privilege to reply to the hon. member’s strictures.

Are you for or against the motion.

Order!

I have several notes here where the hon. member for Gezina has dealt with points which he considered relevant to the motion and which were apparently relevant, and I feel I am entitled to reply. But if you feel I am not entitled to reply than I am prepared to sit down. The hon. member for Gezina said that the Opposition had saved the Government from dictatorship. That was a deliberate statement made by the hon. member.

I never said that but it does not matter.

Oh, yes, I have got it, and I want to deal with that statement, because the spectacle of the hon. member for Gezina saving South Africa from a dictatorship is something just too funny for words, and I feel we are entitled to say a few words about it. If, of course, you Mr. Speaker, decide otherwise, as you have decided on several other points I have raised, I must bow to your judgment, although I feel that in the interests of the country the statements by the hon. member for Gezina should be dealt with. But it is very difficult to deal with them, because the hon. member’s statements have been so wild, so irrational and so irrelevant that it is difficult to deal with them although it would be in the interests of South Africa that I should deal with them. However, the spectacle of the hon. member for Gezina saving South Africa from a dictatorship is something at which even the gods must laugh, because even in what appeared a brilliant career, at a time when we were under the impression that he was organising a really first class Defence Force — and most people in this country were under that impression, an impression which incidentally was given to the country by the hon. member himself — at a time when he told us that he was organising a first class Defence Force, even with all the admission of his brilliance, we still felt that if there was any man in this country who was trying to impose a dictatorship on South Africa it was the hon. member for Gezina himself.

The flowers that bloom in the spring.

We have been told by him and we have heard from other sources that he not only thought German, spoke German, but that he believed in the whole of the German ideology. He has made it very clear in this House that he was an individual who did not have a great deal of time for democracy and the general public in the Union were quite convinced that if there was any danger of a dictatorship being set up in the Union that danger existed in the hon. member for Gezina himself, and one of the reasons why I was pleased to see him removed from his Portfolios was because I felt that the danger of a dictatorship in South Africa had been removed. Now he accused the Prime Minister of being concerned in setting up a dictatorship. I believe the hon. member said that this was the last session of the last Parliament of South Africa and that in future we would not have a Parliament.

Quite likely.

I want to suggest something which the hon. member should know. The hon. member said that this country was being ruled by the Prime Minister. This country is not being ruled by the Prime Minister; it is being ruled by the Prime Minister and his Cabinet….

And the Labour Party.

That is the other point I want to come to. That this country is being ruled….

Did you say ruled or ruined?

As long as the Prime Minister and his Cabinet retain the confidence of the various groups which go to make up the Government majority, so long will the present position continue. And I want to say this, that in the period in which the Prime Minister has been ruling the country with his Cabinet he has managed, and I think with an excess of leniency, to rule this country in a manner which satisfies the various groups which go to make up the people. And if there was the slightest tendency towards the Prime Minister adopting a dictatorial attitude, that tendency I think would very soon be altered by all the groups which are supporting him at the present moment. But peculiarly enough, and I do not think I am giving any secrets away, — some of the smaller groups which are supporting the Prime Minister are the groups which are endeavouring to impress upon him that he should adopt a more dictatorial attitude — in other words, that he is being too lenient to my hon. friends opposite, and speaking for the Labour Party I personally would be quite pleased to see the Prime Minister show more signs of a dictator.

Why signs?

Someone over there the other day said ….

Be careful, there is a hole in the bag.

There is a hole in your head.

Order, I again want to ask the hon. member to confine himself to the motion.

That was an interjection. I want to stress this question of a dictatorship. An hon. member the other day in connection with the question of the accusation which is bound up with this question of when and when not Parliament should be called together, quoted Grey Steel, and tried to prove from Grey Steel that the Prime Minister was a dictator.

That is quite irrelevant. If the hon. member cannot confine himself to the motion he should resume his seat.

If I cannot quote what another hon. member has said with reference to the question of a dictatorship which is a very important principle as far as the House is concerned I am prepared to resume my seat when you order me to do so, but with all due deference to you, sir, I still contend that the whole argument particularly the argument raised by the hon. member for Gezina who is such a prominent absentee from this House, who has betrayed his duty to the democratic system which this afternoon he is supposed to have been supporting — the hon. member who is a front bencher drawing money from this country …

What the hon. member is now saying is quite irrelevant and I must ask the hon. member to discontinue his speech.

Thank you, sir.

The Prime Minister introduced a motion here and we must admit that the motion would in ordinary circumstances be reasonable. It has, however, become clear from the speeches of the Minister of Mines and the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) that they do not appreciate that we are living in quite extraordinary circumstances and are dealing with quite extraordinary circumstances. They do not at all realise that the reason why we have moved the amendment is that we, in the times we are living in, all have a great responsibility. The time may come when the Prime Minister himself will be glad of the possibility of summoning Parliament immediately, that the Prime Minister himself will be glad that he can consult the Opposition, and that all sides of the House can debate important matters. Never yet in a thousand years, or never yet since the time of the establishment of parliamentary institutions, has there been such an important and critical time as to-day. Between to-day and January great things may happen, and it may later on be very welcome to the Prime Minister if he has the support of the Leader of the Opposition on the lines of the amendment that we have moved. The Minister of Mines said that it was not customary that the Leader of the Opposition did not occupy any official position whatsoever, and that it was therefore quite wrong and superfluous and unnecessary to give him also a say in such matters. I cannot agree with that at all, and I think that if the Minister of Mines were still a member of the party of which he was leader, and were still sitting in opposition with that party, then he would not have taken up the attitude which he has taken up to-day. I am quite certain about that. But we do not blame him. Psychologically it is a natural phenomenon that we from time to time change our views and alter our methods of attack according to circumstances. To-day, however, it is not to my mind a question of points of attack or discord but simply a question of what may be in the best interests of the country, the best interests of Parliament, and also in the best interests of the Prime Minister himself. It may still happen that he will be very glad of the passing of such a resolution. The time may come when he will possibly feel that it is a good thing to summon Parliament, but that there is a crisis amongst the parties which support him, or that there is a crisis arising in the country or outside of it, so that he does not have the support of his followers, and may be glad to share his burden with the Leader of the Opposition. I am optimistic and my optimism drives me to the point of believing that the Prime Minister will still accept the amendment. It is not a question of his having to alter his attitude. He has altered his point of view in connection with other matters. He has shown that he is a strong man, and can at least in part alter his point of view when he sees that it is reasonable. I believe, therefore, that he will be willing to meet us in this matter as well. There is no danger in the Prime Minister accepting the amendment. The Prime Minister is responsible for the Government. Can there, when Parliament is not sitting, be any danger in his also consulting the Leader of the Opposition under extraordinary circumstances? The only danger may be that Parliament may possibly be summoned unnecessarily. It is possible that the Leader of the Opposition puts his arguments in such a way that Parliament, according to him, should be summoned while the Prime Minister feels that it should not be done. It is better to make your mistakes on the safe side. If you summon Parliament too quickly you cannot do harm, but may more probably do good. By a positive attitude we can do no harm, but that is possible by adopting a negative attitude, and saying that we cannot consult with the Leader of the Opposition. It may be that the Prime Minister at a certain moment thinks that he should not convene Parliament, but that may be dangerous to us and to the country. I do not want to refer to all the important matters which have been raised during this session, but there have been many important points raised, and they would not have been dealt with if Parliament had not met. Parliament was not summoned because many people were thrown into gaol, because there was oppression, because false declarations had been made, but Parliament was convened only in order to vote money. And now in consequence of the session, all these important matters have been discussed and innocent people have been released from gaol, and further troubles have been obviated in connection with the commandeering of rifles. If Parliament had not met the Prime Minister would not have heard of the troubles and the commotion amongst the people. He only summoned Parliament because he needed money, because the Empire needed his assistance, because he needed money to carry on the Empire’s war. But the fact that these very important matters were debated this session proves how very necessary it is that this side of the House should also have a say in connection with the summoning of Parliament. We have had three speeches, one from the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle). The speeches which were delivered on the opposite side were not at all convincing. They did not deal in the least with the serious question which this amendment deals with. In fact this is a very important question to South Africa. The Leader of the Opposition has in the past done his best to get Parliament to meet, and also to keep Parliament in session, so that serious national questions which arise from time to time can be dealt with here. If the people have a hard time and big things are happening in the country then Parliament is available to debate those matters. The Prime Minister does not see that point of view, and to a great extent I sympathise with him. It is, of course, very difficult for him to be here in Parliament, because he is not only Prime Minister but commander-in-chief of our army. It is very difficult for him to be here in Parliament and also to fulfil his other functions, except on Sunday. Therefore I say that I have the greatest sympathy with him. But I nevertheless think that it ought to be possible in South Africa to separate those two functions from each other. If not, and if it is absolutely necessary for those two functions to be given to one man, then I think that that other function should not weigh more heavily than Parliament.

The hon. member cannot discuss that now.

Very well. I only want to say this, that I think those two functions should not be held by one person, in view of the practical reasons which there are why the amendment of the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) should be accepted. The Prime Minister told us that we had to finish our work quickly because he had to go away again. He made it clear to us why he could not summon Parliament because he had other duties which he had to fulfil.

This motion deals with the adjournment, and we must confine ourselves to that.

Yes, but the amendment of the hon. member for Piquetberg is that the Leader of the Opposition should be consulted before summoning Parliament. If the Leader of the Opposition were consulted Parliament would meet again as soon as it was necessary, and if it were not necessary then it would not be summoned. If it depends on the Prime Minister then Parliament will not easily come together again, and therefore I give my full support to the amendment, and I hope that the Prime Minister will accept it, because that would be in the best interests of Parliament and the country.

I think the arguments of the Opposition were very unconvincing. They started from the supposition that the Prime Minister, if he gave advice to the Speaker, spoke on behalf of a party and a section. They proceeded from the assumption that the Prime Minister only represented one section, and the question was put here why both sections could not be heard. But the Prime Minister is not only a party leader. He speaks on behalf of the people and on behalf of the whole House, and when he gives advice, when the Speaker consults him, then he does so not from the point of view of a party or of one section, but on behalf of the whole country and in the interests of the whole country. Accordingly I find little ground for the attitude of the Opposition. There is no doubt that the Government is responsible for taking action. It is the Prime Minister who must take action. The Opposition is there to criticise, and when action has to be taken to summon Parliament, then it is the Government which takes the responsible step of advising the Speaker. If they adopted a different course, and if the Leader of the Opposition were called in, then we have the difficulty and danger of a conflict, which would put the Chair in a very troublesome and impossible position. That must not be permitted. Accordingly the House on the previous occasion decided that it would not be done. I find that no additional arguments have been raised to make any change in the position, and to alter my opinion. I am not doing this because I want to be obstinate when I have taken up an attitude. I agree with the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Dr. Bremer) that I am capable of being convinced and of making a concession. I see great danger in the other course which is being suggested, and in those circumstances I do not see why the House should change its opinion of the 4th September.

On a point of order, sir, before you put the question might I draw your attention to the amendment in view of Standing Order No. 46, which says that—

I would like your ruling as to whether this particular motion, having already been discussed on an instruction to the committee, almost in similar form, is in order.

Apparently the honourable member has misunderstood the intention of Standing Order No. 46 which provides that the same question might not be twice offered. The instruction referred to was to empower the Committee of the Whole House on the War Measures (Amendment) Bill to make statutory provision in regard to long adjournments. The fact that the instruction had been negatived does not preclude the House from making similar provision in connection with the existing session by means of a motion.

Mr. Speaker, I am a young member and not very knowledgeable on this point, but as I read Standing Order 46, I presume the intention of it is to prevent discussions on the same questions and that is actually what we have been doing. I presume the framer of the Standing Order intended to eliminate during one Parliamentary session a second discussion and a second vote on a subject which has already been discussed. We have had to-day a second discussion on the question whether the Leader of the Opposition should be consulted on the question when Parliament should resume. We are now having a second vote on an amendment which puts the selfsame question, and it does seem to me that it was the intention, notwithstanding the legal phraseology, to prevent two discussions and two votes on the selfsame thing. If we take a vote on this particular amendment it will be the second time we have voted on the question whether the Leader of the Opposition shall have a say when Parliament shall be called together.

On the previous occasion the House declined to put into a Bill a certain provision, but that does not prevent the House putting that provision into a motion which it did not want to put on the Statute Book. The two questions are entirely separate and different, and therefore this amendment moved by the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) is in order.

Amendment put and the House divided:

Ayes—30:

Badenhorst, C. C. E.

Boltman, F. H.

Bremer, K.

De Wet, J. C.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fullard, G. J.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Hugo, P. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Naudé, S. W.

Olivier, P. J.

Pirow, O.

Schoeman, B. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, A. P.

Theron, P.

Van den Berg, C. J.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Zyl, j. J. M.

Verster, J. D. H.

Vosloo, L. J.

Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and J. H. Viljoen.

Noes—58:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Cadman, C. F. M.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Egeland, L.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henderson, R. H.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hooper, E. C.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Nel, O. R.

Pocock, P. V.

Reitz, D.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard, C. F.

Steyn, C. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Tellers: W. B. Humphreys and A. E. Trollip.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Original motion put and agreed to.

Business suspended at 4.22 p.m. and resumed at 5 p.m.

I move as an unopposed motion—

I second.

Agreed to.

Business suspended at 5.4 p.m. and resumed at 5.45 p.m.

On the motion of the Prime Minister: the House adjourned at 5.50 p.m. until Monday, 27th January, 1941, at 2.15 p.m.