I move—

The motion I am submitting to the House gives us the opportunity of studying the general financial position of the country and particularly so on this occasion when I am asking the House to vote the necessary funds to meet the financial needs of the country. As Minister of Finance it has been my experience to come forward with such a request more often and for larger amounts than has ever happened before. This is due to the war in which South Africa is now taking part. As, however, this House has repeatedly given its sanction to our war policy I am not going to apologise for the fact that I am today again submitting estimates for a very large amount of money, in view of the fact that the extent of this amount is mainly due to the steps which are being taken to enable South Africa to play a part worthy of her traditions in this fight for freedom.

Apart from supplementary estimates this is the second War Budget which I am submitting to the House. A little more than a year ago I introduced my first War Budget. I then pointed out that the burden of war so far had to all intents and purposes not been felt by South Africa. In the meantime, however, a great change has taken place in the general position. The tempest of war is raging with much greater violence. The need for guarding South Africa against this tempest has necessitated great additional obligations. None the less I am able to testify to-day with a sense of gratitude that the economic and financial balance has been maintained with a surprising degree of success, that we have shown a financial ability greater than anyone could have foreseen, and that the stability and the prosperity of our country in spite of the storm and in spite of the pressure of war conditions, and the extent of our war effort, is being maintained and fostered in a manner which has surprised everyone.

The review which I now propose to give of the financial history for the year 1940-1941 will tend to prove those contentions.

From when has that been given effect to?

The decision was taken approximately a month ago.

I second.

I now give notice than on the 17th March I shall move that the House go into Committee of Ways and Means to consider resolutions on—

Income Tax—

Normal and Super,

Non-Resident Shareholders’ Tax,

Undistributed Profits Tax; and

Excess Profits Duty and Gold Mines Special Contribution,

New Motor Car Sales Tax,

Customs and Excise Duties.

I lay upon the Table:

1. (1) Estimates of the Revenue to be received during the year ending 31st March, 1942, excluding revenue of the Provincial and Railways and Harbours Administrations; and
2. (2) Memorandum on the proposed Consolidated Income Tax Bill and concessions to the excess profits duty.

I also lay upon the Table certain papers relating to the Budget and statistics of trade for inclusion in Hansard, as follows—

Revenue, 1940-41.

Revenue, 1941-’42.

Comparison of Imports of Certain Commodities in 1940 and 1939.

Production of Minerals.

The weights and values for the year 1940 are provisional as final figures are not available.

a. —Provisional figure—Premium approximately £58,000,000.

b. —Premium £44,480.500.

Average Number of Persons Employed in Mining.

On the motion of the Minister of Railways and Harbours, the debate was adjourned; to be resumed on 13th March.

I move—

In moving the second reading of the Bill, I would like to deal very briefly with the point raised in the earlier discussion on this subject. The point was made that we are deducting 20% from the cost of living allowance which is now being paid to the lower paid workers on the Railways, where those workers are in receipt of a rent rebate. Where we have a worker whose remuneration consists of so much pay plus a house allowance, or a house, the house or the house allowance is included as a substantive part of his wage. If the worker gets £42 plus a house, that is all included in the wage. If he cannot get a house he is allowed one-sixth of the wage in lieu thereof, which brings his wage up to £49, and the cost of living allowance is allowed on that £49. That is quite different to a man receiving £42, and who is getting a rent rebate. A rent rebate relieves that servant from any liability to pay increased costs in respect of rental, and it has been considered reasonable under these circumstances, that the equivalent of the possible rise in rent should be deducted from that particular servant. As long ago as 1936, when the rent rebate scheme was under discussion, the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) amongst others, took an active part in discussing various details with the then Minister of Railways, and one of the agreements which was come to in connection with their discussions was the following—

That was agreed to when the rent rebate was adopted; it was recognised then that the rent rebate would have to be taken into consideration in connection with any increased cost of living allowance. Well, the committee that sat recently, which as I pointed out consisted practically wholly of staff men themselves, came to the same conclusion. I would like to read, for the benefit of the House, what they said on this particular point. They were dealing with the rent rebate scheme in relation to the cost of living allowance—

They go on discussing the same point, but I will only read the essential features. Later on they say—

Actually, the Railways would be justified in deducting 25.5 per cent. of the cost of living allowance, but it has been modified to the extent that only 20 per cent. is deducted. That is the point made by my friend the hon. member for Fordsburg yesterday, and I want to make the situation quite clear to the House. Speaking generally, I would like to say that I don’t want in any way to interfere with the working of this scheme. It only came into operation in January for the first time, and I think it would be the height of folly to start tinkering with it now. But I can give the House this assurance that, subject to the views of my friend the Minister of the Interior, who controls the public service, that if serious anomalies crop up and modifications are, after experience, proved to be desirable, we will certainly give sympathetic consideration to them.

Motion put and agreed to.

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

House in Committee:

Clauses, Schedules and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN reported the Bill without amendment.

Bill read a third time.

Portion of this Bill does not give rise to any objections, and can be approved of by both sides of the House. I therefore do not propose going into those matters, as they have already been explained by the Minister, and as he has already given adequate information in regard to them. But there are certain other points of view which I want to deal with, and against which I wish to raise objections. There are certain clauses in this Bill which to my mind are dangerous, and which we cannot accept as they stand here. This Bill proposes to provide for the forthcoming census, and for the use to be made of that census for the purposes of the Electoral Act, namely, for the delimitation of constituencies. It further deals with the registration of absent voters, that is to say, of people absent on active service. In this connection we find that clause 5 provides that any adult person, whoever he may be—Mr. X—can come along and apply, can sign an application form intended for an absent person, for a soldier who may be serving in the North, to get such an absent person registered, no matter whether he has been authorised to do so by that person or not. Consequently, a certain Mr. A is on active service, far away in the North, and then a certain Mr. X can come here, although he may not know Mr. A at all, and he can sign an application for the registration of Mr. A, whether he has been authorised to do so or not. This may give rise to all kinds of malpractices. Let me just mention one instance. Somebody in Maitland wants Maitland to be a seat for one or other party. He can fill in a number of forms for people who are away up North, and he can certify that before their departure they were domiciled in Maitland. In that way hundreds of people can be placed on the Maitland Voters’ Roll. This can be done by an individual who is not in any way entitled to do so, and who wants to commit a dishonest act by overloading some constituency or other with voters who by right should not be registered there. The clause reads—

Consequently, there are only two people. The one signs the application, and the other signs as a witness that a person who is far away in the North or in Pretoria is domiciled in a specific constituency, and should be registered there as a voter. This really is a very serious provision, and it is possible to alter it. For instance, application can be made by an official person. Why cannot the Secretary for Defence nominate someone, some properly authorised person, to scrutinise the rolls of people who have joined the Defence Force? That person can then put down the addresses of 100 people, or whatever the number may be who come from Maitland and who should be registered there. He can say that they are bona fide domiciled in Maitland, and application can then be made to have them registered there. If that were done, there would be a certain degree of control in this matter. I assume the Department of Defence could appoint somebody who would do the work properly, and who would rule according to the records where the people concerned come from. This clause goes still further and deals with applications in respect of which it is necessary to prove that the individual can sign his name if he wants to be entitled to registration. The only provision here is that the registering officer shall not register a person unless he is satisfied that the man applying is able to sign his name and to write his address and his occupation. How is the registering officer going to satisfy himself? Mr. X says that he certifies a man to be able to sign his name and to write his address and his occupation. It seems to me that the only thing the registering officer can do is to put that question to Mr. X, and he then has to accept the statement made by that unknown and unauthorised person that the applicant is able to sign his name and to write down his address and occupation. I therefore say that this constitutes a serious violation of the requirements of the Electoral Act, because it is laid down there that there shall be a careful scrutiny to see whether the applicant for registration is entitled to registration in accordance with the requisite qualifications. The Minister opens the door wide to abuses. An individual goes along and fills up a large number of forms and says: “I certify that these people are domiciled in such and such constituency, and that they can sign their name and write their address and occupation.” If the Minister does not realise that he is creating a dangerous postion then I must say that he is not taking the care that he should take. My contention is that this clause may give rise to serious malpractices. It is quite possible to remedy the position, or at any rate to improve it. Now let me come to clause 8. In clause 8 we also have a provision which is not quite as dangerous as clause 5 but which we must also look at very carefully. When the reviewing officer scrutinises the registrations on the roll and objections are raised against an individual whose name appears on the roll, we find this provision—

Again it is left to any person to satisfy the official. This is not quite as dangerous but here, too, a change should be made so that the Department of Defence can properly look after the interests of the people who have gone to the front. Clause 9 again provides that a revising officer shall not be allowed to remove a name from the voters roll unless he is convinced that such person is subject to disqualification. The onus is not placed here on the person making application, so that the person has to prove that he is entitled to have his name put on the roll, but the onus is placed on somebody else to prove that such a person does not possess the qualification. That also is a departure from our law, but the most serious of all, so far as I can see, is clause 10. I do not know whether the Minister did so purposely but I must say that he rather glossed over this clause. I listened to him last night, and I do not remember his explaining anything in connection with this clause. He glossed over it, but it is a dangerous clause because it is laid down here that an individual who is not qualified in any way to vote now can be registered on account of the pay and allowances which he is receiving as a soldier. This naturally only affects the coloured people and the natives in the Cape Province, but the effect of this clause will be that it will be possible, and it is probable, that a large number of coloured people who in ordinary civil life have never yet complied with the requirements of the Electoral Act, will be put on the voters roll on account of the pay they draw for themselves, and the allowances which are paid to their wives or their dependents. We therefore have to expect, and it will no doubt happen too, that the voters’ roll will be loaded with a large number of coloured men who do not in ordinary civilian life possess the qualifications for being registered, because it states here that a person will, on account of the pay or allowances he draws as a soldier be entitled to registration. Let me read the clause—

It will be regarded as having been received by the person thus doing service as pay in that Province. In other words, his own pay and the allowances which his wife gets will be regarded as the pay he gets, and on the ground of that pay he becomes qualified to vote. Any coloured man can in that way get on to the list if he joins the Defence Force. All that has to be done now is for him to get someone to come and declare that he can sign his name because as has been shown the registering officer must be satisfied that the man can sign his name, and if anyone makes a declaration that he can sign his name he can be put on the list. In practice it means that all coloured men who join the Defence Force will ipso facto thereby be able to get on the voters’ roll and they will be able to vote at the next elections provided they are in the service of the Department of Defence. If anyone goes to fight he must be paid; that is generally admitted, but that should not necessarily give him the right to come on the voters’ roll, and the Electoral Act should not be used as an additional inducement for people to go and join up. The Minister must admit that we are dealing with a dangerous principle here. When those people come back and become ordinary civilians again—and if they do not get the wages and salaries which they are earning as soldiers—there is a possibility that great dissatisfaction will arise among those peoople if they have to be taken off the voters’ roll. As sure as I am standing here the cry will be raised: “We have fought in the war and we have got the vote and we are not going to allow it to be taken away from us”. I am also convinced that the Minister will then be prepared to say that the coloured men who have obtained the franchise in that way must retain the franchise, in spite of the fact that they are no longer able to comply with the requirements of the law. It will be extremely difficult to take the franchise away from those people again when they come back and when they no longer draw those allowances. For that reason I say there is a great danger in this. I have mentioned those few points but for the rest we have no objection to the Bill. Now I want to put this to the Minister in view of what I have said here, and in view of the objection I have raised, I want to ask the Minister to refer the Bill to a Select Committee after the second reading. It will avoid a lengthy debate and the difficulties I have mentioned can then be removed in Select Committee. Failing that we may perhaps have to come here with all kinds of amendments and the Minister will perhaps accept certain amendments, but none the less it will remain a half baked Bill. We do not want to delay the Bill unnecssarily and we are not asking it to be referred to a Select Committee before the second reading, but it would be a good thing to do so after the second reading, so that the few important points I have mentioned might be looked into and the difficulties may be removed. As the Bill is now we are unable to support it, because it opens the door to many malpractices and we want to assist the Minister in preventing those. I shall therefore be glad if the Minister will comply with my request. It will probably grately curtail and facilitate the debate.

Nobody will object to the Minister making provision to enable soldiers to register, and so long as we are satisfied that this Bill is to be used for the purpose of enabling soldiers to do so in accordance with the provisions of the Electoral Act we shall raise no objection. But I notice that in this Bill a door is being opened to abuse in order to get people on the Voters’ Rolls who have not got the necessary qualifications to be placed on those rolls. The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) referred to clause 10. An attempt is being made there to make it possible to register people who only because of their military service will now be able to claim the right of registration. This, of course, applies particularly to coloured persons in the Cape, and we may perhaps get thousands of people on the coloured rolls, although those people to-day do not possess the necessary qualifications. In the Cape as the law is to-day coloured people who want to claim registration have to produce the necessary proof that they possess the requisite qualifications to be placed on the Voters’ Roll, but in spite of those requirements we know that the law is evaded on a very big scale. In 1930 a Select Committee was appointed in connection with the registration of voters, and the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) was chairman of that committee. Witnesses who appeared before the committee pointed out that efforts were very definitely made by hundreds, possibly by thousands of people, especially by coloured people, who were not qualified to be registered, to evade the law in some way or another and to get on to the Voters’ Rolls. We know from our own experience that after every biennial registration large numbers of cases of coloured people, who got on to the Voters’ Roll without possessing the necessary qualification, come up before the Revision Court. In constituencies such as Caledon, Paarl and Worcester large numbers of cases were brought before the court, and even cases were brought before the court of white people who had made efforts to get coloured men on the lists who did not possess the necessary qualifications for registration. Under this Bill any person who came along and on behalf of a coloured person on military service apply for the name of such coloured person to be placed on the Voters’ Roll. Under ordinary circumstances any person could have objected who knew of another man who had got on to to the Voters’ Roll without possessing the necessary qualifications, the coloured man would then have had to appear before the Revision Court, and the onus of proof was on him to show that he possessed the necessary qualifications, that he earned the necessary wages, and that he could write his name, his occupation and his address. But now I want to ask the Minister what the position is going to be under this Bill. A coloured person is beyond the boundaries of this country and his name is placed on the Voters’ Roll by someone else. What becomes of the onus of proof which rests on him to show that he is qualified to be put on the Voters’ Roll. I should like to know from the Minister what the position is. As I understand this Bill anyone can get a coloured man’s name on the roll; he can get a coloured man who is away on active service placed on the roll. How can anyone lodge an objection against the registration of such a coloured person if such a coloured person does not possess the necessary qualifications? The onus of proof is no longer placed on the coloured man to show that he has the necessary qualifications, but the onus is placed on the individual who lodges the objection, because the coloured man cannot be expected to appear in order to prove that he possesses the necessary qualifications. Coloured men will be placed on the Voters’ Roll on a very large scale without our having the right to demand that those coloured persons prove that they possess the necessary qualifications. I am sorry the hon. member for Kimberley, District (Mr. Steytler) is not here because I am convinced he would assist us in regard to this matter. I want to point out that this difference of opinion between hon. members on this side of the House and hon. members opposite in regard to this matter is continually cropping up. A Select Committee was appointed in 1929, and it was suggested there that the onus of proof should rest on the individual who wanted to be registered, to show that he possessed the necessary qualifications. In those days Europeans in the Cape also had to prove their qualifications; in those days the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) and other members opposite were in favour of the onus of proof being placed on the Europeans and coloured people to show that they could claim registration. But in 1930 the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Malan) introduced a Bill in which white adult persons were given the franchise without qualifications. We then found that hon. members opposite suddenly changed their minds. They were then no longer in favour of people having to prove that they possessed the necessary qualifications—coloured people and natives were the only ones concerned there. They wanted to get away from it then, but the Bill was passed in those days, and the onus of proof remained on the natives and coloured people to show that they were qualified. I want to read to the House what the hon. member for Kimberley District said on that occasion:

The hon. member for Kimberley District went on to point out that strong pleas had been put forward by members of the then Opposition—to-day’s Government side— against coloured people having to prove that they had the necessary qualifications. The hon. member, however, was strongly in favour of coloured people, who were not entitled to be registered, being kept off the Voters’ Roll. He went on to say—

The hon. member has been a member of Parliament for years, and he has had a lot of experienece of the registration of voters, and he says that for years they felt the need of legislation to place the onus of proof on the coloured people that they had the necessary qualification, and he went on to say—

I am quoting this to show how strongly the hon. member for Kimberley District felt on the point that coloured people should be made to prove that they could sign their name and that they could write their address, and that they lived in a house in accordance with the requirements of the law, and that they earned the necessary minimum wage. The hon. member went on to say this—

Now I want to say that if we pass this Bill the position is going to be abused in order to get names on the voters’ roll of people who are not entitled to be there. The hon. member for Kimberley District, speaking from his experience, said that all possible means were used to get thousands of people on to the voters’ roll who should not be there and he went on to say—

I wish the hon. member were here, seeing that an attempt is now being made to get a large crowd of coloured people on to the voters’ roll again to decide the fortunes of South Africa. I should like to remind him of the attitude he adopted in those days. I do not blame the Minister of the Interior for being in favour of this; he has for years been in favour of getting as many men as possible on to the voters’ roll, but I do blame hon. members who for many years have stood by us on that point. The hon. member for Kimberley District is taking so little interest in the matter now that he is not even here. And he went on to say this—

The hon. member in those days took up a very strong attitude. He wanted to prevent our getting coloured men on the voters’ roll who did not possess the necessary qualifications. Where is the hon. member now when an attempt is being made to get large numbers of coloured people on the voters’ rolls? I want to point out that one of the required qualifications for natives and coloured people is that they shall have a certain income. What is happening now? Their military pay is regarded in this Bill as income entitling the coloured people to registration. Let us assume the war finishes in a few months time. There will be thousands of coloured people then who, after the war, will no longer have the necessary income entitling them to be registered, but they will remain on the voters’ roll for another two years. The mere fact of their having this temporary military pay enables them to get on to the voters’ roll. I think it is undesirable. We are going to get a large-scale registration of Cape coloureds especially here in the Peninsula—people who are not entitled to be registered. I feel that hon. members over there who in the past always used to support us in this respect should help us now to prevent it. I hope the Minister will accept an amendment in Committee to prevent thousands of voters who should not be there getting on to the voters’ rolls.

This Bill before the House contains some useful and, I think, just provisions, and it also contains provisions which in my view are very bad indeed. With regard to section 13, the last section of the Bill but one, that provision proposes to put right something which should have been put right last year in Act 20 of 1940, the Electoral Amendment Act. In that Act certain provisions appeared which enabled coloured persons with diggers’ qualifications to continue to vote when they had not been able to do so, because of a decision of the Supreme Court. Native voters were overlooked, and I am very glad to see that that has been put right in this Bill. With regard to the provisions safeguarding the rights of a man who is on active service to registration as a voter notwithstanding the fact that he is outside his province, or outside the Union, there again those provisions are obviously in accordance with the justice of the case. But the provisions which I object to are those providing for the taking of a census this year which specifically limits the scope of that census to the European population of the Union, and also to section 10 of the Bill, to which I object upon grounds quite other than members of the Opposition have done. Now the effect of section 10 of the Bill as it stands at present is to lay down that where voters require a wage qualification, military pay shall be regarded as compliance with that qualification.

That is not correct, that is not the purpose of the Bill.

Well, that is how I read it, and I shall read the section to the Minister if he so desires.

The Minister must have misunderstood me. What I said was that pay and allowances where wage qualifications are required are to be regarded as such qualifications. Obviously if received outside the province they would not be, because in terms of the Cape Laws governing the qualifications of voters, the pay and allowances have to be received within the province of the Cape.

That is the point.

Obviously if they are received outside the province they are not so regarded. Well, anyhow, that is the provision which this Bill makes. It applies only to non-European voters because it is only nonEuropean voters who require a qualification such as this. Hon. members on the Opposition benches protest against this section because they say it would enable coloured persons to qualify as voters who would not otherwise have done so, presumably on the ground that they are earning more than the pay they received when going on active service. I wish to draw attention to the fact that with regard to native soldiers on active service quite the opposite applies, because the scales of pay for natives on active service have been fixed at a figure lower than the necessary qualification. Taking the total pay and allowances of a private at 2s. 3d. per day, calculating that on a seven-day week, it comes to a total of £41 per year, whereas the qualifications referred to in the section—

That includes allowances?

Yes, 2s. 3d. altogether. The qualifications referred to in the section are £50 per year. So that the effect of the present position is this, that if a native goes on active service, this section not only will not help him, but by doing so he actively disqualifies himself from the opportunity of becoming a registered voter. If he was already a registered voter and is away at the time the next registration takes place, he will fall off the roll, because he will be earning military pay less than the minimum qualifying him as a voter. And if he was not a voter before, from the time of service with the Forces, he will be unable to qualify as a voter. So this illustrates what we have protested against in the past, and that is the insufficiency of the pay and allowances of these men. You have the anomalous position that people are recruited in order to fight a war for democracy, and they are recruited on terms under which they must necessarily disable themselves from qualifying for the exercise of the fundamental democratic right, which is the right to vote. Now, sir, I know that you will stop me if I talk about the adequacy or otherwise of the scale of military pay, and therefore, for the purposes of this discussion, I confine myself to this principle, that if a man is called upon to fight in the cause of democracy, by reason of that fact alone he should not be put in a position of disqualifying himself from exercising the fundamental right of democracy, which is the right to vote. To put it in another way, if a man is a fit and proper person to shoulder the supreme responsibility of citizenship, that is, to defend the community of which he is a member, then surely he should have the right to exercise the fundamental right of citizenship, which is to cast a vote. I hope that when we come to the Committee stage of the Bill, the Minister will consider an amendment designed to embody that principle in the Bill. Not only should that man have a right to his pay, but he should also be qualified to vote, irrespective of the amount of his pay, having regard to the nature of his duties, and the sacrifice he is called upon to make. I want to say a few words on the subject of the census provisions of this Bill. Section 2 says—

1. 19. “A census taken under this Act in any year in which a census is by paragraph (ii) of section 34 of the South African Act, required to be taken, shall be the census so required to be taken.”

Section 34 (ii) of the South Africa Act makes provision to the following effect—

In other words, section 2 of this Bill, as read with section 34 of the South Africa Act, means that the census which is about to be taken is to be limited to the European population. Now I am going to submit that that is a very short-sighted proposal indeed, because the purposes for which the census figures are used are becoming more and more important with the development of our economic system. The Census Act empowers the Government to obtain information, not only as to the numbers of the population, but it puts into the hands of the Government power to obtain information of a much wider character. I understand, and I speak subject to correction here, that it is proposed in the coming census to collect information as to earnings and incomes, as well as numbers, race, sex, and so on. If that is not so, I strongly contend that it should be so, and the reason is that it is becoming increasingly necessary for the State to intervene in order to plan economic and social policy. It is an obvious condition precedent to any such plan that the State should have in its possession adequate information not only as to the numbers of the population for which it has to plan, but their means and needs and the labour resources available for satisfying such needs. That information is of vital importance to any government in planning a financial and economic policy, or a programme of social services. I won’t say the whole, but 80 per cent., of the labour force and 70 per cent. of the population, as a whole, is non-European. Non-Europeans represent that enormous proportion of the people to whom the State owes responsibility, and it owes it to them no less than to the other section. But they are to be left out in the taking of the census. I do submit that that is a very short-sighted policy indeed. In the past we have had sometimes the European population alone computed for census purposes, and sometimes the European and non-European, as was the case in 1936. But what I want to suggest is that in any computation of the numbers and needs of the population, it is just as important to have correct statistics taken in reference to the non-Europeans as of the Europeans; and that, I say, is in the interests of both European and non-European, in order that the State can frame its policy and have ample knowledge of the needs of the people for whom it is responsible, and adequate knowledge of the resources upon which it can rely in framing its policy. If adequate information of this kind is not available to the State, it is obvious we are going to have the same sort of economic planning that we have had in the past, which amounts to nothing more than granting facilities to particular vested interests. I hope that is not always going to be the case. I hope an attempt is going to be made in the future to plan on the basis of the needs of the whole population, and not of particular sections, and for that reason the collecting of information of a statistical nature is important. I do submit that it is foolish to confine this to the European population, and it is something more serious than foolish when one comes to consider the matter from the point of view of the discharge by the State of its responsibility to the non-European section. If the State does not know what the numbers and needs of the majority of the people are, how can it pretend to plan any social and economic policy? The officials of the department of the Minister in charge of this Bill have conscientiously, time and again, drawn the attention of the Minister or his predecessors, and the country as a whole, to the vital necessity of getting proper statistics of the non-European population, and of course the main source of such statistics lies in the census taken from time to time. I want to refer to some short passages in the report of the Secretary for Public Health for the year ended June 30th, 1938, in which that official pointed out the disability which his department and the Government is under in having no precise data on this subject.

This section does not prevent a native census.

No, the point is, however, that it proposes that the census to be taken shall be the census referred to in the South Africa Act, which is European. If by proclamation the Government intends also to extend this provision to the non-European people, it has that power. I admit that, and I hope it will be so extended. But I would point out that in this Bill the only census provided for is European, and I want to point out to the Minister the extraordinary importance, from the point of view of the public welfare, of extending it to the non-European. The sort of disability the Government and its officials are under by not having this information that I have spoken of, is reflected in this report of the Secretary for Public Health. On page 5 he says—

Then on page 10 of the same report, referring to infant mortality, he says—

Later in the same report, on page 13, he says—

There again he stresses the need for data, and on page 17 he refers to the coloured people and says—

I am sorry to keep on quoting, but again and again this public official comes back to this point, that we must have the facts if the Government is to carry out its duty to the non-European population. On page 19 the Secretary says—

And then a little later he says—

Again, on page 20, he says—

I quote these passages because time after time reference is made to the handicap under which the Department of Public Health works in dealing with the health of the population, and I want to suggest to the Minister that when the census is taken it should include the whole population. It is false economy to leave out the larger proportion of the population. We hear, time and time again, of the pride which the Government takes in its policy towards the non-European. That is a pride which I do not share, but the justification of any policy is be found in the health, prosperity and progress of the people for whom the Government is responsible, and so far as the statistics of the nonEuropean population are concerned, the Government has not sufficient information upon which a satisfactory administration can be founded. It is vital that the country should know what its labour resources are, and what are the conditions of life under which the population exists. The Minister has reminded me that although this Act only provides for a European census, it does not prohibit the extension of the census to the nonEuropean, and I wish to express the hope that the Government will exercise the powers that it has, and extend the census to the whole population of the country.

The hon. the Minister of the Interior has been introducing Bills during the past few years in connection with the registration of voters. Hitherto he has not been very fortunate with the Bills he has introduced, and this afternoon he is even less happy that he has been on previous occasions in introducing legislation of this kind. One cannot congratulate him on the way in which he tries to bring the people who have to vote for him on to the voters’ roll. He is doing it in a way which can only be described as underhand. Before I express a few thoughts in regard to the provisions dealing with the registration of absent voters I first of all wish to say a few words about the forthcoming census. It is laid down in this Bill that people who are absent from the Union of South Africa will be counted for census purposes in May next, and it is stated that that census is to be held in a manner provided for in the regulations to be issued by the Governor-General. Well, we have already found that we cannot have very much confidence in those regulations issued by the Governor-General which in practice means issued by the Minister. The Minister is already busy leading us up the garden path in connection with this census, and I am afraid that if this Bill is passed in the way it is before the House now, so far as the soldiers are concerned, it will mean that the Minister is again busy misleading us. He has had a census form drafted. He has had it drafted in such a fashion that his friends, the Jews, can slip through without that census showing how many Jews there are in the country. On a previous occasion I referred to this anomaly in the form and I again want to draw the Minister’s attention to this fact He may by this time have decided to give us the true reason for what he is doing. I want to point out to him that a very important question was left out of this census form which has been issued under his regulations. A question which in the past has always been taken up in the census return, namely the question in connection with the religion of the person mentioned in the census form. When the Minister replies to this debate we should like to know from him why he has left this question out and why the census is not to be allowed to give us information on that important question. We have already had a reply from the Acting Minister of the Interior, the Minister of Finance in this regard. We discussed the forthcoming census with him and we asked him why that question was not put on the form and whether that question could not be added as it should be. The public also want that question on the census form and that is the reason why it has always been put in the past. He replied that an additional question would involve additional expense. To-day about 19 questions are put on the census form; it will cost too much money to put a twentieth question and that is the reason why it has been left out. He himself, however, felt that it was so important to put such a question, after we had brought the matter to his notice, and after we had shown of how much importantce it was to the people to get a reply to that question, that he promised on behalf of the Minister of the Interior that that question would again be put on the census form in 1946. Now I should like to know from the responsible Minister of the Interior—he controls the census collection—why he has left out this important question in regard to a person’s religion. My charge is that the question has been left out so that the people of South Africa will not get to know how many Jews there are in South Africa. In this census form which I have in my hand, and which will be used at the next census collection three questions are put under which we shall be able to notice more or less to what race a person belongs, but all those three questions can be evaded. If, however, we ask a person what his religion is the Jew cannot evade that question. I ask the Minister, however, how many people have been prosecuted as a result of the last census on account of their having supplied wrong or false information and how many have been found guilty. His reply was that not a single person had been prosecuted for having given wrong or false information on the census form. Surely the Minister cannot open the door wider than that—he cannot open it wider to enable false information to be supplied on the census form. For that reason I want to draw his attention to the fact, so it is stated, that there have been large numbers of people that people have even been organised to give false information on those forms by not stating to what race they actually belonged. We have conveyed that contention to this House, and I want to repeat it, because it is a contention which probably cannot be denied, that on the occasion of the last census when the question was put as to what was the religion of the person mentioned on the census form, the reply to that question was wrongly filled in and the law was thus evaded. In spite of that the Government did not have the courage to prosecute those people. Now I want to make this charge against the Minister: you have a purpose in leaving this question out. You ask on the census form: What is your race? This question can be answered in three ways, white, Asiatic or coloured. If the Jew has to reply he naturally says that he is white. He is not going to say that he is an Asiatic and he is naturally not a coloured man. The next question is: What is your present nationality? He may be South African, British, French or German, etc. The Jew in most cases answers that he is British, and 95 times out of a hundred he is right, because we know that he has seen to it that he has obtained those qualifications. Wherever he may come from he has first of all gone to a British country to enable him to say that he is British, and even if he does give a wrong answer they do not prosecute him. He also slips through, and then he is also asked “What is the country of your birth”? Perhaps he was born in Poland, but he has gone to an out-of-the-way corner of the British Empire in order to become a British subject. He comes from Poland but he is a British subject and we do not know whether he is a Jew. The question to enable us to say whether he is a Jew or not is to ask him what his religion is. He answers those other questions in the way I have shown and he is safe.

What is he safe from?

He is safe from this, that the Government in South Africa will not know whether he is a Jew or not. The Minister of the Interior himself administers the laws under which he wants to know what an individual’s nationality is, and only by asking certain people what their religion is can we find out whether they are Jews or not. But I want to make this accusation, that when the Minister of Finance gave the explanation that the question had been left out to save expense he gave an answer which was meant to deceive this House. It is an answer which will not satisfy the public, and the Minister will have to find some different answer. I want to give the Minister some advice and to tell him how he can get out of his trouble. Change this form before May or add something to it which can be attached to the form so that it will not be necessary to reprint the whole of the form. I quite understand that it will cost thousands of pounds to reprint the whole of the form. Print an addition and paste it on to the form so that the individual will also have to answer the question what his religion is, and the Minister will then get away from the charge which is rightly being made that he wants to assist a section of the people in South Africa by not making them answer this question in regard to their religion, and that by doing so he is helping those people to hide or to cover up the question of what race they belong to. In any case the Minister is not helping us to find out how many Jews there are in South Africa. In this Bill he is proposing that we should give the Governor-General the right to issue regulations in regard to the troops, and that the members of the Union Defence Forces can be included in the census returns. Now in that connection I want to say this. I assume that he is going to act in a similar way, or he is going to send a similar form to the troops, and if this question in regard to the religion of the people does not appear in that form either then I want to know whethher he will make provision in this Bill so that that question will have to be put. In any case we are going to make a proposal to that effect in committee, and I hope the Minister will then meet us. If he is unable to assist us in regard to the general census he should in any case meet us in regard to the Bill which we have before us. If our soldiers have to tell us to what race they belong, and what the country of their birth is, then we should also be able to put the question what their religion is. The census in South Africa is taken at great expense to the State, and it is taken with the object of enabling the State to get to know who are the people living in this country and what the circumstances of the country are. If the form is filled in in the way it is now drafted, and if this particular point is evaded, then it definitely gives a wrong idea of the true position prevailing in South Africa. The next Provincial Council election, if it takes place at the ordinary time, will be a khaki election. That we have to assume. In the circumstances prevailing in South Africa when the provincial elections take place in the four provinces they will be khaki provincial elections. The Minister is now making preparations for the elections. The biennial registration starts in two months’ time, and the objection court will sit about September, and the lists will then be in force for the Provincial Council elections. That is the reason why the Minister comes along with this legislation. He wants to get the voters on the lists for the Provincial Council elections. May I ask in passing whether there is any truth in the rumour that the life of the Provincial Councils is to be extended by the Government. I shall be pleased if the Minister will be good enough to avail himself of answering that question. What is the Minister asking in this Bill? We are dealing here with the most far-reaching legislation in connection with registration ever put before Parliament. First of all he is asking us to jettison a principle in the registration legislation of South Africa in regard to coloured people and Europeans. A white person who wants to get the franchise in South Africa has to be three months in a constituency, and he has to be a Union national 21 years of age, and he must not have any conviction involving imprisonment against him. Failing that he cannot be registered. If he has been in prison, be it a day, a week or a month, without the option of a fine, he cannot get a franchise. And what is the Minister now proposing? One would have expected the Minister to have been satisfied with the legislation which he introduced last year and which he forced through the House against the will of the Opposition. But law No. 20 of 1940 was passed, and it is laid down there that, during the war, people who are beyond the boundaries of the country will not be excluded from the voters’ rolls. In other words, a person need not be present in a constituency for three months, and power is taken under which a person cannot remove from a voters’ roll if his name appears on the voters’ roll and he is away fighting outside the Union. That is a provision appearing in Law No. 20 of 1940, and we hope that the Minister will have been satisfied with that far-reaching step, but now he comes along and goes a great deal further; not only are people allowed to remain on the voters’ roll if they are fighting in the North, but if people are absent their names can be put on the voters’ roll even though they were not there before. There was a legal provision to the effect that if I made application for a vote I had to sign my own name, but now it is being laid down that someone else can sign on my behalf, no matter whether I have authorised him to do so or not. In other words, the Minister can give instructions to his party organisation, and they can go along and do all the work, and they can obtain a list from the Department of Defence containing the names of people who are 21 years of age and who are in the Defence Force, and that party organisation can then make application on behalf of such voters. Now I want to ask the Minister first of all— what becomes of the people who want to lodge objections against such persons? I am first of all speaking of Europeans. There is a soldier, and we think he has a sentence against him—in a case of that kind one may perhaps still be able to prove it, but you have cases where an individual is perhaps not 21 years of age, or there may be a doubt whether he is white. I want to point out to the Minister that it is stated that there are a large number of people in certain regiments in the North who cannot pass as whites, but who are serving in white regiments. Assuming someone wants to object to a person like that, and wants to say that he is not a European, what has he to do in the Objection Court? I hope the Minister will tell us in his reply how I can object to a person who appears on the list as a European while he is not a European? What is the position there? The onus of proof is now placed on the objector. The man is not here, and one cannot send for him. One is in a hopeless position. In other words, people can be put on the voters’ rolls, although they should never be put on. In Committee we shall be able to go into greater details. I fail to understand why the Minister should expose himself to the charge that he wants to pack the voters’ rolls with coloured skollies who, when they were in the Union, were never entitled to the vote because they had never earned enough. On the trains I have seen very large numbers of coloured men in khaki, and some of those are of the very lowest type we have in South Africa. Sometimes it is the scum of the streets who are put into khaki and who have been sent North. Some of them are more often drunk than sober. Perhaps quite a number of them have sentences of imprisonment against them. In any case, they constitute a large percentage of the 20,000 who are up North. They would never be able to pass a qualification test, but now they first of all get the pay and allowances amounting to about 4s. per d ay. They have never had anything like it. Here in Cape Town they have never done any work; many of them were skollies, but now they are getting 4s. per day. They only need 2s. 9d. per day to secure the wage qualifications enabling them to get on to the voters’ roll, but now they are getting 2s. 6d. per day, plus 1s. 3d. or 1s. 6d. allowance—I do not know exactly whether the lowest allowance is 1s. 3d. or 1s. 6d. In any case, they get at least 3s. 9d. or 4s. per day, and they only need 2s. 9d. to get on to the voters’ roll. If they are over 21 years of age they can get on to the voters’ roll. And, what is worse still, the qualification to be able to sign and to write their name, address and occupation is no longer required. Another skolly can come along and sign on behalf of the skolly in the North. He only has to be an adult, and then he can sign for the absent coloured man and declare that that coloured man possesses the necessary qualifications. One witness must also sign, which means that some other skolly can also come along and sign. Then the only other provision laid down is that the registering officer has to satisfy himself that the coloured man who is in the North is able to sign his name. May I ask whether the registering officer is going to write him a letter and is going to ask the coloured man to reply in writing and to say that he is able to sign his name? They are up in Abyssinia—possibly they may be in Assyria one of these days, and the skolly who is in Assyria will also be able to vote.

And those who are dead can do so, too.

Yes, and the Minister will still have to provide how they have to vote. That is still ahead of us. I assume that a corporal or a sergeant will mark their passes, and will march them to a certain place, will give each of them a voting paper and then order them to vote. How on earth the registering officer is to satisfy himself that the coloured man who is up in Assyria or Abyssinia is able to sign his name, I do not know. I really feel that the Minister should not make himself ridiculous by his Bill. The Minister had a very bad time last year with similar legislation, but that legislation was not as ridiculous as that which we have before us now. He will have a much worse time with this Bill than he had last year. It is quite clear why he is proposing this. The Minister and others who think as he does have for years been using all their power to arrange matters so that the coloured men can get on to the voters’ rolls without any trouble. Now the Government wants to avail itself of its majority, it wants to use the war in order to get a large number of coloured men on to the voters’ rolls. Who will be able to object to coloured men who are in Abyssinia? Under the Bill which was passed when it was introduced by the Leader of the Opposition in days gone by, the onus of proof was placed on the coloured men. If one raises as an objection the ground that a coloured man could not sign he had to come to court and prove that he could sign. If one objected that he did not live in a house worth £75, he had to come and prove that he did, but what is the Minister doing now? He removes the onus of proof from the coloured people. We have no chance, however, of going to the Objection Court and of proving that a coloured man who is up North is not 21 years of age, or that he does not live in a house worth £75, or that he has been sentenced to imprisonment, or that he is unable to sign his name. Hon. members will see the awkward position in which the Minister places us with this ridiculous proposal. We have to prove that a coloured man who is thousands of miles away is unable to sign his name. Parliament inserted this very provision in regard to the onus of proof in order not to make it too easy for the coloured people to get on to the voters’ roll, and now the Minister comes along and removes that. The Minister is exposing himself to criticism, and it will be said that he is busy, in conflict with the adopted principle in regard to the coloured franchise in South Africa, packing the voters’ rolls with khaki-coloured men who should not be on the voters’ roll, and I want to warn the Minister. Last year he made himself ridiculous by his proposals in regard to postal voting, and afterwards he had to withdraw those proposals. I want to suggest to the Minister that he should withdraw these proposals in regard to coloured men, because he is exposing himself to the form of criticism which no Minister likes to have levelled against him.

I hope the Minister will not accept the advice given to him by the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus). The hon. member for Bloemfontein District (Mr. Haywood) was fair enough to say that where a man is on active service he should have the opportunity of registering his vote. If there are safeguards to be provided they can be moved in committee, but for the hon. member to come here and insult the people who are prepared to give their lives in the service of this country, by calling them skollies, is unworthy. These men are earning wages sufficient to qualify them to go on the voters’ roll—why should they not go on the voters’ roll? To call them skollies is merely insulting them. Recently we have seen from the papers that the highest tribute has been paid to these very men for the work they have done, in fact it has been said by one General after another that had it not been for the work of the Cape Corps in mechanical transport it would not have been possible for the troops to have moved so rapidly, and to have achieved the successes they have achieved in Eritrea, Abyssinia and Somaliland. And here we have to listen to these insults, not on the merits but simply because of the prejudices which make up the whole being of those hon. members. The hon. member over there made a very wrong statement when he said that the Jews were in the habit of disguising the fact that they are Jews when filling in the census forms. I repudiate that insult as absolutely untrue and incorrect, and if it was so—if there were thousands of cases as the hon. member says—is the hon. member so simple as to tell us that not one of these cases could be prosecuted? He says the Government does not prosecute these people. If that is so why does he not do so? If there are thousands of such people I will help him to prosecute anyone of my race who is guilty of making these false statements—never mind about thousands of them, let him give me one name and I shall see that he is prosecuted. It is not a matter only for the Minister—anyone can lodge a prosecution. If the hon. member will only give me the name of a single one I shall see that a prosecution takes place. The hon. member’s insults only show him up in an unworthy light. The hon. member said that no Jew could sign himself as a member of the white race.

I did not say that.

The hon. member said that the questions put were these: “Are you white?” “Are you Asiatic?” “Are you coloured?” … and the Jew would not say he was an Asiatic, he would not say he was a non-European, so the only alternative he had was to say that he was white. I leave the inference to hon. members.

On a point of personal explanation, the hon. member may perhaps have misunderstood me. I do not believe I said that. I said the Jew would not say that he was Asiatic, he could not say that he was coloured, so the only alternative was for him to say that he was white.

That is what I said. He could not call himself an Asiatic, he could not call himself coloured—so what was the necessity for saying that the alternative was for him to say that he was white? Why use the word alternative? If he is white then there is no alternative.

You do not follow my argument.

I leave it to hon. members not to allow themselves to be tricked in this way. The hon. member did not make it any better, he simply repeated what he said. I say that he is not doing his duty. If he knows of thousands who are breaking the law it is his duty to have these people prosecuted. He can institute a private prosecution and I can help him. Now let us get away from the insults, and get to the merits of the Bill. On the whole I consider this a very useful measure, but it suffers from the fact that it is an Omnibus Bill. There are five important matters all jumbled together in the one Bill. These matters have no relation to each other and it makes it very difficult to follow the Bill. Let me just give an example of one clause. I have been trying to follow clause 5 and in order to do so, I had to consult these five Statutes. As a lawyer it is easy for me to do so, and to get at them, but for the layman it will be much more difficult. You cannot understand clause 5 unless you study the Act of 1892 referring to the language and residential qualifications. Then you have to look at the original Act of 1918 and when you turn up the relevant clause there you find it has been amended by Act 24 of 1928, and then you find that it has been further amended by the Act of 1940, and when you have looked up all these you find that the 1928 Act has been amended by the Act of 1931. If it is not possible to have a consolidating Act I would urge the Minister to issue a memorandum as other Ministers have done, because it is most difficult to follow the maze of this Bill.

With regard to the actual merits I do not think there is anything to be said. A man gives up his life for the State and just because he is away at the time of registration —surely he is entitled to be registered? Clause 5 does not refer specifically to coloured. It says “Any adult person.” There is, however, the fact that a coloured man cannot get his name on the roll unless he can satisfy the registering officer. The hon. member asks how the registering officer can be satisfied. Well, that would go against a man who wants to be put on the roll. The safeguard is in the declaration which has to be made. If the person concerned makes a false declaration he can be punished, and there are many cases of that kind brought before the courts. It would be less difficult to deal with fraudulent cases under this section than under the existing provisions. These men are not men in the wilds, they can easily be traced, and if anyone has made a false declaration he can easily be dealt with. One of the hon. members said that it was a dangerous Bill because once a man was on the roll he always wanted to be on the roll again. Well, the same happens to men who do not go to the front. A man may earn £50 this year and not next year. Then he has to disappear from the roll. A man cannot claim to be on the roll unless he has the qualifications. Why a man should not be allowed to use his qualifications when at last he is earning the amount giving him those qualifications is something I do not understand.

How long has he to be on the roll before he can be taken off?

If there is any criminal fraud in putting him on the roll, then he can be taken off.

Supposing he loses his qualification?

He can be taken off at any time.

How?

There are provisions for supplementary rolls and for objections to be taken from time to time. These provisions are perfectly fair, and they can be considered on their merits. If there is any loophole for fraud, then hon. members can move the necessary amendment in Committee, but the principle is perfectly fair to allow persons to get on the roll. A man goes and fights for his country—if that is not sufficient qualification for a vote, then what is? So far as the European is concerned, we must not forget that he is in a different position from the non-European. The only qualification a white voter has to have is that he must be over 21 years of age and a Union national. The coloured voters have to have different qualifications, and they have to prove their qualifications. I want to support what the hon. member for Cape, Western (Mr. Molteno), said with regard to the question of census. I know the Minister does not lay down the principles of the census, but it has been unfortunate that for many years there has only been a European census. Even hon. members opposite must see that there is a tremendous handicap in dealing with social and industrial questions if you are not fully conversant with all these details in regard to non-Europeans — coloured people and natives. It is important that full statistics should be available at any time, and simply on the ground of economy to have dropped the census for non-Europeans and natives is a very retrograde step, and I hope the Minister will urge the Minister of Finance and his other colleagues to see that when the census takes place it should be a complete South African census, and that all sections of the people should be included in that census, because it is in the interests of everyone that the most exact and scientific information should be obtained. I am not going to deal with all the other clauses. Although it is a short Bill, it is a matter of some complexity, and there are a number of statutes which have to be studied, and I think that in Committee we should have a memorandum given to us, so that we may have all the information in regard to this Bill before us. On the whole, I think it is a very useful Bill.

This is a short Bill, but it will have very far-reaching effects. I feel that the Minister should think very carefully before introducing a Bill of this kind, because it is going to have a tremendous effect on Parliamentary elections. We feel that this Bill has been deliberately introduced so as to get people on to the voters’ rolls with a view to benefiting a certain party—with a view to getting on the list people who never had a right to be on the list, or who would never have had the right to come on the voters’ roll if they had not joined up, but before going any further I want to say a few words in regard to what the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle (Mr. Alexander), has said. He took the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) to task because the hon. member for Moorreesburg said that a Jew could not put down on the census form that he was an Asiatic or a coloured person, and therefore simply had to say that he was white, without having to say that he was a Jew. But what does it mean to say “white”? It means nothing, because anyone who has a white skin, no matter where he comes from, can say that he is white, and in doing so he does not give away what his race is.

When business was suspended I was discussing the fact that the hon. member for Cape Town Castle (Mr. Alexander) had taken offence at the remarks of the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) in regard to the question appearing on the census form as to what race a person belonged to, to which he could reply Asiatic, coloured or white, and in respect of which the hon. member for Moorreesburg said that it should not be necessary to say only white because that answer did not signify to which white race the individual belonged. We should know whether a man is a white Frenchman, a white Englishman or a white Jew. We do not merely want to know that a man is a white man. I said in regard to this Bill that the Minister of the Interior was tinkering with legislation which is of the greatest importance to our country, because it is legislation which enables the people to get on the voters’ rolls to elect members of this House to attend to the affairs of the country. This undoubtedly is a very important and very responsible matter, but it would appear to me that the Minister in drafting this Bill was either indifferent or did not give proper attention to this subject, or otherwise he deliberately framed the Bill in such a manner that people who should not be there can be put on the voters’ roll. People can be put there in their hundreds when, according to the existing Electoral Acts of the country, they are not entitled to be placed on the voters’ rolls. Let us study clause 5 (b) of the Bill. In that clause the residential qualifications are dealt with, the qualifications an individual has to comply with in order to be placed on the voters’ roll. Under the Electoral Act which has been in existence up to the present one has to live in a particular constituency for at least three months before he is allowed to get on to the roll for that particular constituency. It is said in this clause—

The residential clause states that he must have lived three months in the constituency where he wants to be registered. It may be that this individual has come to Paarl, and has joined up for military service within a few days of his arrival. He immediately becomes eligible to vote if someone fills in the form and signs it as provided in this clause, and he then appears on the voters’ roll. It is possible for such a person to have gone to Paarl from the Cape Flats. He may perhaps only have been living in the former constituency for fourteen days, and for months before that he may never have had any fixed abode. He might have been moving about from one constituency to another, but when he got to Paarl he joined up for military service and in that way he got on to the voters’ roll. Anyone can go and sign the application form in the presence of a witness. Under the existing law the individual at least has to sign the application form himself. He has to be able to write his address and his occupation. Under this Bill it is not necessary for him to be able to do so, because somebody else can send in the form on his behalf, and he may be thousands of miles away. A dependent of his may do so, or the agent of the party to which the Minister of the Interior belongs can come along and fill in such a form and declare that that person is entitled to be put on the roll, and in that way he becomes a qualified voter. It is very far-reaching to deal with the franchise of the people in that way. We know that even now quite enough people are put on the voters’ rolls in an illegal manner. We get people on the voters’ rolls who cannot sign their names properly and who cannot write down their occupation and their address and all sorts of false statements are made in order to get people on the roll. I want to bring a few incidents which have occurred in the last few years to the notice of the Minister of the Interior. About ten years ago a prominent inhabitant of Wellington was fined £15 on account of his having illegally tried to put voters on the roll who were not entitled to be on the roll. The man’s name has slipped my memory, but I believe he was a man by the name of Cotan. A few years ago an agent of the United Party at Caledon, a man by the name of Hanekom, filled in the form on behalf of thirty coloured people from Grabouw. He handed those forms to a coloured teacher at Caledon who had to sign as a witness although he had never seen those people sign their names. They were taken to court and they were found guilty; Hanekom was fined £30 and the coloured teacher was fined £15. If things like that could happen under the law when it was possible to bring people to court, and under conditions when it was possible to object before the Objection Court, how much more will there not be an opportunity for such malpractices taking place under these conditions, when the people concerned are hundreds and thousands of miles away, and not merely irresponsible people do this sort of thing, but even agents of a certain party are guilty of abuses of this kind. Last year two farmers from my constituency went along to a certain place, enrolled thirty coloured men, and got the forms filled up. Objections were raised at the Revision Court and out of thirty-four or thirty-five coloured men only one had his name put on the voters’ roll, and the names of the others were deleted. I am mentioning this to show the Minister what went on under the existing law, under which we were given the opportunity of getting the people before us. Even under that law these irregularities took place, and what are we to expect now? Because we are dealing here with people who are hundreds and thousands of miles away. Any individual who has joined up and who is in the army will be able to get on the voters’ roll irrespective of whether he has the qualifications or not. Up to now there has been a provision in the Act that a man must be able to sign his name and write his address and his occupation on the form. It has been a general practice to teach these people to do this—to sign their names and so on. They were able to write their addresses but if they moved from the one street to another we immediately caught them because they were no longer able to write their address. But if those people are now in North Africa we shall not be able to catch them, and all those people will be safe votes for the Minister of the Interior. At the time of the last registration the registering officer had very good reasons to think that two people were unable to read and to write, so he sent for them to appear before him. They were able to write Durban Street but their previous address was Russell Street, and that they were not able to write. That is the way in which even the present law is being evaded, so what are we to expect if the law is amended in the way it is now proposed and these people are up in North Africa? Does one expect a Government, a responsible Government which is supposed to have the interests of the people and the country at heart, to go to the extent of bringing about a change of this kind and to do such irresponsible things in connection with the framing of the voters’ roll? The Minister of the Interior by this Bill which he has now placed before the House is going to open the door to the most scandalous frauds which have ever been perpetrated, and the only conclusion I can come to it that he is introducing this Bill in order to derive Party advantages for his own Party. Here in the Cape Peninsula and in the Western Province there are constituencies which will have their voters’ rolls packed with this kind of voter, and when polling day arrives and they have to vote in Northern Africa, or in the adjoining territories of East Africa, who will be there to control the voting that will take place there? I claim that my Party should be given the opportunity of exercising control of some sort over the voting that is going to take place there. If we study this Bill we are farced to the conclusion that the object is to secure all those votes for the Government, as the hon. member for Moorreesburg has already said. There will be no secret voting, the officers and non-commissioned officers will see to that. The individual will not be at liberty to vote as he wants to vote, but there will be intimidation. It is an unheard of thing for us to be asked to allow this kind of thing. What kind of people are we now getting on the voters’ roll? People come from east and west and they join the army, and as a result of their doing so they are at once entitled thereby to get on the voters’ roll. A man who had a criminal sentence against him could not be put on the voters’ roll in the past. Hundreds of those people who in various districts have had criminal sentences imposed upon them have joined the army. The military authorities are not going to enquire whether those people have by any chance got anything against them. The Minister of the Interior least of all is going to try and find out whether those people may be criminals; they are put on the voters’ rolls as a result of people here in the constituency declaring that they comply with the necessary qualification and that they can write their name and their address, and that therefore they are entitled to vote. Now let us look at clause 9 and see what that clause contains in regard to the Revision Court. The clause says this—

What is the use of this word “unless”. It is no use at all. The man is in the army and he cannot be touched. Unless the person is satisfied—he may be as satisfied as he likes but he has to produce proof that that man does not possess the qualifications, and that man is up North. How is he going to produce the evidence? And once that man is on the voters’ roll, although the war may be over in a few months time and he returns to the Union, his name remains on the voters roll until we get another opportunity at the next general registration to get his name off; and then we have another question. How are we to know whether the man whose name is on the voters’ roll, and who is in North Africa or in Assyria is still alive? We are not getting any casualty lists; we do not know whether those people have been killed or not and if an election takes place the easiest thing in the world is to make Piet vote in Jan’s name. I am thoroughly convinced that that is the sort of thing that will happen. We will get a lot of dummy votes. A great many of them will not even know the difference of the names on the voting papers, but if right and justice are done when voting takes place it is quite possible that a number of them may vote for us when the time comes. We know of an incident where a voter went to the poll and asked the polling officer to vote for him. When he was asked whom he wanted to vote for he insisted that he wanted to vote for the Englishman. If the registering officer had wanted to be dishonest he could have mentioned any name as that of the Englishman, and that man would have got that individual’s vote. I assume that that is the sort of thing we are going to get up North. Some of those voters will simply say that they want to vote for the loyal man and the polling officer will know what he has to do if a man says that he wants to vote “loyal”. No, this Bill is unfair and unjust. It is unheard of to have legislation like this introduced by the Minister of the Interior. He will get the Bill passed with the aid of his majority, but I am quite convinced that some of the hon. members opposite feel exactly the same as we on this side feel about it and if they act in accordance with their conscience they will vote as we do. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet) will naturally not do so because this Bill will benefit him—otherwise the position may become very awkward so far as he is concerned. Hon. members opposite are belying their own past—they are forgetting what they stood for in the past, but the future will be such that this Bill will prove to be a boomerang which will hit them very hard when the time comes.

I am fully conscious of the difficulties which the Minister must have had to consider in the drafting of this Bill, but at the same time I feel that the Minister is being hardly fair to the House by introducing what, after all, can be only half of the measures necessary to provide for the holding of an election during the war period. It is very difficult for us to say just precisely how this particular Bill is going to work if we have not in our possession the further Bill which must of necessity be introduced in order to make provision for members of the armed forces Who are outside the Union to vote. We can, of course, read through the original Electoral Act, we can go carefully through the provisions of this particular Bill, and we can form some kind of idea of what is in the Minister’s mind, so far as making provision for members of the armed forces to vote. However, that must be pretty much of a guess, it is very difficult for us to either agree or disagree with the provisions of this Bill, lacking the knowledge which should have been placed before us in the shape of a further Bill, in order to see just precisely how the Minister proposes to carry this out. There is one provision here which I view with considerable disquiet, and that is the provision which compels the registration of voters in a particular division in which they are not at the moment resident, and that applies not only to the soldier who is actually serving in the armed forces, but to dependents as well. I can readily understand that for the purpose of a census, so far as the various provinces are concerned, this may be a very wise provision, but for the life of me I cannot see why a woman who may be the wife of a serving soldier and is resident in Stamford Hill, having previously resided in Umbilo, for the life of me I cannot see why the Bill insists that she must be registered in Umbilo. Similarly, if a particular woman from Umbilo has gone to live in Johannesburg because her husband is in the army, I cannot see why she should be registered in Umbilo. That seems to me to be an entirely unnecessary provision. I can understand this, as far as the census is concerned, in order to keep the balance between the various provinces, but when it comes to registering a particular voter in a particular constituency, it seems to me to be stretching commonsense to say that because a dependent may have shifted, and the dependent is assumed in every instance to have changed his or her residence, as the case may be, because somebody has joined the armed forces, is not an assumption that we can lightly agree with. There are many women who have changed their residences not particularly because their husbands have joined the armed forces, but for several other reasons. The position is going to become more difficult if I can hazard a guess as to what may be the provisions of a Bill which must subsequently be introduced in order to allow members of the armed forces outside the country to vote. I trust you will permit me, for a moment, to regard in terms of more or less guesswork the Bill which has not so far been brought before the House. It is, of course, impossible for us to get at the real effect of its provisions, unless we make some kind of guess at the Bill which is going to be introduced. I think this, perhaps, is going to be the position at the next general election. First there will be a certain number of voters in every constituency who are in the armed forces, and who are resident and serving outside the borders of the Union. It will be necessary for the Government to bring in a Bill to legalise the position of men who are outside the borders of the Union, and who will cast their votes in the election. That may be done in one of several ways, but it appears to me that it will have to be done by means of some kind of mass voting. All these particular votes will have to be handled as part of the election as a whole. The unfortunate candidates who are fighting this election will have ta try, as far as possible, to find out where all these particular voters are. All soldiers will be placed on a separate portion of the roll, and apart from that we shall have to deal with the portion of the roll which relates to soldiers serving in the Union, and a portion relating to soldiers serving outside. In other words, soldiers serving inside the Union will have to vote by the ordinary method of postal voting. That is going to be very difficult when we realise that under the Defence Act regulations lay down that no information can be given as to where particular units are stationed, and it is going to be very difficult for candidates to get into touch with these voters. However, assuming that something is done to allow the various candidates to get in touch with these voters, we have the second class of voters who will vote by post. But under the provision of this Bill whereby the dependents are classified the same as a soldier, they may be scattered over the four corners of the country, the dependents will also have to vote by postal vote, because they have not been registered in the constituency in which they have been living, but where they are forced to register. Then we have the ordinary voter who is still resident in the constituency. So at the next election we are going to be faced with the position that we have four distinct types of voters who will have to be approached in four different ways. I with the best will in the world would like to see a solution of this problem, but it does seem to me that the Minister is only multiplying the difficulties. I know that it will probably be said that there has been a considerable shifting of population, particularly where wives are concerned, to the areas where big military camps are set up. That is one of the things we shall have to face up to. I am satisfied for these dependents to be counted into the province where they were residing at the time of their husbands’ attestation, but to say that they must all vote in their own constituencies appears to me to be placing difficulties in the way of holding an election which can only result in a certain amount of chaos. It seems to me that it will result in very small polls, and that very many of these dependents will not vote at all. All of us who fight elections, particularly in the urban areas, where you have a shifting population, where in a given year anything from 20 per cent. to 25 per cent. of the population shifts about, not necessarily from one town to another, but from one constituency to another—all of us have found it very difficult to trace the voters, and in so far as they can be traced the size of the poll goes up. But where we have these people all over the country we are going to build up for ourselves a great many more difficulties. We are going to make the work of the candidate almost impossible, and we may alter the whole position of the eventual election, because of the fact that we are depriving a very large number of persons of their votes. They will not go to the trouble. We have instituted compulsory registration because we feel that, particularly in the urban areas, many people do not take the trouble to get themselves on the roll. It is a well-known fact that in the urban areas the percentage of the poll is a great deal less than in the rural areas, and if, in addition, we are going to place the dependents on a roll where they have not resided for probably two years, the task of the candidate is almost an impossible one, and the result is that they probably will not vote, and in so far as they will not vote the election will not be a true reflex of the opinion of the public. I put that point of view forward for the Minister’s consideration. I am not attacking the Bill; I am not making criticism merely for criticism’s sake, but it does seem to me a very weak point, and it is something which I think the Minister should reconsider in the light of what I think must be his own knowledge.

What would you do with these people?

I can only suggest that they should be registered in the constituency where they actually are staying, because then you have the assurance that they can be got at by the candidate, and that they will vote. There does not seem to be any other way out of it. Either they have to be registered where they resided when their husband joined the army, or they have to be registered in the constituency where they are living. There is a third alternative which connects itself with the Bill which the Minister must introduce to make provision for the holding of the elections at all, but I do not want to discuss that at this stage. I shall probably put it before the House when the Minister introduces his Bill, but the Minister knows that there is an alternative of applying the same methods which are methods which can only be applied to the soldiers voting outside. Now there is another point which I am rather dubious about at the moment. It says in clause 5 (2)—

Well, this seems a most extraordinary provision. It means that anyone, any adult person, presumably in this case a commanding officer or an adjutant or even a sergeant-major, without having any permission may, provided he gets an adult witness, sign a declaration which places the name of a soldier on a particular roll in a particular constituency, without the soldier’s consent. Apparently even without the soldier’s knowledge. I may be wrong in reading it that way, but that is how it suggests itself to me. It says—“Whether or not he has been authorised”. The clause goes out of its way to make sure that this can be done, without the authority of the voter concerned. It is not very clear in sub-section (1) that any person is referred to at all. I have been looking up the relevant sections of the Electoral Act. Sub-section (2) means that an application, whether it has been authorised by any person serving in the Defence Force, may be put in by an orderly corporal or by anybody for a man to be put on the roll in a particular constituency. I have very great faith in the integrity of the officers of the South African Defence Force, but I do not think this is a provision which any sane legislative body would leave in a Bill like this. The way is open for all kinds of things to be done. We know that people in their enthusiasm for a political course, when loopholes are left by legislation, are inclined to take advantage.

What is your solution?

I can give plenty of solutions. I have explained that I think the Minister has been unfair to the House in introducing this Bill without the other Bill which should have been introduced, to show how the Minister is going to allow these soldiers to vote. If I were to discuss that now, the Minister might say “That is not in my head at all”, but we have no information, but the thing I should do is to hold this Bill back until the Minister brings before the House the other Bill.

How can you do that?

It is no use the hon. member losing his temper. This Bill may be all right for the United Party, but it is not all right for the Labour Party. I as a member of any party would naturally resent the implication or the putting into any Bill that a man’s right to register in the proper constituency can be taken out of his hands by anyone else.

Why not move the adjournment until we get the other Bill? We will support you.

Oh, no; I do not want to play into the hands of the hon. member over there, but I had to resent the attitude of the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel). I am not the Minister of the Interior. If I were I would show you how to run this. If the Minister of the Interior would introduce his Bill to-morrow so that we can have a full discussion, I am quite prepared to show you how these elections should be run, but some members of this House would not agree to it, because they know if they were run in my fashion—and I think the only honest fashion—they would not come back.

I suppose you want proportional representation?

Yes, proportional representation is the only system of running an election, when the soldiers are at the front, and I cannot see how the Government can have any other system than that when the soldiers are miles away from South Africa. Any system introduced must be a system under which the soldiers will vote for a party and not for an individual. And now I shall continue with my criticism. I am surprised that the hon. member who is such a staunch upholder of the legal profession, who has just managed to bludgeon through the House a Bill which gives unprecedented safeguards to the legal profession, is prepared to sit down and even consider agreeing to a situation where an individual’s right to register himself as a voter in his own constituency can be taken away from anyone—by a sergeant-major, a corporal or anyone.

He might be a general.

Not very likely.

He might be a Nationalist or an O.B.

I would suggest to the Minister that he will have to find a much more reasonable provision than that. I understand there may be difficulties—a unit may be hundreds of miles away. Hard cases might arise. The Minister while he may have agreed to the insertion of this provision to suit cases where perhaps one hundred men of a particular unit may be so far away in rough country from the offices where these things can be properly filled in—the Minister in making provision for these one hundred men or so should realise that he is opening the floodgates to any kind of abuse. I have heard it said in this House by my legal friends—it seems axiomatic of them—that hard cases make bad law, and this is an instance where obviously the Minister has inserted this provision to provide for hard cases. But he has undoubtedly made provision here which could be taken advantage of, and human nature being what it is, and politics being the game it is, this is a provision which undoubtedly will be taken advantage of. I cannot imagine a situation where it is possible for one man to fill in these forms and by having just one witness to have the matter placed perfectly in order. I can imagine instances where enthusiastic politicians will not be able to resist the temptation. And there may be other instances where people may not have any appreciation of the importance of this thing, and the sergeant-major must just sign and put the man down for a constituency where he thinks he should go. No, I do not think the Minister can allow this provision to remain in the Bill. As I say I put forward these criticisms in the nature of constructive criticism, and I trust that the Minister, despite the interjection of the hon. member for Newcastle, will accept them as being constructive criticism.

Why are you so afraid to criticise, why so apologetic?

I am making my position clear. When the hon. member is the Leader of the Party he will be able to give me instructions, but I am not taking instructions from him at the moment. I am considering the Bill in the light of my knowledge of elections and not, as hon. members over there, in the light of their belief in creeds and colour, I am not considering the Bill in the light of getting a particular brand of individual elected. I want to give the people of this country an opportunity of dealing with the issues which will come before them at the next election, and I am quite certain of the way in which they will deal with those issues. Therefore, if the Minister will give attention to these items, I am sure he will be able to bring about some better position than is now being provided for in these clauses I have dealt with.

I rise to protest against the provisions of clause 13 in this Bill. During the previous session similar legislation was passed which gave the franchise to coloured men who would otherwise never have been entitled to vote. Now the Minister comes here and he wants to give the franchise to natives who otherwise would not have the right to vote. The Minister shakes his head, but I want to ask him if it is not so, why he has put in this provision?—

It is quite clear. He wants to give the vote to certain natives who are not otherwise entitled to be put on the voters’ roll. He cannot deny it.

They have always had the right.

I understand that the hon. member who has just interrupted me is a lawyer. I am not surprised at his losing all his cases because if the position has always been as the hon. member says, why do we make provision in this Bill to grant certain rights to people to vote if they have always had that right according to the hon. member?

It is only because of an unexpected judgment in the Supreme Court.

The hon. member does not know what he is talking about. I say again that under this Bill the Minister wants to give the franchise to natives who are not otherwise entitled to be put on the voters’ roll. He admits that in his own law, because under the Precious Stones Act natives in order to get a digger’s licence have to be voters, and they can then get the licence. The Minister knows as well as I do that a native has to possess certain qualifications before he can be put on the voters’ roll, and if he has not got those qualifications he cannot be registered. It is the old story all over again. Diggers, before being able to get a digger’s certificate, must be entitled to vote, and if they have their digger’s certificate but do not comply with the other qualifications they cannot, simply because they are diggers, be granted the franchise. That provision is in the law, but it is no longer necessary now for people to have the digger’s certificate if some big company or other which has diamondiferous ground gives them a letter and allows them to go and dig, they can be registered. The Minister was perfectly clear on that point during the last session, and now he comes along and he wants to put natives on the voters’ roll no matter whether they are entitled to be on the roll under the existing law or not. We cannot allow this opportunity to pass without lodging our protest against what the Minister is now proposing to do. So far as the other provisions are concerned they are of a temporary nature; they are only there for the duration of the war. I can quite understand that the Minister is anxious to give the people who are away certain rights and privileges, and I want to put this question to him—seeing that he is now making provision that a man who is on the voters’ roll cannot have his name removed from the roll if he has gone to the front unless the registering officer knows that the man is either dead or has been disqualified in some other way … why does he place the onus of proof on the registering officer or the polling officer? We have to be satisfied now with the position that if an officer at Roberts Heights writes that a man is qualified and is entitled to a vote, if the officer answers certain questions, the registering officer has to be satisfied. An individual—he may be the agent of a party—can without having received the authority of a particular man to appear on his behalf, act on behalf of that man and apply for a vote. He may not know the individual at all. He may not even know whether the man wants to have a vote, but he has the right, either at the request of the man’s family or anyone else’s request … and in practice it is going to mean that it will be the agent of a party who is going to attend to these things—to go to court and apply for the registration of a particular individual, although he may not even know whether the man wants a vote or not. I do not mind a man if he is entitled to have a vote, or if he has come of age, after having joined up, getting on to the voters’ roll. It is a temporary thing for the duration of the war and after that it will lapse. I have no objection to that. I do not want to deprive a man of his franchise if he is convinced that it is his duty to go and fight. But why should we go out of our way to provide for people who have not even told us that they want to be registered. It is no use putting those people on the roll if they are not going to vote. I want to protest against a provision of that kind. One hon. member—I think it was the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno)—urged that any native and any coloured man who went to fight, irrespective of whether they had the qualifications or not, should be granted the franchise. I assume the Minister will not be so foolish as to agree to that.

But that is practically what this Bill amounts to.

The Minister has not got the right to ignore the qualifications which are demanded to-day under our law. These qualifications have been put in for very good reasons. They are necessary. The coloured people and the natives must have certain qualifications and the Minister should not tamper with that principle. But I fail to understand why the Minister should come to Parliament and want to give those people the vote simply because they have gone to fight. Our constitution is interfered with every session, and it will lead to great difficulties in days to come.

The hon. member for Cape Town, Castle (Mr. Alexander), gave an interpretation here this afternoon to the words of the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) which he ought to know is wrong, and the hon. member is supported in that course by hon. members on the other side. What the hon. member for Moorreesburg very clearly brought to light was that where an individual was registered at the census enumeration as a European, that was not an indication that he was a Jew, so that we do not know how many Jews there are. The hon. member clearly showed that we do not know how many Jews there are amongst the Europeans, and he suggested that a slight amendment should be made so that information should also be given on the form as to the religion a person professed. But why did the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle, and the other hon. members try to give a different interpretation to the words of the hon. member for Moorreesburg? Simply because they do not want it to be found out what the intention of the Minister of the Interior is. The Minister of the Interior does not want it to be brought to light what percentage of Jews there are in the Union of South Africa. Thirty thousand pounds is being spent on a census, and yet he will not see to it that we shall get a complete enumeration in the census which will indicate the different races in the country. It was remarkable that it should just be the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle, who gave that interpretation to the words of the hon. member for Moorreesburg. He found fault also with the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno), and he then said that he wanted to have as complete a census as was possible. We now find that the Minister of the Interior is actually now assisting in this House to conceal from the people of South Africa what a large percentage of Jews there are in the country, and how their numbers have increased in recent years. I want very strongly to object to clauses 8 and 9 of the Bill. We find here that the Minister is making use of the state of war to fill the voters’ roll with coloured people, who in normal circumstances would not have come on the voters’ roll. They want to put on the voters’ roll all the coloured people who are to-day rendering military service. That is what this provision of the Bill would result in. Although they plunged the country into the war against the wishes of the population, they now want to make use of this state of affairs to get those persons on to the voters’ roll, in order to keep them in office against the wish and desire of the population. When we examine what has happened in the past in the electoral divisions where coloured persons are put on the roll, then we find, for example, that in the interim registration of 1938 there were put on to the interim registration roll 170 coloured voters in one voting district, namely, Tulbagh. Out of those 170, objection was made against 120, and the names of 117 out of the 120 were deleted. The other three names were also deleted subsequently, when it was found out that perjury had been committed in connection with the matter. Accordingly, 120 out of the 170 were removed from the list. Many more would have been removed if the organisation which is responsible in the matter could have found out what the data were in connection with the other 50. What I would like to point to it this. If that had happened here, where the coloured people were well-known, where they are present in the magisterial district, what is going to take place in connection with those coloured persons who are on military duty in the North or in other parts of the country? We find that clause 9 provides—

It reads: “Unless he is convinced of it”, but the meaning is unless he is convinced of the fact that the person ought not to be put on to the voters’ roll. I want to object to that strongly. How can an objection be made against coloured persons who are in the North, when their names are put on the roll? Coloured persons usually have two or three names, they have aliases. They are known in the Western Province under one name, but when they join up then they join up under a different name. How are we going to find out who the coloured person is with whom we are dealing? A coloured person possibly remains for a month in one constituency, and the next month he goes to a different one. A friend will put him on to the voters’ roll in one constituency, and another friend will put him on to the voters’ roll in another constituency—possibly under a different name. He can vote in one of the constituencies, or in both, and they will not be very keen on detecting him! Or he can vote in whichever constituency he prefers, or probably in both. That is my objection. I want to know whether that is the object of the Minister, whether he is engaged in filling up the voters’ roll with coloured electors in order to try and render the position of the Government, which is hopeless on the countryside, safe in the Wetsern Province. We know how things have gone in the past, we know that there have been night classes to teach the coloured people how to sign their name and to write their address and occupation. Who is now, in these circumstances, to see to it whether those persons are able to write their addresses, occupations and names? How can it be proved that those persons cannot do so, if they are in the North? That is what I would like to know from the Minister. When a voter is away from the constituency, how can it be proved that that person cannot read and write? In addition, I would like to know what guarantee we have that those coloured persons will draw those wages for twelve months? The Act does not say that the coloured person must draw a definite amount per day, but per year, and how can we have the certainty that the coloured person who has joined up for that service, will remain in the service for the full year. These are matters in connection with which we are entitled to be given information by the Minister. We are further entitled to know how the voting is going to take place; who is going to supervise the ballot box so that it is secret? We would like to know whether the Minister wants us to take it that the persons who are appointed will be impartial persons, but what right have we to expect it? We have not the least right to expect it, because our experience of the way in which the coloured people have been put on to the voters’ roll does not in the least entitle us to expect it, especially as these coloured people have to give their vote to candidates, that it will be done in secret, and that those ballot papers will actually get the proper seal that is put on them in other cases. We are dealing here with a very important matter, and if it is the object of the Government and of the Minister to try to dig themselves in in this way, when they are afraid of the people, by a double registration of coloured persons as well as a registration of persons who would otherwise not be entitled to be registered, then it is better for him frankly to say so. The Government is trying in a covert way to give the franchise to those people, and at the same time it is trying to render the position of the Government safe.

Following an old habit, I have been sitting here listening to the speeches of all the different hon. members who have gone into this Bill, and I would now like to make a contribution to the debate. If it were not that I feel that it is necessary to allow the next census to be taken on the 31st May, then I would move that this Bill be read this day six months. I do not want to mention any other subject which has already been emphasised, but I want to move here that this debate be adjourned until the Minister of the Interior has first of all introduced the next Bill for the carrying out of this special Bill. This Bill is for the purpose of adding names to the voters’ roll, and the other Bill is intended thereafter to use that voters’ roll in the way the Minister wishes to use it in the existing circumstances. We are entitled, first of all, to go into the second Bill before we debate this Bill any further. We must have the other one before us to be able to see to what extent we can support this Bill. I am convinced of that. Even the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside) feels that, and I therefore move—

I second.

I want to support this amendment. The Minister has had it pointed out to him even from the opposite side by the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside) how difficult and unfair it is to introduce this drastic Bill while there is yet another Bill to come on in regard to how these people will have to vote. I never thought that a temporary captaincy would make the hon. member for Umbilo so mild.

The hon. member should rather not make personal remarks of that kind.

I say that the hon. member has been tamed, because he advocated a matter here, and when I asked him to move it, he was not prepared to do so. He has been tamed by the Government on whose side he sits. The Government has clipped his wings. The heroic man who always wanted to take such strong action advocated something here, but he is too weak to move it. There is another consideration in his mind, which now makes him afraid to act in accordance with his convictions. He made a good speech and gave good reasons for the adjournment of the debate.

The hon. member must confine himself to the motion for the adjournment of the debate.

The hon. member for Umbilo argued that the Minister should allow the debate to stand over until the other Bill was also introduced. I then asked him to move the adjournment of the debate, but he would not do so. He made a good speech as to why we should not now go on with this Bill, and that we should wait until the other important Bill was introduced. I was astonished to see that the Minister was introducing these Bills separately. He has now brought forward this Bill, and, as we have shown, this Bill leaves many openings for malpractices, and we cannot help wondering whether the next Bill will not leave just as many openings. This House will be in a better position to judge to what extent this Bill can be supported, and to what extent the malpractices can be defeated or to what extent they can be assisted by the other Bill. There is absolutely no hurry in connection with this Bill, and, together with the hon. member for Umbilo and the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. R. A. T. van der Merwe), I want to ask the Minister seriously to consider allowing this Bill to stand over until the other Bill is introduced. It can be done by agreeing to the adjournment of the debate, and I hope that the Minister will agree to that. Things will make much better progress if he does that, and does not remain obstinate, and refuse what is being asked for here.

I am sorry I cannot accept this motion, but I want to tell hon. members who have suggested that there should be some delay, that it is not my intention to rush the Committee stage. It has been my intention to move that the Committee stage should not be taken until Monday week. We have had an adequate discussion in regard to the principles of the Bill, and members have suggested that they will have to bring in amendments. I thought it would be fair if I gave the House something like ten days in which to consider what has already taken place, and particularly to consult the departmental officers.

Can we have the other Bill by that time?

The Bill in its final form will not be ready, but I hope to have at any rate an official statement made in regard to the main provisions of the Bill, which will guide hon. members. May I just emphasise this, that while some hon. members have complained that the two Bills have not been ready together—and I will admit that perhaps it would have been helpful if that could have been possible—this Bill is entirely separate from the other. This Bill deals with registration and census matters, and the other Bill deals with voting machinery, and as I pointed out, some of the criticisms which have been levelled at Section 5 are based on a complete misapprehension of the position. What we have in Section 5 is really a re-hash of provisions in our existing Act.

Are you prepared to refer the Bill to a Select Committee after the second reading?

That point was fairly argued by the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart), but it was quite obvious from later speeches that other members did not follow that more moderate line, and I came to the conclusion that sending the Bill to a Select Committee would serve no good purpose at all. I was somewhat impressed by the arguments of the hon. member for Winburg, but the backing which he got from his side of the House …

Surely that will not influence you against the principle?

No, I came to the conclusion it would be merely a waste of time, and that if an adequate opportunity was given for consideration before the Committee stage, that would meet the case. In view of that I hope the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. R. A. T. van der Merwe) will not press his motion now. I regret I cannot accept it.

I just want to add a few words as to my disappointment that the Minister will not make a concession. To be able to debate the principle of this Bill, we should also know what the contents of the other Bill are. The two Bills are connected with each other. In spite of what the Minister has just said, he told us in his second reading speech that the two Bills stood together.

They are complementary, but they can be separated from each other.

We can judge better as to the meaning of this Bill if we know what the voting machinery is going to be. In this Bill the Minister is creating the machinery for getting persons on to the roll. In the other Bill machinery will be created to enable the person to make his cross, and it is of the utmost importance to know how the balloting will take place in the field before we can judge of the machinery which is being created in connection with the registration. Allow me to point out to the Minister the fact that the same machinery might possibly be used in both cases, the same machinery which is being used to get the person on to the voters’ roll will very possibly be used at the poll. The two Bills are therefore complementary, and the Minister must realise the position he is putting us in, if he submits this legislation to us separately, and then expects us to decide on the principle of this Bill. The Minister said that he is prepared to put off the Committee stage for eight days. If that is so why then is he in such a hurry to force the second reading through now?

What benefit will it be to postpone? The second reading must be taken now.

It will give hon. members on this side an opportunity of being able to form a better judgment on the situation, because we are practically dealing here now with half of a Bill. We are dealing with a part of the machine, and we get the other part in another Bill. It seems to me as if we now have to pass legislation in parts, and that is not right towards this House. The Minister said that he would put off the Committee stage for eight days. What then is driving him to put the second reading through by force? It does not befit him. Give us an opportunity to study the two Bills alongside of each other. The Minister cannot say that we want to detain him. We have not done so. I presume that it will not be done, although hon. members will of course express their point of view. I want to tell the Minister that it would be a goood gesture on his part to postpone the second reading.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—28:

Bekker, S.

Boltman, F. H.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

Du Toit, C. W. M.

Hugo, P. J.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Le Roux, S. P.

Loubser, S. M.

Naudé, S. W.

Schoeman, B. J.

Steyn, G. P.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, A. P.

Swart, C. R.

Theron, P.

Van den Berg, C. J.

V. d. Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wentzel, J. J.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: F. C. Erasmus and P. O. Sauer.

Noes—55:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Collins, W. R.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, A. S.

Derbyshire. J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Faure, P. A. B.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Henderson, R. H.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Johnson, H. A.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Neate, C.

Nel, O. R.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pocock, P. V.

Rood, K.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Stallard, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van d. Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Zyl, G. B Wares, A. P. J.

Tellers: W. B. Humphreys and C. M. van Coller.

Motion for the adjournment of the debate accordingly negatived.

I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to clause 13. It seems to me that the persons who drafted the Bill are not quite au fait with the conditions on the diggings. In clause 13 they speak, for instance, about a certificate, and then they say that only when natives have been six months on end on a digging, can they be registered on the voters’ roll for natives. But there is a world of difference between a digger’s certificate and a claim licence. A digger’s certificate only has to be renewed once a year, while a claim licence lapses when a claim is worked out, and the holder has to take out another claim licence if he wants to go and peg off another claim. But as I construe the Bill, it means that the native, if he has a digger’s certificate which is only renewed once a year, can be put on to voters’ roll for natives. So far as this side of the House is concerned, we do not much mind whether natives are put on the voters’ roll for natives or not, but on the other hand the Minister must not forget that it is unfair to natives who are required to have the usual qualifications, to put these natives on the roll without the qualifications. The ordinary native has to live in a residence of the value of £75, or to earn £50 a year. Now the Minister comes and says that the native digger can be registered, and the only qualifications which he need are that he must have a good character. Now I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the position in Griqualand West, where most of the diggings are situated. You have quite a number of farms there under the Free State title. Years ago Griqualand was a portion of the Free State, but in some way or other the British Government took it away from the Free State. Some say they bought it, and that they forgot to pay for it. But in any case Griqualand to-day falls within the Cape Province. There are still quite a number of farms under the Free State title. I know, for instance, of one big farm which they call “City on the Vaal” where the natives can go and dig without any qualification and without any certificate, and this apparently also applies to Europeans. What then is the position of such a person? He has the fullest right to go and dig there. Are those natives going to be put on to the voters’ roll or not? I repeat, that such a native merely requires a certificate of good character. This side of the House have no objection to the voter’s roll for natives being packed. There are about 10,000 or 11,000 natives on the voters’ roll, and if another 2,000 or 3,000 were now to be added, then there would be the possibility that, while the natives now have three representatives in the House of Assembly, in such case the negropholists, the people who talk all day long about the rights or the absence of rights of the natives, will then come and say that inasmuch as there are now 14,000 voters on the roll, the natives are entitled to four representatives in the House of Assembly, and not three. We do not know what might happen. I feel that an injustice might be done to the natives, who have to hold certain qualifications, and that other natives who have no qualifications can come and compete with them. I hope that the Minister will go carefuly into that matter.

I think that the Minister ought to make it clear to us why it is now clear to allow people suddenly to be put on to the voters’ roll at this stage who have never been entitled to be put on it. People can, under this Bill, now be put on to the voters’ roll who do not possess the necessary qualifications, and who ought not to be put on the roll, and they can be put on to the roll by agents without their possessing the qualifications.

That is not correct.

It amounts to that. No one will be able to say whether they possess the qualifications or not; anyone can now be put on to the roll by an agent, and the onus of proof no longer lies on the prospective voter that he possesses the necessary qualifications. One begins to become suspicious. Why is that being done?

Are you speaking of Europeans?

I am speaking of coloured persons. Why is it being done? The object must be to get votes for the Minister’s party. There can be no other reason. That is not a reasonable thing. It has been decided by Parliament that these people cannot have the franchise, and after what we have seen, after our having seen the type of people who have joined up who are talked over to join, or who are pushed into the army, we cannot say anything else but that there is no other reason for this Bill than to give a vote to the people—who are really not qualified to have a vote, and who would moreover not be able to get the vote in ordinary circumstances—on the ground that they are in the army. I therefore think that much more enquiry is necessary, and there ought to be more information. We ought to know what the implications are, how many thousands of people are going to come on to the voters’ roll who, under normal conditions, would not come on it, and what the object is. Why is the Minister taking all this trouble of having numbers of people practically put automatically on the voters’ roll merely by an office operation, without there being any proof that they wish for it, or that they ought to be put on the roll? I think it is now time that we should call a halt to the kind of war measures that are now being taken. We had the experience last year that while the country was in the serious position of being at war, in a position in which the Government had pushed them, that the Minister then introduced an Electoral Bill which had no other intention than to give his party an advantage in the country. Here we are now in a much more critical period than a year ago. A year ago the position was serious, to-day it is far more critical, and once more the Minister comes along with trivial things to get a few votes for his party. To-day the danger which our country is in is great, a danger which the Government has brought upon the country, and the Minister comes along with this kind of thing in the House which cannot have any good effect. He now wants to put people on to the voters’ roll who would never be able to get a vote under ordinary circumstances, he now wants to push them in by the back door at a time of crisis like this. The Minister ought to know that the crisis to-day is much worse than it was twelve months ago. It is right at our door, but they introduce a Bill here by which they can catch a few thousand votes at the next election. The country will remember that those people who plunged South Africa into the war, that the Government which has brought us into the crisis which we are in to-day, comes along with this kind of game to secure a few thousand coloured votes for themselves. That is the complaint which I want to make against the Government in regard to legislation such as this. They simply do not realise what is going on in the world, and they do not realise what is going on in the country. They see a few thousand coloured votes which they can get cheaply, votes of people who have never had the necessary qualifications and would never be able to get them, but whom they can now drag in, or want to drag in, because they are in the army. It is only a means of catching a few votes, and those people can be put on to the voters’ roll without their even knowing that they are on the roll. Why do they not go further and put people on to the voters’ roll as well who belonged to their party, and who have already been dead ten years? They might just as well also do that, because the people who are now being put on the voters’ roll need not even know that they are being put on to the roll. One of these days they will probably come along with a proposal to allow these people to vote by proxy, and possibly they will then even go so far as also to give the vote to all the people of their party who have been dead for years, to allow their heirs to vote for them, and in that way to allow those people to exercise the franchise.

There will in any case be some of the people who are up there who have died coming on to the voters’ roll.

Yes, it is a serious matter. We know that they will force it through the House, but I do not want our protest to be unheard in the country, that they, although they have plunged the country into the crisis, although they have pushed them into the war, although we are facing the most serious crisis which we have ever been in, that they come now to secure a few thousand votes for their party. It is characteristic of the Government on the other side. They have no vision. They do not know what is going on in the world. One would have thought that the Prime Minister, who, unfortunately, is not in his place, would have put a stop to this kind of thing. But he has no time for these things, and his “blue-eyed boys” come and introduce into Parliament stupidities of this kind. I doubt whether the Prime Minister even knows about it. That is what our country has to put up with from the present Government. I say they ought to know better. They have brought us into this critical position, and they ought to know better than to bring up these absurdities at a period like this. The thing is beneath criticism; it is beneath the dignity of this House. I cannot find sufficiently strong words to express my disapproval of it. It puts the right stamp on the Government. The country now sees what this Government means. I ask the Minister now to withdraw this folly, and in any case first of all to lay the other Bill before us, so that we may know where the whole thing is leading to.

If we are to delay the House to-day, if we were to take up the time of the House to do an injustice to Europeans or coloured persons, then it would not be worth our sitting. But we are here to prevent an injustice from being done. We must see that justice is done, and we must prevent any irregularities taking place. If the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside) had the courage of his convictions, then he would have voted with us for the adjournment of the debate, simply because he agrees with us that before we go on with this Bill we should know how the Bill will be administered in practice. Before we know that we cannot vote on it. This measure is really impracticable, and you cannot support it unless you first of all know how it can be carried out in practice. Take, for instance, Clause 10 of this Bill. I want to point but the irregular nature of the clause. It provides that the military pay of a coloured person shall be regarded as the income according to which he can be registered. Now it is possible that someone will do military service for one or two months, and that he may be discharged thereafter, and that for the rest of the year he may have no income. We have every reason to expect that after the war there will be many of the coloured people who will be without earnings. Now the law provides that a man must earn £50 a year before he can be put on to the voters’ roll.

Suppose the war is over in three months?

Then for one or two months he has got military pay which is high, but which still does not amount to his having earned £50 in the year. And now the Minister wants to introduce this irregularity that the man, by virtue of the pay which he has had for a few months, can be registered as a voter. Possibly he will only have an income of £25 that year, but he is put on to the roll simply because he has played the soldier for a few months. We do not want to do an injustice, but we want the laws of the land to be properly carried out. Now what is the object of this Bill? What is the anxiety of the Minister in wanting to put this Bill through, although we do not even know how it will be carried out in practice. As the Bill stands to-day, it is practically impossible to administer it, and we must first of all know from the Minister how the Bill is to be applied by him. What does all this hurry mean? That is the first question. You cannot come to a different conclusion, although it is an unpleasant conclusion, but that the Government party is trying to make its own position as safe as possible, not only for the present but also for the future—and that it does not make any difference whether it is being done in a right or a wrong way. But you now have, whether you like it or not, to make the position of the Government party safe. Really, one cannot call it by any other name than a violation of the law of the country, in order to make your own position safe. But there is yet another reason, and it seems to me that it may actually be an important reason, and that is that you are giving people who otherwise could not have got on to the roll the opportunity of getting on to the roll as soldiers, as so-called volunteers. In other words, the Bill must contribute to the purpose of recruiting people to go and carry on the war. People who otherwise would not do so, must now be tempted to go as volunteers to get a good salary and to get onto the voters’ roll for the benefit of the party on the other side.

I would like to bring the following point to the notice of the Minister. When the hon. member for Graaff Reinet (Dr. Bremer) spoke and said that people would be put on to the voters’ roll who were not qualified, the Minister shook his head. The position is that if a person makes an application to be put on to the voters’ roll, and you find out that things are said in the application form which are not true, then the man can be prosecuted. Now I would like to know from the Minister if there is another person in the constituency and he comes and makes application on behalf of a person who is on active service for the latter to be put on the voters’ roll, and it is subsequently found out that things are stated in the application of that person which are not correct, whether that person will be liable to punishment. Will such a person simply escape punishment? Can he simply make any declaration without his being prosecuted? Can he just say anything in order to get a person on to the voters’ roll? Then we can assume that it will lead to a great scandal, and that there will be a great deal of abuse. Any person can go to the electoral officer and ask to have a certain man put on to the voters’ roll, and possibly the man is not qualified, and has no right to be put on to the roll. I think that the Minister should give his attention to this point, and that he should amend the Bill in such a way that no application can be made unless it is proved that the person on whose behalf the claim is made, is qualified. When an objection is taken to the inclusion of such a person in the roll, I think that the person or the agent who has made the application for such inclusion must be put into the position that the man who has objected can at least put him into the witness box and cross-examine him to see what he knows, and whether he can duly state, under oath, whether the person is entitled to be put on to the voters’ roll. The Minister must not forget that this is a temporary measure, or ought at any rate to be a temporary measure for the duration of the war. No one will object to a person who is entitled to registration and who has all the qualifications being put on to the voters’ roll, but people who are not entitled to be put on to it ought not to be put on to it, and people should not be able to be put on to it because they have gone to the war. I think that if a person possesses the qualifications he should be put on the voters’ roll, but the Minister must not make it so easy that anybody can make application to have an absent person put on to the voters’ roll. I want to stress the point which was made by the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. Hugo), namely, the salary qualifications of these people. Unfortunately, I have not had the time to refer to the Supreme Court Reports, but I think that there is a decided case in which it is laid down that when a person does not draw the minimum salary for the year, he is not entitled to be put on to the voters’ roll by virtue of salary qualifications. If he earns £40 in one month, but earns nothing for the rest of the year, then he cannot be put on to the voters’ roll, because his income is not £50 for the year, and he cannot be put on to the roll by virtue of his earnings for one month. As the hon. member for Paarl explained, you will have some of these people who have been two or three months at the front, and who have received £6 or £7 a month. They come back. The war is not going to last for ever. Then they are on the voters’ roll. But what certainty has the Minister that that person will earn £50 in that year? The Bill is being introduced simply to help the Government party, and they must realise that the Bill is going to be abused. They know quite well that coloured people are going to be put on the voters’ roll who ought not to be on it. I think for the sake of clean government we must keep the voters’ roll correct and in order, and we must prevent people getting on to the roll who are not entitled to be on it. You will, under this Bill, get many people on to the voters’ roll who ought not to be there. The hon. member for Cape Town, Castle (Mr. Alexander), inveighed against the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) and said: “How dare you call the people who go to the front ‘skollies’?” That is not what the hon. member for Moorreesburg said, but Ï want to tell him that the coloured persons who joined up in Willowmore would never have been able to get on to the voters’ roll in any other way, and they do not deserve to be there, either. They were the lowest people that you could find in the district. Does the hon. member want to say that every person who goes to the front is an honourable man? I admit that good people do go to the front, but I also say that some of the biggest skollies amongst the coloured people go to the front, people who will not work, vagrants, of whom one would be glad to be rid in your district. I do not want to say that those people should be put on the voters’ roll, and that they should send members to this Parliament. There are good people who go to the front, but this Bill will put persons on the voters’ roll who ought not to be on it.

I just want to say a few words on this Bill. It seems to me that since this Government has been in office, they have only one object in view, and that is to carry on the war and to make their position safe. They are constantly introducing amendments of legislation which are only intended to render their own position safe. This Government is afraid to go to the country on its war policy, and now it is introducing all kinds of things to make its position safe. In addition to that, regulations, emergency regulations, are passed, to prevent us explaining this kind of legislation to the public. They, however, are constantly engaged in making their own position safe by legislation. The Government does not treat all alike. Last year they introduced compulsory registration. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) admitted that they would thereby get more seats on the Rand, that is to say, the Government party. Last year they also introduced a Bill to the effect that certain coloured diggers, who would otherwise never have had it, should be given the vote in order to make the position of the Government safe. They are wasting the country’s money in a scandalous way, but at the same time they want to make provision to secure the position of the Government which is spending the money in this reckless way. Here again they are introducing a Bill by which the constitution is being undermined, and they now want to put coloured persons, who cannot even sign their names, on to the voters’ roll. Someone else only has to declare that a particular person can sign his name, and then just because he is doing Empire service he is put on to the voters’ roll, and can exercise his vote. If there is one thing which I have an aversion to, then it is that the coloured people should have the franchise in South Africa, and that there are constantly people on the other side of the House who want to make out that they are concerned about the lot of the coloured people, while they are only using them for political purposes. That arouses the greatest repulsion in me. They have no respect for the coloured people. They have the same opinion in regard to the coloured question that we have on this side, but they are using the coloured people for their Empire work. In other parts of the British Empire there are also coloured races, and there we see that they do not have the franchise. But here in South Africa, where we have one section—we admit it— which wants to break up the British Empire and which wants to have a republic in this country—the coloured vote is being used to hold the Empire together, and for the purpose of maintaining those people who are builders of the Empire, and also their seats. I therefore say that this sort of thing creates the greatest loathing in me. The hon. member for Kimberley, District (Mr. Steytler), laughs. He is one of them. He is a man who is sitting there to-day by the vote of the coloured people, and therefore he dare not raise his voice against this Bill. If he wants to deny that, then I will quote to him what he said in 1931 about the vote of the coloured man. It was read out to him this afternoon, and I will not quote it again now unless the hon. member has forgotten what he said. He spoke with the greatest indignation on the point that people should go about at 12 o’clock in the night to teach coloured people to sign their names, so that they could get on to the voters’ roll. To-day he wants to vote for a Bill which lays down that any irresponsible person can sign to the effect that he knows that a coloured person can sign his name and then that coloured person can be put on to the roll. I want to ask the hon. member what has gone on in his mind for him to undergo such a change in a period of ten years? That is what we find in a person when he has also become an Empire builder. It is because we see this kind of thing that I say that the coloured franchise arouses the greatest aversion on my part. It even makes an hon. member like the hon. member for Kimberley, District, who once sat with us on these benches, himself become an Empire builder now, and then he can vote for this kind of Bill. I would like the hon. member for Kimberley, District, to get up and explain to this House what great change has come into his life, that he should worship the Prime Minister—very well, let him do so; let him agree with the war policy. But in heaven’s name, that in connection with this question on which he and I have thought alike, when we stood together to maintain the white civilisation in South Africa, he should turn such a somersault, that I would very much like him to explain to this House. Let him get up and tell us why he has turned a somersault in such a manner. I want to end by saying this, that this Government is one which does not treat all alike. It wants to benefit its own supporters. But how does it treat people on this side? People who are not entitled to the franchise at all have to be given the franchise. But when the rifles were taken away, if it had not been for the hard fight that was put up on this side of the House then people would have been found guilty, and would have been sentenced to imprisonment, with the result that they would have lost their franchise. Think of that same coloured soldier who walks down Adderley Street and who says something against an hon. member on this side of the House. We may not lift our hand to him. If we do so then we go to gaol, and when we come out of there then we no longer have the franchise. I say that this is a Government which treats people differently. The people on their side only get the privileges. Everything they do is good enough, so long as they keep the Empire builders in office. These things where the Government is toying with the coloured franchise in that way are things which fill me with the greatest disgust, and therefore I say that we will fight this Bill to the bitter end.

I think that I ought to reply to the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) because otherwise he will sleep badly to-night. He is worried about me and want to know what has been going on in my life that I should have turned a somersault, as he alleged. He referred to a speech which I made in 1931, that people went about at midnight teaching coloured people to sign their names. It is mostly the natives who are taught to sign their names in order to get them on to the voters’ roll.

You referred to coloured people.

In that speech I was referring to natives. The hon. member has not read it correctly, but the hon. member must remember that with the help of the present Prime Minister we have now put those natives on a separate roll. I am certain that I was talking about natives. If it is stated in the report that I spoke of coloured people, then it is wrong. The hon. member is doing me an injustice. He knows that it was the custom in Burghersdorp to teach natives to sign their names, and not coloured people. I spoke of natives, and if it says that I spoke of coloured people, then the report is wrong, and I did not correct it.

Do you approve of it in the case of coloured people?

I still disapprove of it now, if such a thing is done in connection with coloured people. The hon. member is upset that I am supposed to have undergone such a change, but the fact that his own leader has undergone a change does not trouble his conscience. The great Afrikaner leader in 1925 or 1926 sent the telegram to the natives at Queenstown—it was on the eve of an election— to the natives of Oskraal—that they must occupy their places as full citizens alongside of the white men. That is what he telegraphed.

Are you still repeating that old S.A.P. story?

The hon. member’s leader went even further, and wanted to give the vote to the coloured women. But now he says that he is sleepless at night because he is worried about me. I would advise him rather to be worried about his own leader. Is the hon. member forgetting that during the last election he used to visit the coloured people up to 12 o’clock at night.

On a point of personal explanation, Mr. Speaker, if you will allow me, I do not know what words to use to describe the untruth the hon. member is stating here. I know that you will call upon me to leave the Chamber for it, but I am going to say that the hon. member says things which he knows are not true.

The hon. member must withdraw that.

I prefer to go out. [Member proceeds to leave the Chamber.]

The hon. member cannot evade the ruling of the Chair in that way.

[Member returns to his seat and says:] Very well, Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw it.

The hon. member has now given an explanation, and the hon. member for Kimberley, District, must accept it.

Very well, I will accept it. Did he ask the coloured people to vote for him?

No, I did not. I told them that I did not want their votes.

We will not argue about that. The coloured people will be able to pass a better judgment on it than he or I can.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Kimberley, District, not now trying to throw doubt upon the statement of the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg?

No. The hon. member for Kimberley, District, accepted his explanation, and is now dealing with something else.

The hon. member for Albert-Colesberg also said that last year a Bill was passed here to give the vote to coloured people on the diggings, people who never had it before. Is that right?

Who would not otherwise have got it.

The hon. member is quite wrong. In that instance coloured people were removed from the voters’ roll in consequence of a technical mistake, and that mistake was then put right.

Who took them off?

The Nationalist Party.

No, the objections court removed their names.

But who brought the matter forward?

I cannot allow this question to proceed any further. The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

I want to say a few words about the coloured people who will come on to the roll, because they have joined up with the army. Who deserves more than they do to be put on to the roll? A coloured person who is prepared to sacrifice his life in the defence of this country, or a man who makes propaganda on the countryside to promote the cause of Hitler? I certainly think that the coloured person who goes the length of being willing to go on to the battle field and to sacrifice his life, is more entitled to get the franchise.

You really deserve to have your franchise taken away.

I think that the coloured person who is prepared to go and fight even if he is ignorant and poor, is more entitled to the vote than a member of Parliament who gets up and says at a large public meeting, that the time has come for our financial position to be linked up with that of the German Empire. I say that the coloured person has more right to be a voter than a member of Parliament who says a thing like that at a public meeting.

The hon. member for Kimberley, District (Mr. Steytler), has just said here that he is in favour of the coloured people, of certain coloured people, being given the franchise before Europeans.

Before traitors.

He said that they had more right to get the franchise than what he, for instance, had to get the franchise. He now talks of traitors, and he calls people traitors who remain on their farms and do not go and fight—as he is doing at present.

He did not say that.

The hon. member can struggle and twist as he wishes, but the white people in his constituency will actually hear what he said here, that the coloured people are entitled to the franchise before white people in South Africa. He clearly said here that certain coloured people should get the franchise before certain white people. Which? The coloured people who according to him sacrificed their lives at the front. Has not the Prime Minister constantly told us that those coloured people do not go and fight, but to drive lorries and to do work of that kind? They go to do transportation work, and we have been given the assurance that they do not go there to fight. And under what conditions do these coloured persons go about whom the hon. member is so concerned? I can only speak of the experience that we have in my own village. Then there are farm labourers who were accustomed to do farm work at the ordinary wage which was paid for it. They go to the North, and instead of a farm wage they now get 1s. a day for 30 days, plus food and clothing, and the wife who remains behind gets a minimum of £7 10s. per month. Now I ask the House what farm coloured man would not become a lorry driver in the North at £9 a month plus food and clothing, instead of the wage which he gets on the farm? Because those people are now going to the North to earn those wages as lorry drivers, they are more entitled to the franchise than white people.

On a point of explanation, the hon. member is now putting into my mouth words which I did not use. I did not say that the white people should not get the vote, and that the coloured people should be given the vote in preference to the Europeans. I said that there were white people in the country who wanted to advance Hitler’s cause, and that they were not entitled to the vote that I would prefer to give it to the coloured people.

The hon. member referred to people who remained on their farms and did not go to the front. That is what he said, and his constituents will settle with him. Here we have coloured people who go to the North as lorry drivers, because they earn higher wages there. They must be given the franchise, but the hon. member’s own flesh and blood must not get it! If he took up that attitude during the last war, then he would also have had to lose the franchise, because he also was opposed to the war at that time, but the position is that the hon. member is denying his own past. I think that it is necessary to remind him of it a little. He made a speech in 1931. He said that he had not corrected that speech, and I now want to quote from it. The hon. member said this—

The hon. member said that he referred to natives and not to coloured people. He then went further—

Whose speech was that?

It is the speech of the hon. member for Kimberley (District), but he says that this speech is quite wrong, that he spoke of natives, and when the report says “natives and coloured people” Hansard has gone out of its way to add the words “and coloured people” after the word “native.” Hansard made that addition in a malicious way, so that ten years later it could be used against the hon. member! When one is on one’s death bed it is said that one’s whole life passes before one like a kaleidoscope. Well, I think that when that hon. member some day is lying on his death bed, the Hansards will pass before him in a row. We want to oppose this Bill, because it is a bad Bill, and one of the chief reasons why it is a bad Bill is because it creates an opening for all sorts of abuses. When one examines the history of our legislation in connection with the registration of voters, and the holding of elections, then it is clear that there was only one object with that legislation—at any rate up to the last Act which was introduced by the present Minister, and that was always to see whether there were not any faults and flaws in the Bill which allowed abuses, and in that case to amend those flaws and flaws. Legislation was introduced from time to time in connection with the registration of voters, and the conduct of elections which had that one objective, to close up all possible openings for abuses and malpractices. The Minister of the Interior will admit it. Now, however, he is introducing a Bill which is going in an absolutely contrary direction. Because that party on the opposite side has got into trouble, because they expect troubles in the country which they have brought on to their own heads, and for the purpose of helping them out of those difficulties, he goes directly in the contrary direction to all the legislation which we have passed up to the present, and he introduces a Bill which will not make abuses and malpractices more difficult, but which will create enormous opportunities for abuses, and which will create that opportunity in such a way that those abuses will only be for the benefit of the Government, and not for the benefit of the Opposition. What is happening here is not only that endless opportunities for abuse are being created by the Bill, but the opportunity is being given to the Government to abuse this Bill in their own interests. This Bill is a bad Bill, which conflicts directly with the spirit of our legislation in regard to the registration of voters. It is a bad Bill, and it is clear that it is going back on that legislation. For that reason we will oppose the Bill on this side of the House with all the means at our disposal.

I do not propose to be drawn into some of the by-ways of discussion which have been raised this evening, and shall content myself with replying briefly to the main points of criticism offered by the members of the Opposition. The debate started on a mild note. The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart), who initiated it from the Opposition benches, offered some reasonable criticism; or, rather, he offered his criticism in a fair and reasonable manner; but since then the tempo has increased. I think probably the hon. member for Winburg, owing to his long absence from this House, has not realised the competition that exists opposite in order to achieve notoriety. The hon. member couched his criticism in a fair manner, and along reasonable lines. Since then we have had hurled across the floor of this House suggestions of impropriety, suggestions of improper methods on my part and on the part of the Government, and a number of other similar suggestions. I can only say it must have been an eye-opener to the hon. member for Winburg to see the manner in which the debate has been carried on by some of his colleagues. I only hope he will maintain the level he set this afternoon, and not be led astray. It has been alleged that there has been undue haste about this Bill. Well, hon. members must surely realise that this Bill deals not merely with the forthcoming census, but with the biennial registration which will begin within a few weeks from now. And while I regret that it has not been possible to have the other Bill available for hon. members to compare its provisions with the provisions of this one, the fact remains that the two can be separated, inasmuch as this one deals with the question of registration, while the one to follow will deal with voting machinery. It is essential, therefore, that we should get this Bill through at the earliest possible date. Now the main criticisms levelled against the Bill are in respect of sections 5 and 10. Section 5 is the section which enables a person to file a claim on behalf of an absent soldier, whether authorised to do so or not, and section 10 is the one which deals with the salaries or wages which may be earned by coloured soldiers who are up North on active service. Hon. members opposite seem to have missed the whole basis of this legislation. The basis of this Bill and the one to follow is that no person who has enlisted for active service, whether in the military or naval forces, should, as a result, be debarred from exercising his vote at an election. One would have thought that this principle would have received support from all sides of the House, and that it would not have been questioned that no one should be prejudiced by reason of the fact that he is away from the Union at the time of election because of his military service.

I said that.

Hon. members said that in a somewhat halfhearted way, and then proceeded to level criticism which, if accepted, would make it impossible to provide for absent voters to vote at all. It would be impossible to provide for those persons if one agreed to all suggestions and accepted all the base motives underlying some of the criticisms offered opposite. One would imagine from some of the suggestions that one is legislating in regard to a pack of scoundrels, persons who were out to circumvent the law at all costs, people who would impersonate others and put false names on the roll.

You are making it very easy for them.

There is this distinction between the procedure which the present South African Government has laid down, and that which has been adopted in at least one other country: the basis of this legislation is that there must be registration. In the last Canadian elections it was provided that every person on active service outside Canada was entitled to vote, whether registered or not. The basis for voting of soldiers in Canada was the mere fact of being a member of the armed forces, whether registered or not, and there is a great deal to be said for giving effect to that principle. I believe in the old republics every burger who was on active service had the right to record a vote. This Government is not going as far as that, nor is it going to follow the Canadian precedent. We are contenting ourselves with doing our best to ensure that every soldier who is registered shall have an opportunity of voting, and we are therefore trying, in this Bill, to obviate many of the difficulties of registration that must exist when thousands of persons are outside the borders of this country.

Are you including coloured when you say soldiers?

I am including coloured who would otherwise be entitled to vote.

In Canada they were not dealing with coloured. You were quoting Canada, and that is why I say that.

I am coming to section 9. Canada, of course, was not dealing with coloured people. A great deal of the criticism from the benches opposite was based on the fact that we were making it easy for persons who were not entitled to vote, I mean European persons who were not entitled to vote, to be placed on the register, and it was said that there would be manipulation of the roll, a rigging of the roll, if agents authorised or unauthorised, could make applications for persons alleged to be absent. Now I say to hon. members opposite that this method of registration which has been evolved is nothing new. The suggestion that an agent can appear on behalf of an absent person is nothing new. Last year we had an amendment to the Electoral Act which took many days and many nights, and hon. members opposite were very vocal in some of their amendments, yet this Act, the Electoral Act of 1940, contains the same principle, Section 3 (e) (the new sub-section (12) of section 4) reads as follows—

Why do you insert here “Whether authorised or not”?

My submission is that the provision quoted applied to a person, whether authorised or not. It is true we are now specifically using these words. But that section on a true construction would be held to mean that any person could put in an application on behalf of an absent voter.

If authorised to do so.

But what one has in view is this: the wife or the parents, the brother or the sister of an absent voter interested in seeing that he is on the roll should be able to go to the registering office and put in an application on his behalf.

You do not say that.

We say “any person,” and it is contemplated that this may even include an agent of a party. I see nothing wrong in this provided it is done properly and bona fide. It is hoped that we shall in this manner get a 100% registration of these persons who may be away. But quite apart from any application which may be made within the borders of the Union an opportunity will be given to any soldier who leaves the boundaries of the Union to register in the field, and it is quite probable that we shall have a number of duplicate applications in respect of the same person. But there will be no danger of duplicate registration because all these applications will be received by the electoral officer for the area concerned. The forms, when sorted, will come together, and if there are more than one, duplication will be avoided. We already have a provision in our law under which application may be made on behalf of an absent voter, and I see no reason why this intense alarm should be felt by members opposite. Is the suggestion that a fraudulent agent is going to put on a number of false names?

With this difference that the coloured voter must sign his claim himself.

But all these names so registered will be contained in the special military list at the end of the voters’ list and there will be a greater check. Then I come to section 10, the registration of coloured voters. I said a while ago that the basis of the right to vote outside the borders of the Union will be registration. Therefore one does not wish to deprive an eligible coloured voter of his right to vote if he leaves the borders of the Union. One of the qualifications of a coloured voter is that apart from being able to write his name and address and occupation, he should earn a salary or wage at the rate of at least £50 per year—at the rate of at least £50, or occupy a house to the value of at least £75. If in fact a coloured person registered in the Cape Province earns a salary or wage at the rate of £50, he is entitled to be registered.

He must have earned it for a year.

Yes, it must have been earned in respect of a period of twelve months. The old Cape Ordinance provided that it had to be earned in the electoral division in the Province of the Cape, and then that coloured person could be registered in that division. Cape Act 48 of 1899 extended the area in which the salary or wages could be earned to the province, but the last three months of the period had to be within the electoral division wherein the claimant resided. Subsequently the Electoral Act of 1918, as amended, extended the area in which the salary or wage could be earned. Under section 4 (8) of the Electoral Act it is provided that any person resident in the Cape who earns a salary or wage not merely in the Cape but in other parts of the Union over a period of twelve months, would be entitled to use that salary or wage for the purpose of the qualification clause under the old Capt Act. In other words, he was not confined to the Cape Province for his earnings. He could earn his money anywhere in the Union and then be registered in respect of the Cape Province. All section 10 does is to extend an existing principle in our Electoral Act. We now say that if a coloured person earns a salary or wage of at least £50 it is not necessary to earn that in the Union if he is absent on active service, but if he earns it outside the Union he shall be entitled to be registered.

For a year.

Yes, that remains, and there is nothing to say that he shall be qualified if he earns it in a lesser period. He has to earn it at any rate of £50 per year.

He must prove that he earns it over a year.

My vehement and eloquent friend has apparently not read the law, but that is the law. There is nothing here to alter the existing law except to provide equitably that a coloured person otherwise qualified shall not be penalised if he goes outside the Union—an eminently fair provision I contend, and I can hardly see how members opposite can legitimately raise any reasons against it. It is said that we shall have thousands of coloured people on the roll who would otherwise not be entitled to be there.

You are putting it very wide. My own coloured people at Bethlehem who are enrolled now, what will their position be?

I am afraid the hon. gentleman is wandering slightly, because it is news to me that the coloureds of Bethlehem are entitled to enrol? The right of a coloured person to vote is confined to the Cape, and I am surprised to hear that it has been extended by the hon. member to the Free State.

I only want to be safeguarded.

Whom do they vote for?

There is no truth in the suggestion that this is a subtle move to get coloured persons on the roll to swell the ranks of the United Party supporters. It is an untrue and unworthy accusation, and I just want to say before I leave the subject that I resent very much, indeed I disapprove very much of, the manner in which the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) referred to these people. There may be disputes in regard to various sections of the coloured population; in regard to the way in which various sections of the population behave, or misbehave; but to characterise the members of the Cape Coloured Corps, who are volunteers for service and are doing very valuable service, as a number of “sokklies”, is very reprehensible; it is unfair, unjustifiable and uncalled for. I can only conceive that the expression was so consistently used in order to whip up false sentiment. Those men are doing very valuable services. Without their aid a good deal of transport would have broken down and it is only right that I, as representing the Government, should resent these accusations. A number of other minor questions have been raised. The hon. member for Moorreesburg referred to the fact that we are making provision for voting and incidentally we shall be making provision for voting by soldiers, and he asked me whether I could tell him at this stage whether the Government proposed to prolong the lives of the provincial councils. As hon. members know, the four provincial councils of the Union will die by effluxion of time at the end of the year. The actual periods do not synchronise. The periods run out at different times. I can tell the House that it is the intention of the Government to proceed with the provincial council elections and there will in due course and without legislative delay be ordinary provincial council elections.

Will you make them synchronise?

There is a good deal to be said for making them synchronise.

I am not advocating it, I am just asking.

That idea is passing through my mind and is being explored, but I can give hon. members the assurance that these elections will be held. Another question was put to me. I was asked by the hon. member for Willow-more (Mr. G. P. Steyn) whether it would be a punishable offence to give false information when an agent or a third party makes application for registration of an absent soldier. Yes, it will be an offence. It is already provided in our Electoral Act that false statements in claims and declarations and false signatures are offences punishable by law. And it is clear from tection 30 (2) of our Electoral Act that any Act such as contemplated by the hon. member for Willow-more will constitute a serious criminal offence. The hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) raised the question of section 10 of the Bill but from an entirely different angle. He complained that these provisions would militate against natives being registered on the special Native Voters’ Roll. I found it difficult at the time to follow his argument, and after consideration I still find it difficult because this section does not lay down a qualification. The qualification is laid down in a prior Act. The section merely lays down that if the requisite wages are earned outside the Union they shall be deemed to have been earned inside the Union. The hon. member’s complaint is not with me but with those who are responsible for laying down the wage scales of natives.

I said so.

I am not suggesting that he has a case and I am not expressing an opinion on the merits; I am merely suggesting that he has made his accusation in the wrong quarter.

Are you going to shift him on to me?

No, this is a Defence matter. The hon. member for Cape, Western, and the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle (Mr. Alexander), also raised the question of the census. They deplored the fact that there was not to be a native census this year. Both members put up powerful arguments in favour of having such a census. I do not feel called upon to go into the merits of this matter, which can more appropriately be raised on the Interior Vote. This Bill does not provide for a European census only. It provides that any census under the 1910 Act will be a census as required under the South Africa Act; that is, that it will be a census for Europeans; but whether it is a census for Europeans and natives and coloureds, it will be a census under the South Africa Act, always provided that Europeans are included. This section does not carry it any further I am not sure whether the hon. member follows my explanation, but at any rate if he would like to discuss it with me perhaps we could go into more detail outside the House or in Committee. When the question of an adjournment was raised, I mentioned that in order to show that there is no desire on the part of the Government to put forward legislation to enable unqualified persons to come on the roll, I shall be glad to postpone the Committee stage until Monday week. That will give members opposite time to consider amendments or to discuss the matter with me, or with members of the electoral staff. I am not suggesting in advance that I am prepared to accept further amendments; but if they can satisfy me or members of the electoral branch that justice will result from their suggestions, I assure them that I shall be prepared to accept reasonable amendments—always provided they accept the principle that, through facilitating registration, the Government is determined to ensure that absent soldiers will have the opportunity to vote.

Motion put, and the House divided:

Ayes—56:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Collins, W. R.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Faure, P. A. B.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Henderson, R. H.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T

Johnson, H. A.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Molteno, D. B.

Neate, C.

Nel, O. R.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pocock, P. V.

Rood, K.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Stallard, C. F.

Steenkamp. W. P.

Steytler, L. J.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sutter, G. J.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Wares, A. P. J.

Tellers: W. B. Humphreys and C. M. van Coller.

Noes—27:

Bekker, S.

Boltman, F. H.

Bosman, P. J.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

Du Toit, C. W. M.

Hugo, P. J.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Le Roux, S. P.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Naudé, S. W

Schoeman, B. J.

Steyn, G. P.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, A. P.

Swart, C. R.

Van den Berg, C. J.

V. d. Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Vosloo, L. J.

Venter, J. A. P.

Warren, S. E.

Wentzel, J. J.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: F. C. Erasmus and P. O. Sauer.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

I second.

I have an amendment which I would like to move.

At 10.55 p.m., the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate was adjourned; to be resumed on 13th March.