I move:

At the end of next week we shall be pretty far advanced with the consideration of the Annual Estimates, and I think it will then be the usual time for the Government taking all the days at the disposal of the House. I think this proposal therefore is in accordance with the usual time table which we follow towards the latter part of the work of the House. I may say, if hon. members wish to know, that a number of small measures have still to be brought forward, mostly in connection with the finance work of the House. There is a War Pensions Bill, there are the usual taxation measures still to come forward, the usual finance Bill, the Insurance Bill will be brought forward, and will go to a Select Committee. We propose bringing forward a Building Societies Bill which is not likely to be contentious. There is a short measure with reference to Iscor, and another short measure with reference to war risk insurance, and, finally, there is the Farm Mortgage Interest Bill, which, if there is any strong opposition to the form in which it is brought forward by the Government, is not likely to be passed this session. Hon. members will therefore see that the additional work still to be brought forward is all very short and noncontentious, and the principal work before us will be the finance work to conclude the finances for the session, the Estimates which we shall be considering and shall have gone through to some extent by the end of next week. I think it is quite fair that we should now take all the time of the House after that date.

What about the Bank Bill?

That will come back from the Select Committee, and we shall go on with it.

We propose going on with it, if it comes back in time. On Friday, the 20th, there is a motion by the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys) with reference to farm labour, and I have told the hon. member that at some stage of the session later, I hope to give him a certain short time for the discussion of this motion. It may not be on the 20th, but it may be at some later date. We admit this is a matter of some considerable importance, and we hope to give time for its discussion.

The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister has not given us a great deal of information as to why he wants to take Fridays away from private members at this early stage of the session. We know that according to the Standing Rules and Orders Tuesdays should be at the disposal of private members for motions throughout the session, and on Fridays private members’ Bills are to be considered. For the convenience of members those days have been changed about so that Fridays will be available throughout the session for private members. Now the Prime Minister comes here and takes Tuesdays away from private members —which was done some time ago already— and today he comes here and wants to take Fridays as well as from the 20th March, although there are a whole lot of motions still on the Order Paper.

Very few.

The Minister of Finance says that there are only a very few on the Order Paper. That is not so, because there are some very important motions on which there has only been a short discussion and it has not yet been possible to dispose of them. We have several motions on the Order Paper, for instance, that in regard to Heroes’ Day which has not been discussed at all so far.

Those motions cannot be taken this session.

No opportunity is given for their discussion, and I should like to know what is this great hurry on the Government’s part to take away Fridays from private members at this early stage. It may be said that those motions can be discussed on the estimates, but I want to point out to the Government that when we get to the estimates Ministers are in such a terrific hurry that we have hardly got to the discussion of those matters before the closure is proposed, and yet we are told that this is a democratic Parliament. No, the Government by a stroke of the pen is depriving us of our rights, and then it comes here with motions of this kind first of all to take away our Tuesdays and then our Fridays. That sort of thing is unfair and I want to protest most strongly against this curtailment of the time of private members. If we allow matters to continue like that hon. members will afterwards have no opportunity whatsoever to discuss matters which they want to bring to the notice of the country. There are some important motions on the Order Paper but the Government is in a hurry and we are not allowed to discuss these matters. If we look at other countries we find that during wartime their Parliaments are in almost continuous session, or at any rate they meet once a month for four months, but our Prime Minister wants to get away. He ignores Parliament as much as he possibly can. It is most unfair and I therefore want to move the following amendment to the Prime Minister’s motion.

I second the amendment of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp). I want to remind the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister of what he said when he moved that Tuesdays were to be taken away from private members. On that occasion we pointed out to the Prime Minister that there were a large number of important motions on the Order Paper proposed by private members, and the Prime Minister thereupon gave the House the assurance that the rights of private members would not be interfered with at all in regard to given motions already on the Order Paper the opportunity of being discussed. He gave an assurance that all these matters appearing on the Order Paper would have the opportunity of being fully considered. On that occasion we did not raise any particular objections to the Prime Minister’s motion because we had the assurance that there would be ample time for all the work which private members wanted to bring before the House. We were inclined to accept the Prime Minister’s word, and because we accepted his word we did not raise any objections that day, and it now turns out that the assurance that there would be ample time for private members to bring up the motions they wanted to was only given in the Prime Minister’s usual lighthearted manner which we have become accustomed to of late. It now turns out that he had no intention of carrying out his promise, that he had no intention of giving private members the time he promised them, but that he merely made that promise so as to get his proposal through the House without any trouble. I have often told people outside that they cannot always accept the Prime Minister’s word and they have not always believed me, but here we have another instance where the Prime Minister did not keep his word.

The hon. member is now going too far.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member must not ascribe any motives to the Prime Minister, nor must he say that the Prime Minister’s word cannot be accepted.

I unconditionally withdraw, Mr. Speaker, and I shall say that the Prime Minister has not stood by the assurance which he gave us. He gave us the assurance that there would be ample time for the motions of private members, and now he comes here and proposes this motion which means that that assurance has no significance. I want to withdraw my words that the Prime Minister’s word could not be accepted, and also that the people outside should not accept his word. He did not carry out his assurance.

Although I am not going to oppose the Prime Minister’s motion I would have been very pleased if he had given us more information. I should like to know what the Government’s intentions are in wanting to conclude this session. A great deal depends on that. If the Government intends proceeding with all these Bills, will it still be able to conclude the session early in April? We should like to know from the Prime Minister what he intends doing in this reagrd.

The Prime Minister made a statement on which we should like to have a little more information. We are pleased that the Prime Minister has realised the importance of the motion by the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys), a motion which was put down for the 20th March and which refers to the shortage of farm labour and domestic servants. This is a matter of the greatest importance to the people of the platteland, and now the Prime Minister says that he will place a little time at our disposal for the discussion of that motion later on in the session. I want the Prime Minister to give us the assurance we will be given the fullest opportunity of discussing this motion, because it is a matter of great importance to our constituents in the country, and it is a matter which we are anxious to bring to the Government’s notice. It is one of the most important motions introduced by private members during this session, and I want to ask the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister to give hon. members the assurance that this little bit of time which he spoke of will not mean that the discussion will be curtailed, but that we shall have a full opportunity for the discussion of this important motion.

I have already said that I do not believe that we shall discuss the motion of the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys) on the 20th March, but that a reasonable opportunity will be given for that motion, quite possibly later on in the session. A reasonable amount of time will be given, and if the debate is not too long it will be possible to give proper attention to the hon. member’s motion. In regard to the question put by the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Conroy) whether the Government intends to conclude the session early in April, I only want to say that I myself have no such hope. I do not expect that we shall be finished as early as all that, but I do hope that we shall be definitely able to finish before the end of April, if we do not extend our work too long. It would create a false idea if the House were given the impression that there is a chance of our concluding our business early in April. It will be during the second half, or near the end of April. In regard to the remarks by the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer), well, he withdrew his strong expressions and there is no need for me to go any further into the matter. I believe that the hon. member attaches a significance to what I said which is not in accordance with the truth. I did not say that full opportunity would be given to discuss all the motions on the Order Paper; I merely expressed the hope that we, as we do during the ordinary sessions of this House, would do our best to give an opportunity for the discussion of as many of the motions as possible, but it does happen every session and every year that we have a number of slaughtered innocents—that is unavoidable. We shall try to do our best to fit in discussions of these other matters between our discussions on financial affairs, but I do not believe that we shall be able to give an opportunity for the discussion of all motions on the Order Paper.

Question put: That the words, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—70:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Blackwell, L.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Collins, W. R.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

De Kock, A. S.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Egeland, L.

Faure, P. A. B.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Hirsch, J. G

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Klopper, L. B.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Miles-Cadman, C.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pocock, P. V.

Reitz, D.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard, C. F.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P. V. G

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Zyl, G. B.

F. Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Warren, C. M.

Tellers: J. W. Higgerty and W. B. Humphreys.

Noes—38:

Bekker, G.

Bekker, S.

Boltman, F. H.

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fouche, J. J.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Haywood, J. J.

Hugo, P. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Pirow, O.

Schoeman, B. J.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Swart, A. P.

Swart, C. R.

Van den Berg, C. J.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

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

Last year in replying to the Budget debate I iniated a procedure which was intended to serve as a precedent, at least for myself. I replied to the debate only in one language; having delivered the Budget last year in Afrikaans I replied only in English. In conformity with that precedent, I propose today in my reply only to speak Afrikaans.

†*As usual we have had a long debate on the Budget. The debate has ranged over a great variety of subjects. These subjects can be divided into two groups, firstly matters falling within the scope of the Budget, and secondly matters of general or departmental policy or administration. It is self-evident that it is impossible for me within a reasonable time to go into all the questions that have been raised and to reply to them all. In accordance with the usual practice in connection with financial debates of this kind, I propose confining myself particularly to the first group of matters, namely those matters coming within the scope of the Budget. In that connection I wish to refer to a grievance which was raised during the debate namely that in my reply to the debate on the Part Appropriation Bill, I did not refer to certain statements made here and certain views expressed here in regard to the pay of soldiers, and allowances to their dependants. That is true, Mr. Speaker, I did not do so, but I did not do so for this reason, that in the first instance it deals with a departmental matter and not with a Budget matter and that this payment of allowances is made in terms of regulations which were not made by the Treasury but by the Minister of Defence. As the Minister of Defence was not able to reply to that point, either during this debate or during the previous debate it may be assumed that he will be able to do so when the Defence Vote is discussed on the Estimates. That matter can be raised there. Generally, in regard to general and departmental matters not falling within the scope of the Budget several of those questions have already been dealt with in the course of this debate by my colleagues. Some of them have not been dealt with, however. I am very sorry that because of illness my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, was not able to be in the House last week. I want to apologise on his behalf, but he has also asked me to give the assurance that be will deal with those points during the discussion of his vote on the estimates. Now, during the first day of the Budget debate last week criticism was levelled at the Budget on behalf of two of the Opposition Parties by members whom we must regard as their chief financial speakers. We did not hear anything from the New Order that day. Perhaps they have no chief financial speaker —unless we are prepared to regard the hon. member for Potgietersrust (the Rev. S. W. Naudé) as such. But perhaps the eyes of that group or party are so rigidly fixed on higher affairs that they take no interest in the Budget or in financial affairs. The other two parties, however, have expressed their views about the Budget as a whole through what may be called their chief financial speakers. In regard to the chief financial speaker of the Afrikaner Party, there is no need for me to say very much. As characteristic of his speech, I only want to refer to three points. In the first place, he declared that I had described my 1940 Budget as a “pay as we go” Budget. He said that that had been said by me. When I denied it by way of interruption, he did not accept my denial. Those words were never used by me; they were only used by certain newspapers, for which I am certainly not responsible. Apparently the memory of my hon. friend opposite is not too good. Secondly, he referred to the growth of our public debt. In 1910 he said our public debt was £114,000,000, and in 1924 it was £208,000,000—a difference of £94,000,000. Then he went on to say that the major part of that £94,000,000 was used for the promotion of Imperial interests, and was wasted on the World War. The amount of our public debt for the World War was round about £30,000,000. We must assume that the hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. J. H. Viljoen) contends that £30,000,000 is the major part of £94,000,000. Apparently his arithmetic is not of the very best either. In the third place, he referred to the fact that the Budget, which we have before us today, says that £80,000,000 is spent on war expenditure, and approximately £91,000,000 on ordinary expenditure. Where he gets the £91,000,000 from, Heaven alone knows. He has the printed Estimates of Expenditure before him, which, apart from defence, amount to £48,000,000. If one adds to that the expenditure from Loan Revenue, we may perhaps get to £60,000,000, but £60,000,000 is a long way from £91,000,000. Apparently my hon. friend’s powers of observation are not of the very best either. I don’t think there is any need for me to say any more about the financial criticism that has come from that side of the House. The speech of the hon. member for George, however, is deserving of more attention. It was one of that kind of financial speeches by that hon. member to which we have become accustomed in this House. In other words, we have had as usual exaggerations and enlargements built on an extremely weak foundation. We have had vague generalities, without adequate facts, and we have had statistical errors and inventions. In regard to the tendency of the hon. member for George, with which we are all conversant, to exaggerate and to enlarge, I came across something interesting on Saturday last. I was at George on Saturday to attend a certain function. I may say that, although the hon. member for George described me in connection with the Budget as the most unpopular individual since the days of Mr. Burton, his electors in George gave me a very good reception.

Was it a ticket meeting?

It was open to everybody. I was told that somebody arrived after the function had started, and while he was trying to park his car one of the police officials said to him: “Sir, we are expecting hundreds of thousands of people here today.” He retorted that no hundreds of thousands of people could be expected in that locality, whereupon the police officer replied: “If we don’t exaggerate things here nobody in George will believe anything we say.” In the light of that we may perhaps better understand the exaggerations of the hon. member for George. If we know the surroundings he comes from we may be able better to understand his exaggerations, and perhaps we may be able to forgive him. The hon. member for George in his criticism of the Budget spoke of the unfairness, the half-baked condition, and the cruelty of my taxation proposals. But when he had to produce facts to prove his general contentions we heard very little from him. He made a minor point about the personal tax. He mentioned the rebate on the tax on tea, and he asked why there was no rebate on coffee as well. He said that the gold mining tax was not high enough, and that was all. Unjust, unbaked and cruel? And that was all he could produce in the way of facts. And he further confined himself to criticism of the Excess Profits Tax, which is not a new tax this year but a tax which was imposed in previous years, and which we can deal with on the motion of the hon. member for Pretoria, District. My hon. friend then quoted what Mr. Curtin, who was Leader of the Opposition in Australia at the time, had said about the cruelty of the taxation proposals which Mr. Fadden, then Minister of Finance, had announced on the introduction of his Budget. Mr. Curtin referred to the cruelty of Mr. Fadden’s taxation proposals because of the way those taxes would hit the poor man particularly. Mr. Fadden was defeated shortly afterwards, and the hon. member for George has predicted the same fate for me. It is true that Mr. Curtin used those words, it is true that the Fadden Government was defeated, but what is also true—but what the hon. member for George does not know—is that six months after the new Government came into power they came along with taxation proposals which were a great deal more drastic than those which they had rejected before. In other words, like Rehabiam, they said, “My father chastised you with whips and I shall chastise you with scorpions.” The instance quoted by the hon. member for George will, in view of the facts, not make much of an impression on the taxpayers of South Africa. It will be of very little avail to the taxpayers of this country if I were to be substituted by a Mr. Rehabiam Werth. Then the hon. member again made an attack on the Department of Defence and other hon. members followed him, among them being the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys) and the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges). We heard about the disgraceful waste and extravagance and mismanagement, the reckless spending of money by the Department of Defence, and the report of the Auditor-General was referred to. Well, the hon. member for George is a member of the Select Committee on Public Accounts, to which the report of the Auditor-General had been referred, and I believe the hon. member for Prieska and Fauresmith are also members of that Select Committee. They had the report of the Auditor-General before them on the Select Committee. They could have gone into the whole question; they could have gone into all the points mentioned in it, but, of course, on the Select Committee they had to sit as judges and not as politicians, and there they also heard the other side of the question. At any rate they had the opportunity to produce a special report with a view to this very debate. After all I had heard from the hon. member I looked forward in fear and trembling to the special report. That report was published this morning. The mountain had been in labour, but all it produced was a very small mouse. What does the report say? There is nothing about any scandals, nothing about mismanagement; they had the opportunity of coming forward with their allegations. We find nothing there about the reckless spending of money. No, all we find there is that they had gone into the question of cost plus contracts and that they had not been able to arrive at a decision, and they asked the Government—this bad, unreliable, extravagant Government—to make further enquiries into the question. Then there is something in the report about the form of the contract and it is pointed out that there is a difference between the two contracts that are used, and they ask the Commission or Committee which the Government will have to appoint on the cost plus contracts question also to go into this other matter.

And that was a unanimous resolution.

As the hon. member rightly remarks, it was a unanimous resolution. They had the opportunity of coming into the open with those scandals.

That is not true.

I must say that in regard to this matter I am particularly disappointed with the hon. member for Fauresmith. He is a prominent member of the Bar. He sat on the Select Committee and was there in the capacity of a judge. He found no proof. After all that appears in the report of the Auditor-General, all he can talk about is the alleged defects in regard to the cost plus contracts, and that matter he has referred to the Government for investigation, and yet he comes to this House in this debate and in spite of everything he has had before him on the Select Committee, he says here that a prima facie case of waste has been made out. He has, however, only come along with rumours about scandals which are alleged to have taken place. He has only talked about rumours of waste of money; he had no facts, although he had the fullest possible opportunity to enquire into those matters.

No.

Nothing was proved, and then he, a prominent member of the Bar, comes here and talks about a prima facie case and about rumours.

Don’t get so personal.

And don’t get so pedantic.

Now I want to come back to the hon. member for George. I only want to show where he went wrong in his statistics. The hon. member for George compared the expenditure on defence in South Africa with that of other countries, other parts of the British Commonwealth of Nations. He mentioned Ireland, but I shall leave Ireland out of account because it is a neutral country, so I am going to confine myself to the expenditure of belligerent countries. The hon. member gave us the following figures: New Zealand’s expenditure for the financial year is £64,000,000, which is equivalent to £51,000,000 sterling. The population is 1,600,000. That means that the war expenditure is £32 per head. In Australia the expenditure was £217,000,000, equivalent to £174,000,000 sterling. The population of Australia is 7,000,000, so the expenditure per head of the population is £25. In Canada the expenditure was £362,000,000, and with a population of 11,000,000 that means £33 per head of population. And for South Africa the hon. member gives the figure of £72,000,000 expenditure, and he adds £4,000,000 which, I am supposed to have said, is spent on indirect expenditure, and then he puts the population at 2,000,000, and estimates the war expenditure at £38 per head. Let me say at once that I do not use the same measure as the hon. member for George does. He attaches importance to the comparisons, but to me those comparisons have no great significance. Of course, he does not want to spend anything on the war. I consider that what is at stake for South Africa is of such a nature that I do not allow myself to be scared by the size of the expenditure which is required to protect South Africa’s security and liberty. But still I want to analyse the hon. member’s figures because I have no doubt the Opposition will make use of those figures. Let me show, therefore, where the hon. member went wrong. In the first place he said we must add £4,000,000 to South Africa’s war expenditure in respect of additional expenditure. I never mentioned that figure. True, I did say that there also was some indirect expenditure in connection with the war and that the biggest amount of indirect expenditure was in connection with the public debt vote. That, however, also applies to those other countries; they also have indirect expenditure, and if we add something for indirect expenditure to the Union’s war expenditure we must also add something to that of the other countries. For comparative purposes, therefore, this £4,000,000 should not be added. In the second place the hon. member did not take any account of the additional amounts which were voted in other countries after the original estimates had been passed. He only took the figures of the original estimates of Australia, for instance, and he mentioned the amount of £217,000,000, but he apparently does not know that it has been found necessary in the last six months to provide a further £40,000,000. That immediately throws his figures out of gear and makes the comparison valueless. In regard to the other countries, New Zealand and Canada, I have no personal information there, so I can only mention Australia’s case. In the third place he converted the amounts of New Zealand and Australia into English sterling. This was rather astute of him, but unfortunately he forgot that part of the amounts which Australia and New Zealand are spending has been borrowed in England in sterling and has been paid out in sterling. Of New Zealand’s amount of £69,000,000—not £64,000,000—I understand that £31,000,000 was borrowed in sterling and was paid out in sterling. That amount, therefore, he can in any case not convert into sterling, because the amount is already in sterling. Then another point so far as South Africa is concerned. The white population of South Africa, which is the only part of the population he referred to, is not 2,000,000 but 2,200,000, and surely the hon. member cannot leave out the non-European population entirely. Not only are a part of the non-European population also taxpayers, but if they were not there the European would contribute a great deal less in taxes. I wonder how much we would get from the gold mines by way of taxation if it were not for the non-Europeans. The hon. member for Fauresmith was fairer so far as that point is concerned. He admitted the validity of the share of the non-Europeans, and he said that the non-Europeans contributed less than 20 per cent. of the national income. I believe that the percentage he gives is very much too low, but for argument’s sake I accept it. What do we find then? In Canada the amount per head of population of war expenditure was £33, as the hon. member for George said—and in that amount additional appropriations are not included; in New Zealand it was not £32 but £38, also without possible additional expenditure being taken into account. In Australia it was £31 and in South Africa £26. For the time being I prefer to leave it at that and I do not propose going any further into the statistical methods of the hon. member. But may I be allowed to say a word in general about our war expenditure? Several hon. members have discussed this question and they have mainly done so with a view to making a general attack on the Government’s war policy. That was the basis of that attack. The hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) did so too. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister has replied to that. So far as the financial aspect of the matter is concerned the hon. member for Fauresmith particularly let himself go on that. He gave us a long series of figures and percentages, comparative figures in regard to expenditure, and for comparative purposes he took the expenditure for a year of peace, namely, 1937—’38. What did he prove by that? He only proved that South Africa is a belligerent country, that we spend a large amount of money on carrying on the war, and that our expenditure in wartime is higher than it is in peacetime. Beyond that he proved nothing. That we all knew. He could have spared himself the trouble to give and to calculate all those figures and all those percentages. Naturally he also started laying down certain financial principles. Those principles of his are all very fine and very sound for peace time but this is war time and in that connection I want to use a word which I just heard form the other side, and that is that those principles of his were somewhat pedantic. The hon. member for instance laid it down as one of his doctrines that the only unproductive debt which is justifiable is debt which is incurred for the promotion of the health and happiness of the citizens of the country. Beautiful! Very fine in times of peace. But imagine what the position would be if in time of war one were not allowed to use money for war purposes because the money is not used then for the promotion of the health and happiness of the people. On this point, of course, we differ from hon. members opposite.

You are missing the whole point.

We are not allowed to spend a penny for the protection and security of South Africa.

You are spending the money on behalf of the Empire.

We are not allowed to borrow a penny for the protection and the security of South Africa; we are not allowed to levy a penny by way of taxation for that purpose. So far as we are concerned we are prepared to incur the necessary expenditure and to find the necessary money.

To put Haile Selassie on the throne.

There are two directions and so far as this debate is concerned they are irreconcilable directions. I may perhaps be allowed to say that after the hon. member for Fauresmith had laid down those unrealistic doctrines I was not surprised at his concluding by proclaiming that the salvation and the welfare of this country lay in an alliance with Vichy France and Portugal. Vichy France which has already been defeated, and is practically unable to offer any resistance to either Germany or Japan, and Portugal, which is a good friend of ours but is not really one of the principal world powers. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) put a question of a comparatively minor nature, but as it concerns war expenditure it may perhaps be well if I replied to him. He asked what the position is in regard to the agreement with the English Government in respect of prisoners of war, in respect of the air training scheme and the erection of hospitals. He said that he had looked in vain for anything on the estimates in connection with that expenditure, and apparently he is concerned that we may perhaps not be able to, or perhaps may not, get the money. I think I can put his mind at ease. Those amounts are shown on our war expenditure account, and the amounts which we receive are paid into our war expenditure account. It is for that reason that those amounts do not appear directly on the estimates, but the amounts will appear in the returns of the Auditor General in connection with the war expenditure account, as it will stand on the 31st March of this year. We are continually receiving amounts from England and from other Governments in connection with expenditure which we incur on their behalf. Last month we received an amount of £775,000 in respect of prisoners of war, and this month we are expecting to receive several large amounts—this, of course, is the last month of the financial year, and consequently it is a month for a settlement of accounts. Hon. members of the House need not be concerned and need not be afraid that the interests of South Africa are not being properly protected in this regard. Then the hon. member for Waterberg also complained that nothing was said in the Budget about the drought. That is not at all correct. I did refer to it in my speech. What is true is that no specific provision is made on the estimates for drought expenditure, for drought relief. There are, however, several expenditure votes on which there is money which can be used for this type of relief of distress. In any case from the very nature of things it is impossible at this period to anticipate everything that may be required. The Government has, however, never yet left the drought stricken farmers in the lurch, and there is no reason to expect that we shall do so in this instance. Several other members have referred to other matters for which according to them provision should have been made. In that connection the hon. member for Fauresmith said that there was an increase of 5 per cent. on the estimates for social services. I have not checked the hon. member’s figures but for argument’s sake I am prepared to assume that what he says is correct. Then I want to tell him that in most peace years we would not consider a 5 per cent. increase as inconsiderable.

What about the increased costs?

The hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) advocated social services for natives. He spoke feelingly and eloquently. In many respects I can associate myself with what he said, but I want to point out to him that the natives have not been completely forgotten in the Budget. The hon. member for Jeppe (Mrs. Bertha Solomon) spoke about family allowances, and other hon. members also touched on points in regard to post war reconstruction. Let me refer them to the speech which the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister made here on Friday last. There is only one other point in regard to expenditure which I want to touch on very briefly. The hon. member for Transkei (Mr. Hemming) raised the question of the purchase of land for natives and he objected to the purchase of such land having been suspended; he then went further and said that if we were to suspend the purchase of land at the moment we should at any rate build up a reserve for that purpose. I dealt with that point last year in my reply to the Budget debate. Unfortunately the hon. member was absent at the time on account of illness. He will forgive me therefore if I do not go into details on that question again. I explained at the time why the purchase of land for natives had been suspended under existing conditions. I also pointed out that we had actually created a Reserve Fund of £1,000,000 and I also gave reasons why it was not possible to go any further in that direction. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Egeland) and the hon. member for Durban North (The Rev. MilesCadman) discussed the question of legislation in regard to war pensions. I cannot go into details on this question at the moment. Hon. members know that legislation is being drafted and in regard to their request that such legislation should be introduced as soon as possible I want to say that we hope to do so. On a previous occasion I said that we had decided not to introduce only amending legislation, but that it was our intention to reshape the whole Act. That, of course, involves a great deal of additional work. The Bill was, however, submitted to the legal advisers the week before last, and it is now in their hands, and we shall do our best to place the new Bill before the House as soon as possible. That will be the appropriate occasion for the discussion of details. I don’t think I need say any more in regard to points concerning expenditure. Now I come to matters in relation to the combating of the expenditure. There were certain main lines in my Budget. In the first place, that we were going to transfer £6,000,000 of the surplus to Loan Account; further, that we were going to find 50 per cent. of the £80,000,000 for defence, that is, £40,000,000 on Revenue Account, and that we were going to place the other £40,000,000 on Loan Account. In the third place, that we were going to impose additional taxes to an amount of £9,250,000. A few considerations were raised here in regard to the general structure of the Budget. Let me, first of all, say a few words about that. Several hon. members asked why I wanted to use the surplus for the redemption of debt. The hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys) said that it was unsound to use the surplus in that way, as it involved additional taxation. The future generation, he said, should also be made to contribute to the war. The hon. member for Cape Town, Castle (Mr. Alexander), apparently agreed with the hon. member for Prieska, and the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) was also opposed to the surplus being used in this manner. In other words, the hon. member does not want the public debt to be reduced by £6,000,000, but he wanted us to use that money for housing and similar purposes. I was surprised to hear remarks like that, especially from hon. members of the Opposition, because surely the hon. member for Waterberg spoke about the enormous amount of our debt, and other hon. members also spoke about the size of our debt, but the hon. members for Prieska and Swellendam protest when we want to reduce that enormous amount by £6,000,000. The hon. member for Fauresmith said that no unproductive debt should be created for war purposes, but the hon. member for Prieska says that future generations will also have to pay something for this war. I am finding it difficult to know where we stand with such an Opposition. Even that part of the Opposition which has remained and has not cut away (afgeskilfer) is not in agreement on that point. The only sound policy to follow is the policy which my predecessor (Mr. Havenga) also followed, namely, to use surpluses for the redemption of debt. In the first place, a surplus, especially in war time, when money has to be borrowed for the waging of the war, is a fictitious surplus. This surplus of £6,000,000 simply means that we have borrowed more money for the war than was really needed, and, that being so, it is fair and just, and sound, and honest to repay that £6,000,000. The hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) went a little further. He put up the plea that we should rather not impose so much taxation, and that we should find the money we require by way of a levy on capital. Many people in this country hold the view that some of our taxes actually amount to a levy on capital, but I particularly want to emphasise this point: In present circumstances the taxation burden in South Africa is surely not so heavy that we should proceed to a levy on capital. In regard to 1940—’41, only 12 per cent. of our national income has been spent on war expenditure, and for 1941—’42 it will probably not be much more. I am afraid that the plea put up to replace part of our taxes by a levy on capital emerges from an inadequate realisation of what is at stake today, or otherwise from a lack of willingness to find the necessary money for the cost of the defence of our security and our freedom. Now I come to the second general criticism of the Budget, namely, the criticism which arose from what I shall call Socialistic financial principles. The Budget was attacked because it was too orthodox, too conservative; it had been drafted in a spirit of worn-out financial conservatism. Now, what alternative proposal was put forward? More taxation on the wealthy, less on the poor. Use the credit creating power of the State. Don’t pay 3 per cent. to the banks and to other investors for money which is only worth ½ per cent. “Soak the rich until they bleed and smack the banks.” That was the tendency of the pleas which were put up here. I don’t want to go into any theoretical considerations of those principles. I only want to apply a purely practical test. There is no country in the British Commonwealth of Nations which has gone further in the direction of Socialism than New Zealand. For the last five or six years a Labour Party Government has been in power in New Zealand carrying out a socialistic policy. In October last year we had a loan issue in South Africa and the interest offered was 3¼ per cent. for savings certificates, 3 per cent. for the main loan and 2¼ per cent. for the short term loan. In the one issue we asked for the full amount we required to cover the needs of the financial year. Within three weeks we got £32,500,000—all we needed. At about the same time New Zealand also proceeded to a Loan Issue. It is rather strange but apparently one has to borrow money even in a socialistic country. One cannot cope with all the expenditure by simply using the credit creating powers of a State, New Zealand offered better terms for the money which apparently also was only worth ½ per cent.—New Zealand offered better terms than we did, but what happened? They wanted to find less than half of their requirements in New Zealand because they wanted to borrow £31,000,000 in England and £26,000,000 in New Zealand. We find everything here in South Africa. But in the first instance they only asked for £10,000,000 of the £26,000,000 from the public in New Zealand. What happened? Within the first three weeks, that is to say, in the period in which we got £32,500,000, New Zealand only succeeded in getting less than £4,000,000 in spite of the more favourable terms offered. Further comment is unnecessary. It seems that the orthodox conservatism which we followed in South Africa is not quite so worn out as a financial policy during a time of war as it is represented here. Now I come to the taxation proposals. I first of all want to deal with the general question of the allocation of the taxation burdens. That matter was raised first of all by the hon. member for George. In his usual, not altogether scientific manner, he gave us an allocation of the additional burdens over the last two years, and also of the additional burdens for the year in front of us, and he put that allocation under three heads: the general public, commerce and industries and the gold mines. I say that his division was unscientific and I say so for several reasons. So far as the gold mines are concerned he did not take into account the tax on foreign shareholders which was imposed last year and which is collected by the gold mines in the main from their shareholders. Nor did he take into account the gold realisation account which bring us in an amount of round about £2,500,000 every year. But he further forgot that the people who pay taxes under his category of commerce and industry also pay taxes as part of the general public, and the same thing applies to the people who pay under the heading of “gold mines.” My hon. friend forgot particularly that gold mining dividends are subject to super tax which is imposed on the people receiving those dividends. He added that not to the taxation on gold mines but to the taxation on the general public. That allocation of my hon. friend’s consequently has no statistical value. Apart from that we find a tendency among hon. members to forget that the tax on the gold mines is actually a tax on individuals and not a tax on companies. In the long run it is a tax on the shareholders who are spread all over the country and who are not only domiciled in Johannesburg. Hon. members had a great deal to say and they declared that the Budget had been well received in Johannesburg because so little additional taxation had been imposed on the gold mines. One would imagine that Johannesburg consists of gold mines only. We get a great deal more money from Johannesburg by way of taxation from other sources than we get from Johannesburg by way of gold mining dividends. One would imagine that the people receiving dividends come from Johannesburg only, but they are spread all over South Africa, and let me point out what happened last year. We imposed an additional amount by way of a special contribution on the gold mines amounting to £2,200,000. That year the new mines and those mines that are being developed such as Western Reefs, Marievale and Venterspost paid out half a million pounds more in dividends than the year before, but apart from that, the dividends from the gold mines increased by £2,160,000, practically the identical amount as that of the additional taxation. I say again that this so-called tax on the gold mines is a tax on individuals, on a large number of individuals, on a part of the general public, on people living in every part of the Union of South Africa; as it is contended, however, that we are not imposing adequate additional taxation on those people, I want to point out two things. The first is this: We tax those people who receive those gold mining dividends not merely by the imposition of this additional special contribution, but also by way of additional taxes by way of super tax. That amount, therefore, is not all they pay. The second and more important point is this: gold has a fixed price. Other industries, notwithstanding the higher taxes, notwithstanding the increased working costs, are making larger profits today in many cases, but that cannot happen with the gold mines. The production of gold has risen to its zenith. If we compare the figures for the last few months of last year with the figures for the corresponding months of the year before, it will be found that they are the same for all practical purposes. There has been no increase of production, but there is very definitely an increase in working costs. The income of the mines cannot go any higher. The incomes of other industries are on the up grade. Those increased working costs, as well as the increased tax, have to be paid by the shareholders in the mines. But I again want to point—I believe the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) has already done so—to the additional taxes that have very definitely been placed on those shareholders of the mines, and I want to place before the House the additional yield from taxation for the different years. I gave those figures last year. I am going to quote the figures which appear in the Main Revenue Account. In the year 1938—’39 the amount was 9.2 millions. In the year 1939—’40 it was 10.2 millions. In the year 1940—’41 it was 19.5 millions, and in the year 1941—’42 it was 22.75 millions.

Are those the same figures which I gave?

Yes. During the years 1939—’40 to 1941—’42 the amount paid in normal and super tax, including the tax on gold mining dividends, increased from £4,000,000 to 8.1 million pounds. The amount paid by the gold mining shareholders on the same basis, but not including the super tax, increased from 10.2 millions to 22.75 millions. I challenge anyone to prove that we treated the gold mines more favourably than others. There is another point in regard to the allocation of taxes. The hon. member for George and other speakers stated that the taxes weighed heavily on the poor man, and more lightly on the rich man. The hon. member for Kensington has already replied to that, but I want to put the position differently. Australia and New Zealand surely are not countries which neglect the interests of the poor man. If we compare our direct taxation with that of Australia and New Zealand, we find that the man in South Africa drawing less than £1,000 does not pay more than one-quarter of what he pays in those countries, but when we get to the rich man, the rich man in South Africa pays three-quarters of what the rich man pays in Australia and New Zealand. That proves that hon. members should not come here with vague generalities and assert that we are out to protect the rich man and to make the poor man pay. In regard to the individual taxation proposals, it does not seem necessary to say much more. In most cases the criticism we had to listen to what was not too effective. Some of the taxes were not criticised at all. The hon. member for George talked about the rebate on tea, and he asked why relief was given to the tea of the townsman and why no relief was given in respect of the farmer’s coffee. He asked what was the mysterious reason for my doing so. We know what the reason of the hon. member for George was in raising this point. I believe I am right in saying that the farmer, generally speaking, today drinks as much imported tea as imported coffee. The mysterious reason is that coffee is one of our preferential items which we cannot touch. I am not responsible for it. But where we give preference, we also receive preference on the other side, and by giving this preference we also receive certain benefits for South Africa in which the farmer also shares. I leave it at that. So far as the increased tax on petrol is concerned, we heard a few fairly half-hearted protests raised. I feel that it is generally realised that the reduced consumption of petrol must reasonably be linked up with an increased tax on petrol. Furthermore, my defence of this proposal as contained in my Budget speech appears to have been unassailable. Then we come to tobacco. In this regard several members expressed a grievance at our taxing a local product while we did not tax imported cigars. They are quite wrong. I stated in my Budget speech that we were also taxing the imported product, and provision to that effect is made in the resolutions of which I have given notice. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. Le Roux), who, of course, is our expert on questions of tobacco, just like his friend next to him, is an expert on questions concerning America, spoke about the disastrous effect of this tax on production on account of the reduction of consumption. I replied to that argument in advance in my Budget speech. My hon. friend in the past used to speak of the disastrous effect which an increased tax on cigarette tobacco would have, but that effect has not made itself felt. Consequently, the expert on tobacco was wrong there, and I believe that his prediction in this regard is also going to be wrong. Now I come to the sales profit tax on immovable property. Several hon. members have objected to this. The hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. J. H. Viljoen), the hon. member for Oudtshoorn, and the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen) raised objections, and they tried to scare the farming population by saying that this was a land tax. It is not a land tax, but it is a tax on the profit made on the sale of land, and as such it is a temporary tax in view of present conditions. It is something entirely different from a land tax and it is a tax which, of course, is in the interest of the farmer himself. The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) was afraid that it might perhaps affect the debtors of the Land Bank and of the Farmers’ Relief Board. Perhaps it is not clear to him that this tax only applies to people who have sold land since the 1st October, 1939. I fail to see therefore that there will be many instances of debtors of the Land Bank and of the Farmers’ Relief Board who will fall within the scope of this tax. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) raised an important practical point and spoke of the practice to establish private companies for the erection of buildings and for the occupation of such buildings. The buildings are sold not in the usual way, but by dealings in shares. The hon. member was correct in saying that here there might be a possible gap of some importance in regard to the application of the tax. I don’t propose, however, to leave this gap open. I intend giving notice shortly of an amended resolution which will be dealt with in Committee of Ways and Means and which will have the effect of the sale of shares in companies of this kind coming within the scope of the tax. It may perhaps be possible for this point to be raised also in connection with transfer duty and transactions of that kind. Transfer duty is a Provincial tax. It is not so easy to deal with that aspect of the case as it is to deal with the aspect of the case in relation to my taxation proposals. I do not think that I shall be able to take action in regard to that matter. It will require time and I shall probably also have to consult the Provincial authorities, who are interested in this tax. Now I come to the question of the tax on trading profits. The hon. member for Kensington was the only one who referred to this. This taxation proposal is connected with the excess profits duty. The hon. member for Kensington made an interesting reference to the system in Australia. There is no excess profits ax there, but there is a special war levy on companies there. By introducing this on trading profits we shall be approximating our system in South Africa somewhat closer to Australia in that particular regard. It is not possible, however, to substitute our system by that which is in force in Australia. Under our system of excess profits tax we also have to compensate for war losses for a certain period after the war. There are two sides to this tax. We could therefore not abolish the excess profits tax at this stage, without committing a breach of faith. I also think that in certain respects the Australian system is subject to certain criticisms which do not apply to our system. We sometimes find criticism in practice which we fail to see in theory. “Better bear the ills we have than fly to others that we know not of.” In regard to the excess profits tax itself, I don’t propose saying anything at this stage; there will be another opportunity for that. I only want to say this, in reply to those members who have discussed this tax, some on the one side and some on the other side—that they have practically completely wiped out each others’ criticisms. The hon. member for Kensington raised certain special points in regard to this tax. He asked why this tax should be paid by professional people, and not by salaried people, and why it was not levied on incomes from investments. In regard to incomes from investments, I believe those will be taxed in some other way. They do not fit into the framework of this tax, which, as I have said, is an appendix of the Excess Profits Tax. But, apart from that, we have this position in the country today, that the general interest rates have lately been coming down, and this is not the time to bring this falling source of revenue within the scope of this tax. In regard to salaried people, I want to say, in the first place, that a man’s salary is not fixed by himself. He cannot increase his income by raising his tariff or by doing more work. His is a fixed income, but, apart from that, I doubt whether it will make much difference if we bring the salaried man with a salary of £5,000 or £10,000 within the scope of this tax. My hon. friend should not forget that when a man has paid through this special levy on trading profits, he is relieved from income tax and super tax, and also from Provincial tax up to that point, and the revenue derived from income tax, super tax, plus Provincial tax, can now go up to 13s. 6d. in the £, which is a good deal more than 6s. 8d. in the £. That is a point which will perhaps have to be further gone into, and I don’t want to decide on that finally now. Then, in conclusion, we come to the personal and savings fund tax. This is the tax which has given rise to most of the general discussion on the Budget. It is quite understandable that it should be so, because this is a tax which will affect most people, and for reasons which I mentioned at the start, I am not prepared to depart from my proposal, not even, as suggested by the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Mushet), to the extent of giving up the personal tax part. The time has arrived for the taxation net to be spread wider. People with incomes between £250 and £300 are treated very leniently in South Africa, as compared with other countries, but what did strike me in this debate was the plea put up by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, North (Mr. Johnson), and by the hon. member for Durban, North (the Rev. Miles-Cadman), and other members who also came to see me personally—I am referring to the plea in regard to married men with children. Hon. members will see that in the resolutions of which I have given notice, there is provision for abatements and rebates which can be proposed later on. We intend proposing a rebate on the total amount of the uniform tax—the flat rate tax—of £1 per child up to a maximum of £5, which is the full amount of the flat rate payable by way of taxation and saving.

Up to what age?

Probably the same age as laid down in the Income Tax Act, but that is of minor importance. The married person with two children and an income of between £250 and £300 will, therefore, instead of paying £3, only pay £1, of which one-third is tax and the balance the contribution to the savings fund. A person with three children and an income of more than £300 will have to pay £2, of which £1 is tax and £1 contribution to the savings fund. I feel that this is a reasonable concession, and I hope it will be acceptable to the House. I have tried to give as full a reply as possible to the Budget aspect of the debate, and I have now completed my task. I want to revert to one point. In this Budget many new taxes are imposed on the taxpayers. I certainly do not deny that. The burdens are heavy, but I want to quote the words which were used a few days ago by Mr. Morgenthau, the head of the United States Treasury, who, speaking on a similar occasion when he also had to propose additional taxation, said this—

That cannot be said of our taxation—

I want to bring those words to the notice of everybody, whether they support our war policy or not. There is considerable difference of opinion today about the war between ourselves and our political opponents, but it is not only our security; it is their security, too, which is threatened. It is not only we, but they, too, who will lose their freedom if the Axis Powers win this war. To them, as well as to us, it will be a million times cheaper to win the war, whatever it may cost, than to lose the war; and I want to conclude by using these words of Mr. Morgenthau’s—

I expect this House will accept my Budget proposals. After that it will be our task to ensure that those proposals are used as one of the means to achieve victory.

It may be something of an anti-climax, but I am afraid I must now bring the House back to the simple problems of that humble department of State over which I have the honour to preside. As usual, we did not have a great deal of criticism of the railways or their policy.

We did not have an opportunity.

Such criticism as we had, I think, only shows the barrenness of the land so far as fruitful criticism was concerned, but let me say there were one or two bright exceptions. The member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) once more dealt with the question of our native and non-European employees. I do not know that she told us anything new. I think that hon. members on the cross benches hope by wearying reiteration to wear down the Minister, but I can assure the hon. member that that process is quite unnecessary in my case. I am just afraid that the process of wearing down the Minister may have the effect of hardening his skin, and that would be very unfortunate. She quoted the scales of native wages paid by the Municipality and others in Port Elizabeth, but these comparisons are very misleading. It is always easy to pick out the higher wages paid by somebody else as compared with the lowest wages paid on the railways, because the comparison does not look well, but one must bear in mind that the railways have to pay what I may term an average wage. We do not only have employees at Port Elizabeth, we have them throughout the length and breadth of the Union, and it is not easy to meet the competition of every individual in different centres. It is a curious thing that municipalities pay very generously, they seem to have unlimited funds to pay their nonEuropean workers, but when I approach them with a view to getting a percentage of any proportion of the cost of level crossings being removed and overhead bridges put in, then I find how poor they are, they have no money for that. It sometimes makes me wonder why they can be so dangerous on the one hand and find it so difficult to meet on the other. I would like to impress this upon my hon. friend, and that is that these are dangerous times to unnecessarily raise wages. If we start the spiral, the first people to be hit will be the natives and the non-Europeans. It is all very well to say there is a Price Controller to prevent any rise in prices, but never forget this, that the Price Controller cannot control prices below the price of production. The moment he does that he stops production, and the moment you do that you put up prices. The more you can encourage production the better will be our situation as far as costs are concerned. We cannot depend upon the Price Controller to do anything more than steady prices. He cannot go on reducing prices when economic facts are against him. If we have any doubt about that we have only to ask any of my farming friends about it. In this debate this year the question of our bilingual policy was only just touched upon. The member for South Coast (Mr. Neate) raised the issue, but the fact that no heat seemed to be engendered and that the debate was very lackadaisical and very few people followed him, rather satisfied me that so far as our bilingual policy is concerned the House is satisfied that we are doing justice to both sections. I would like to say to the member for South Coast that we do try to meet hard cases among our older employees, and my predecessors did the same. It is only reasonable and just that we should do so, but we do not want to do anything which will vitiate the bilingual policy on the railways. I have no sympathy for a young man today on the railways who does not make himself fully bilingual. Well, so far as the old men are concerned, I do say that we do. Every case is treated on its merits, and where we feel it is justified we do give him consideration. The hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) as is so often the case, with members of the Opposition, blows two ways. He blows both ways in the same speech. He suggests all sorts of ways to spend my surplus. And immediately he warns me that my prosperity is not going to last, and therefore I say to him that in view of what he said it is clear that I was justified in not taking his advice about spending my surplus in the beginning. It is because I know that the present prosperity of the railways is founded on a very unstable grounding that I am conserving all the surpluses that are available at the present time. Now my hon. friend made the statement that he was not addressed in Afrikaans by the stewards on the railways. That was a surprise statement to me because I find that out of 337 stewards on the railways 281 are Afrikaans speaking and only 56 are English speaking. The hon. member must have been singularly unfortunate in the particular stewards that he contacted. He also made the suggestion which has been made before that after the war we shall immediately retrench all these working for us today and make way for the returned soldiers. Let me be quite clear on that. The returned soldiers shall have our first consideration. We don’t propose to let the soldier down who is fighting for his country, and who is a railway servant, and I am satisfied that we can do that without any serious policy of retrenchment. After all, we shall have a lot of arrear work to do when this war is over, a lot of arrears to make good. We have employed as many pensioners as we can and they will have to go back to their pensions after the war, but where we have taken on men it will be our duty, subject to contingencies, and subject to taking back returned soldiers, to keep on these men. I am not going to let the men down who have stood by me in these times. The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Robertson), whom I would congratulate on an admirable maiden speech, raised one or two points in connection with railway policy. I want to tell him at once that the Railways will not buy the Utrecht line. That line depends almost solely on the Utrecht Colliery, over which we have no control. Were we to buy the line the colliery might close down tomorrow, and we would be left with a useless asset. So I would not consider that matter, having regard to the interest of the State. The hon. member also suggested that finished products should be carried at the same rate as raw materials. I would have liked the suggestion that raw materials should be carried at the same rate as finished products. But let me tell the hon. member that if we were to bring the railage on finished products down to the same rate as that at which raw materials are carried, we would have to bring up the railage on raw materials. I think the hon. member will agree that to do that would cause much greater injury than to leave things as they are, because, after all, raw materials are very bulky things; they include coal and things like that, and if the cost went up on these, the industry would not be as well off as it is today. There is the consideration which should be borne in mind, that finished products have often established vested interests owing to the very high rates paid on them, and this would be seriously interfered with if we started reducing rates. We would be bringing competition into markets where it does not exist today. The hon. member also complained that only 5 per cent. of the stations enjoyed distribution rates. I do not know whether the hon. member’s percentage is right. But it is not a question of what stations enjoy distribution rates, it is a question of what amount of traffic enjoys it, but I want to say that it is now the policy of the Railways to extend to manufacturers in rural areas who are dealing in South African manufactures, and who rail in regular quantities distribution rates, as it is also our policy where we have factories on branch lines to give these factories on branch lines, main line rates over these lines to their markets. The question of housing was raised by the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Warren). He suggested that I might appropriate some of my surplus to this purpose. I am sorry the hon. member for Swellendam cannot have heard my Budget speech. I do not blame him for not listening to my speeches, because there are occasions on which I do not listen to his. But I am not now going to delay this House by reiterating what I said in my Budget speech, but I would refer my hon. friend to the study of my reply on housing. The hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Venter) raised the question of firemen not being promoted because of the employment of pensioners. The employment of pensioners has nothing to do with the promotion of firemen. I can say unequivocally that no person today in the Railway Service is worse off because of the war than he would have been if we had not been at war. The great majority of them are far better off. Thanks to the men going up North, other men have had to be put into their position, acting for them, and when they act for them they get the acting pay. That is to say, they get the minimum pay of the grade to which they have been promoted to act, so that they are better off. In the case of firemen especially, they are better off, because, if a fireman is appointed to driver, he becomes a permanent fireman after twelve months; so far from a fireman being injured, he is much better off. Incidentally, only three or four days ago I met the group looking after the interests of the drivers and firemen, and they did not have a word to say in regard to the complaint that was raised by the hon. member. The allegation that ticket examiners do not get overtime is incorrect. If the hon. member will make a study of our regulations he would see that ticket examiners and indeed all men are paid overtime rates. Now the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Mushet) described me as a hard case. Well, Railway Ministers, I find, must be pretty hard cases, because there are lots of people wanting a great deal for nothing from us.

They must be hardboiled.

The hon. member however, was not so very sound when he advanced the contention that the railways should grant further concessions to the Defence Department. The Defence Department is already getting very considerable concessions from the Railway Administration, and if in fact we should give more concessions it would simply amount to this, that the railway user as a taxpayer is taxed twice in respect of Defence requirements. We would be relieving the general taxpayer at the expense of that section of the taxpayers who are railway users, and I think the hon. member will agree that that would be a hard case.

If the argument is sound, yes.

Stated in simple terms it simply means that the taxpayers’ burden should be borne by only that section of the taxpayers who happen to be railway users. Apart from the fact that that would be also contrary to the South Africa Act I think that it can hardly be in keeping with the tenets of justice and fairplay if we pick on a section of our people and expect them to pay double taxation. I want to make it perfectly clear to the hon. member that in fact no profits are made on defence traffic. No profits are made on defence traffic and on passenger traffic. I merely credit defence traffic with their share on the high rates traffic which we carry. I was also surprised to hear the hon. member for Maitland, who is a business man, talking about profits on the railways. Railway surpluses, as be knows very well, are not profits. He knows that no sound company makes profits while there are deficiencies in their statutory funds, while there are dead assets to be written off, and while there is expenditure on arrear repairs and maintenance which must ultimately be met. He knows that until these things are met you have no right to declare profits and dividends, and I shall be glad if in future he would recognise that fact and not talk about railway profits but only talk about railway surpluses.

It was you who talked about profits.

The hon. member agrees with me, as a sound business man, that what I say is correct, and if I talked about profits then I made a mistake.

Surely not!

But I would like to verify the particular quotation. But the fact that I made a mistake should have brought upon my head a correction from my hon. friend, and he should not have followed blindly in my footsteps. I can only ascribe the feelings he has about my surplus to the natural irritation of every Scotsman to see so much money lie about while he is not able to get his hands on it.

Does that apply to Scotchmen only?

Now the hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. A. P. Swart) stated that owing to the release of staff daily paid men were working overtime, but did not receive overtime pay. That is completely incorrect as the hon. member should know. Daily paid workers all receive overtime. I would say a word about the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Venter). We are constantly getting these loosely worded resolutions nowa-days, and I will deal with the points raised in some detail. I am not aware of any representations or complaints from the staff or from the Staff Associations which would justify the appointment of a Grievance Commission to enquire into and report upon wage scales, the hours of duty of daily paid staff and the policy followed in respect of acting appointments and promotions. These are matters which, in my opinion, fall within the scope of the functions of the recognised Staff Associations and are matters which hon. members of the House are not always competent to judge, as very frequently they are not aware of the full facts. Machinery for the submission of grievances is provided, and in addition the Conciliation Board functions to consider representations from the staff on the lines of the proposed Commission. A comprehensive survey of staff grading was undertaken in 1934, when the conclusion was reached that minimum and maximum rates then operative were, with a few exceptions, adequate. It was, however, felt that progressive scales from the minimum to the maximum merited acceleration, and due effect was given to this. In these few instances where minimum or maximum wages were regarded as inadequate these were improved and a new wage scale operated from the 25th September, 1934. It may be mentioned that the total expenditure involved in respect of the improvement decided upon was over a quarter of a million pounds per annum. Since 1934 there have been numerous improvements in the wages of specific grades of staff, the majority of these improvements having taken place after review by and on the recommendation of the Conciliation Board. In addition, of course, all salary and wage scales were increased by 5 per cent. with effect from the 15th November, 1937, in consequence of the Administration’s decision to merge into salaries and wages the temporary responsibility allowance of 5 per cent, which had previously been operative. The existing wage scales are regarded as fair and reasonable remuneration for the work required of the different grades of staff, and they are regarded as being stabilised on their existing scales. Where any material change takes place in the method of working or the responsibilities of any grade or group of staff, a review of the wage scale of the grade or group of staff concerned immediately follows, and where an improvement is deemed to be justified this is introduced. Since the outbreak of war, cost of living in South Africa, in common with that in other parts of the world, has advanced, but this has been countered by the award of cost-of-living allowances, which in the case of the lower grades of staff is calculated to provide full compensation for the increase in the cost of living—the Administration bearing in full the cost of such increase. With regard to the hours of duty of the staff, this question came before the Conciliation Board, consisting of an equal number of departmental and staff representatives, who in December, 1939, recommended unanimously that the time was not opportune for a general investigation into the hours of duty of all grades and that the matter could best be left until the return of more normal times. Investigation was, however, made into the hours of duty of a number of grades suggested by the Conciliation Board, and these hours have been altered in accordance with the recommendations of the Board. Acting appointments are made as service exigencies demand. During the present state of emergency, due to the release of staff for military duty, acting appointments have naturally become more pronounced. In the case of railworkers there is no limitation in respect of the educational and lingual qualifications for acting in graded posts, but when a definite vacancy arises the policy observed in the promotion of servants to graded posts is applicable. The necessity for making acting appointments may be divided into two classes. Firstly, those arising out of normal working conditions due to sickness, vacation leave, injury on duty, or pending the filling of a vacancy. In all such cases, with the exception of the last-named, there is no actual vacancy, and the duration of the acting appointment is in consequence dependent upon length of the illness of the permanent incumbent of the appointment or the period of leave which has been granted. In cases falling within the lastmentioned category, i.e., pending the filling of a definite vacancy, the acting appointment continues until such time as is necessary to complete the prescribed procedure to be followed in the filling of vacancies, and is usually of relatively short duration. Secondly, there are the cases which arise out of the present emergency when, due to the absence of staff on active service, it is frequently necessary to depute other servants to act in higher grades, and the duration of these acting appointments is governed by the period during which the permanent incumbent is absent on military service, which may well be for the duration of the war. This does not amount to expolitation of the staff concerned, for they would not have had the opportunity of so acting were it not for the absence of staff on military service, and obviously they cannot be promoted in place of the men they are relieving, as ho permanent vacancy in the higher grade has arisen. I would emphasise that all employees who act in higher grades receive no less than the minimum wage for the grade in which they act. The prescribed procedure in making promotions for the filling of vacancies is followed in all cases, and the accusation which has been levelled against railway officers responsible for making recommendations in this connection amounts to an accusation of deliberate male fides which I have no hesitation in saying, is quite unjustified. The method of payment of the running staff for overtime is one which has been adopted on the recommendation of a committee representing both the management and the servants concerned. It is correct that ticket examiners, in common with other sections of the staff, are being called upon to work lengthy hours of duty, as they have on occasions to cope with the exceptionally heavy traffic which the Administration is handling. Where there is evidence that the intensity of the traffic is such as to warrant additional appointments being made in any grade, authority to make the appointments is given. The number of coaches allocated to ticket examiners varies according to the nature of the train worked. Where the staff concerned feel that their duties have become unduly arduous due to some unforeseen circumstance, it is customary for them to make representations to the local controlling officers, who do not hesitate to revise conditions in a manner which provides for the desired relief where this is deemed to be justified. Now, I have one or two remarks to make as Acting Minister of Commerce and Industries—I have one or two small points to reply to. I do not know whether it is necessary for me to do so.

Under the Rules of the House, the Minister is confined to Railway matters, but, with the leave of the House, he may make his statement.

There being no objection:

Unfortunately I have no opportunity of coming in on the other debate, so I have to ask the leave of the House, if any reply has to be made. The hon. member for Potgietersrust (the Rev. S. W. Naudé), the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Mushet), and the hon. member for East London, North (Mr. Christopher) raised the question of the establishment of more industries in the country, and they urged the Government to establish such industries. So far as these are not mining industries, the question would fall under the Department of Commerce, but I would emphasise this, that it is not the Government’s job to establish industries. The Government does not establish industries, all the Government can do is to encourage the efforts to establish industries, and that we do. As hon. members know, as those hon. members who spoke must be well aware, there has been an immense development of industries during the last two years. It has been computed that we have had as much development in the last two years, as we would normally have had in twenty-five years, had there been no war; and therefore I do not think that the allegation that the Government has not done its duty in regard to the encouragement of industries is correct. We have even an equivalent of the Land Bank in respect of commerce in the Industrial Development Corporation, which is designed for the purpose of establishing industries, but, of course, one of the conditions we make is that the industries shall be sound industries for peace time development, as well as war time. The hon. member for Maitland also asked us to take the Board of Trade and Industries out of cold storage. The Board is not in cold storage. It still functions when required, but the demands on the members of the Board are today almost wholly confined to war work, and I think the hon. member for Maitland will realise that in that capacity they are doing more useful work than they can do in any other capacity. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren), I fear, was misinformed when he made the allegation that a tanker was turned away because there was no accommodation There has been no tanker turned away because of our inability to store either black or white oil. I do not think the hon. member will expect me at this time to give details of what we have in store, or what the dispositions of our stocks are, but I can give him the assurance that no tanker has been turned away.

I don’t think you have any stores.

The hon. member also asked us if, before we rationed anything, we would take the public into our confidence. He might just as reasonably have asked the Minister of Finance before taxing anyone to announce the fact that he is going to do so.

They are not on a par.

I suggest that if I were to warn anyone that next week I was going to ration anything the hoarders would get busy at once. If you were to announce the fact that you are going to ration a thing—you would immediately give reasons for the acceleration of the rationing that has to be done. You cannot announce these things before doing them, and I think the hon. member will agree with me. You cannot announce these things because the moment you announce them the public get busy, not all, of course, but those who are inclined to take advantage of the situation will immediately do so and will accelerate the very process which has made rationing necessary. I have no more to say in reply to the debate.

Question put: That all the words after “That”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—68:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Blackwell, L.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

De Kock, A. S.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Egeland, L.

Faure, P. A. B.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Klopper, L. B.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pocock, P. V.

Reitz, D.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg. M. J.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Warren, C. M.

Tellers: J. W. Higgerty and W. B. Humphreys.

Noes—48:

Badenhorst, C. C. E.

Bekker, S.

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Boltman, F. H.

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

Dönges, T. E.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fagan, H. A.

Fouche, J. J.

Fullard, G. J.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Haywood, J. J.

Hugo, P. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Lindhorst, B. H.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw. E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Naudé, S. W.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Pirow, O.

Schoeman, B. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Swart, A. P.

Swart, C. R.

Van den Berg, C. J.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen. J. H.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wilkens. Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

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

The Committee has to consider the Estimates of Expenditure to be defrayed from the Consolidated Revenue Fund and the Estimates of Expenditure to be defrayed from Railway and Harbour Funds, during the year ending 31st March, 1943.

I notice from the Press that the Government proposes reappointing the Governor-General. I do not know whether that has or has not been confirmed but I feel while we are dealing with the Governor-General’s salary I am opposed to his being reappointed. We always imagined that the Governor-General was an impartial man.

The hon. member must not criticise the Governor-General.

But surely I can discuss the reappointment, and I can say why I am opposed to his being reappointed. There is an amount on the Estimates; we have to pay his salary. The taxpayers have to pay for it. They are responsible for it. For that reason I think the House has the right to protest against the Governor-General’s reappointment if we are dissatisfied with it. We feel that the Governor-General plunged the country into this war because before he had had the opportunity of consulting the country he …

The hon. member must remember that he cannot make any reflections on the Governor-General.

I am not casting any reflections on the Governor-General.

The hon. member may proceed provided he makes no reflection on the Governor-General.

Then I come back to the fact that he has allowed himself to be swayed by political movements …

If the hon. member wants to say anything against the Governor-General he must move a substantive motion.

Then I want to move—

To reduce the amount by £5,000 from the item “H.E. the Governor-General, £10,000”.

It appears from the remarks made by the hon. member that his object in moving the amendment is to criticise an action of the Governor-General and the hon. member can only criticise the conduct of the Governor-General on a substantive motion moved after notice when the Speaker is in the Chair.

If you will give me the opportunity I shall move that you get a ruling from Mr. Speaker whether I have the right to move a reduction of the Governor-General’s salary.

I have not objected to that.

The hon. member can move it.

Then I move that the Governor-General’s salary be reduced by £5,000. I feel that the Governor-General has plunged this country into war without conculting the people.

Order! The hon. member cannot discuss that.

It is such an important point to the people outside that I want to move—

That the Chairman report progress in order to obtain Mr. Speaker’s ruling on the point raised, and ask leave to sit again.

Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed to explain my motion? I asked for your ruling on this point. I moved to reduce the Governor-General’s vote by £5,000, and the Chairman accepted that motion. I should like to give my reasons for moving that the Governor-General’s salary be reduced. I only want to say very briefly why I do so.

The hon. member need not go into his arguments.

I also want to object to the reappointment of the Governor-General at the moment.

The hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys) has stated, inter alia, that he also wanted to object to the reappointment of the Governor-General. The objection to reappoint has nothing to do with the Governor-General. It is a matter that can be raised on the Prime Minister’s vote. With regard to criticism of the Governor-General’s actions, that can only take place by way of a substantive motion of which notice has been given. The ruling of the Chairman must therefore be upheld.

The Chairman has accepted the motion in regard to a reduction of the Governor-General’s salary. Am I not allowed at all to give my reasons why I consider that that reduction should be made?

If it amounts to criticism of the Governor-General it cannot be done. An hon. member cannot criticise the Governor-General.

But if the country cannot stand it any longer …

That is purely a hypothetical question.

I believe that the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys) now probably intends withdrawing his proposal in regard to the reduction of the Governor-General’s salary.

He has not moved anything.

Yes, I did make a proposal.

But I did not accept it.

Is not the hon. member entitled to move the reduction of any of those votes? Surely the House has the right to decide whether this money should be voted or not. If we have not got the right to do so why then have these estimates been placed before the House?

The hon. member can move it without levelling any criticism.

I want to know in what way the Governor-General is approached by the Government or by prominent politicians. The Governor-General is a highly placed person who has to take impartial decisions. For ordinary practical purposes he is there to give effect to the decisions of the Governor-General in Council. When the resolutions are transmitted to the Governor-General we expect the Governor-General to give effect to those resolutions. For instance, if the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister were to ask the Governor-General to exercise certain powers which he has we expect the Governor-General to be approached through the ordinary channels, and we expect him to give effect to those resolutions. If, for instance, the Prime Minister were to ask the Governor-General to proclaim a general election we would expect the Governor-General to consult his Ministers and in the ordinary course of events to give effect to that request. What I want to know is this: Can other people also approach the Governor-General? For instance, can the Leader of the Opposition do so? If that were the position it would be putting the Governor-General in a very awkward position. For instance, there is the case of the Governor-General being approached by the Prime Minister who asks for a general election. Now the Leader of the Opposition comes along and asks the Governor-General not to proclaim a general election. What is the Governor-General to do in that case? I only want to know how it works. Whom is the Governor-General really to listen to? I am not referring to a particular case just now, I am only anxious to know how these things work. Is it not the duty of the Governor-General to give effect to the request of the Prime Minister in a time of crisis if the Prime Minister wants to test the feelings of the country? What is the position if other people approach him, people who for Imperialistic reasons do not want such a general election to be held?

May I suggest that that question be discussed on Vote No. 4?

I don’t want to put it to the Prime Minister. I know perfectly well how the Prime Minister approaches the Governor-General. I want to know how the Deputy Prime Minister contacts him? We want to know in which way those people advise the Governor-General? The request made by the Prime Minister was not given effect to, but the request made by the Deputy Prime Minister was, and I want to know whether the Deputy Prime Minister has the right to approach the Governor-General and to advise him against the advice given him by the Prime Minister.

I want to bring to the notice of the Government the difficulties which we experience on account of the fact that this vote does not come under any Minister. If we want, for instance, to get information during a session we cannot put our question to a Minister because he can simply say that the matter does not come under him. One cannot get information because it does not come under the vote of any Minister. Now I should like to say something on the Governor-General’s vote. First of all I want to point out to the Government that I am not speaking on this question because I personally am so much in favour of the post; I am talking about it because the Governor-General still has his place today in our Constitution. One would expect that as we are at war, the Governor-General would set an example to the country in economy, but if one looks at the Estimates for 1941—’42 and the Estimates for 1942—’43, one finds that we are voting £24,600 this year whereas last year we only voted £24,100. In other words, an increase of £500. So that instead of setting an example of economy we get an increase of £500 under this vote, but the main reason why I want to speak on this vote is because one would expect, when one has a representative of the King here over the people of South Africa, that he would, as far as possible, have a South African appearance. To show how un-Afrikaans this whole affair is we need only point out that there are two people here with a salary of £300 each, the aides-de-camp. Hon. members will see that an individual is appointed who is a captain in the Sutherland Highlanders. He is the man who is appointed here to an Afrikaans position.

They thought he belonged to the Cape Town Scottish.

Now I want to draw attention to the fact that we are at war and that those captains are badly needed in the war. If people have to be appointed at a time when England is at war, and at a time when England needs its men, why should a captain coming from a foreign country be appointed to the position of aide-de-camp to the Governor-General? I want to ask the Minister concerned, or the person responsible, whether the Governor-General will not use his influence to appoint Afrikaners to those posts as long as we have a Governor-General here? I think the time has come when it should no longer be necessary for us to come here and plead the rights of the Afrikaner in his own country. I want to say again that if the Governor General engages people from other countries to occupy those posts here a very bad example is being set. I want to know why people from other countries are used for those posts, and why our own Afrikaners cannot render those services. As a rule we have a unilingual Governor-General here. The Governor-General we have at the moment is bilingual in a way, but generally speaking we have had unilingual people, and if in addition unilingual people are appointed on his staff, then surely that is wrong? We have an Afrikaans country and we are entitled to ask for the appointment of Afrikaners to those posts. We want to protest most strongly to the appointment of strangers to those positions.

I wish to associate myself with what the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) has said in regard to the appointment of people from outside who do not know our language. We always hear hon. members talk of fifty-fifty, but here we have an example of it. We find that Afrikaners always have to play a subordinate part. I really got up to object to another point. This is war time, the people are taxed, and we are warned that we have to economise. Yet on this vote we find an entertainment allowance of £4,500. Is entertainment going on during war time and are we carrying on as though we were not in the war? People are being sacrificed, the farmer’s products are taken, and here is the Governor-General, who should set us an example, and provision is made for him to have an entertainment allowance. Is that luxury of entertaining people to go on? I think the time has come for this entertainment allowance to be done away with. The Minister of Finance told us that the criticism which we had levelled against the Budget would have been fitting in a time of peace, but that it did not apply to a time of war. If his views are correct we are entitled to say, “Let us put an end to these entertainment allowances.” In England they have gone to the extent of putting a stop to dog racing and similar things. I say let us put a stop here in South Africa to enteratinment and pleasures of that kind. I think the Governor-General can set us the best example in this regard, and I therefore want to move that this vote be reduced by half. I move—

The hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys) moved that the Governor-General’s salary be reduced by £5,000. On the reasons given by him I am not prepared to accept his proposal.

The hon. member for Prieska was quite prepared to give his reasons, but you prevented him from doing so, and now you refuse to accept his proposal. He was giving his reasons when you called him to order. Now we have this position, that an hon. member gets up here to give his reasons and you prevent him, and then you refuse to accept a proposal.

Will the hon. member give his reasons?

I am prepared to give my reasons.

What are the hon. member’s reasons?

One of my reasons is that the people cannot afford at a time like the present to pay this large amount.

If that is the reason then I shall put the amendment.

Let us be quite clear on that; that is not the only reason.

There is just one point which I should like to raise. We have not got our Estimates this year separately in the two languages. In previous years we used to get two sets of Estimates—one in English and the other in Afrikaans. This year we have bilingual Estimates—English comes first and Afrikaans second. Now I should like to know from the Minister what we are to expect next year.

The hon. member cannot discuss “printing” under this vote.

I merely want to put a question to the Minister and it will save time. Will the Minister next year put Afrikaans first and English second? The Budget speeches are made in English one year and in Afrikaans the next. Will the Minister follow the same procedure in regard to the printing of the Estimates?

I am a little inquisitive to hear what the position of the Governor-General is in regard to legal advice. When he requires legal advice, where does he go? I understand that there are Government legal advisers. I would have thought that if there were specific officials, and if the Governor-General requires legal advice he should approach those Government officials to obtain his legal advice. I want to know whether it is within his scope, or whether it is courteous on the part of the Governor-General, to look for advice outside the official channels provided by Parliament? It came to our notice recently through the public Press that the Governor-General in certain cases took legal advice not through the ordinary channels, but from someone who was not an acting judge, and who was not one of the Government’s legal advisers. I assume that there was no remuneration charged for that, but I want to know whether there is a definite practice in regard to this matter, because it is unheard of for legal advice to be taken outside the channels provided by Parliament. I should be pleased to learn from the Minister of Finance what the position is when the Governor-General requires legal advice.

First of all, I want to assure the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) that next year we shall put Afrikaans first in the Estimates and then English. In regard to the increase of the vote, I want to point out that that is more than made up by the amount for leave gratuities which it is necessary to provide for, because a highly placed official will retire during this financial year, and in terms of the law he is entitled to a gratuity. In regard to the appointment of an Aides-de-Camp, this is a personal matter for the Governor-General himself. I am not aware of the case to which the hon. member refers.

Does he pay him out of his own pocket?

No, but the appointment is left to his personal discretion, the same as in the case of a Minister’s personal secretary. Although the State pays for a private secretary, it is left to the discretion of the Minister. Generally speaking, people from this country have been appointed of late.

In the case of a Minister, we can criticise him here if he has appointed the wrong person.

But you can also put questions in this regard. In the instance referred to, the Governor-General has apparently appointed someone not born in this country, but it is a temporary appointment. In regard to the question of legal advice—the Governor-General can use the services of the Government’s legal advisers. If the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) wants to know something more specific in this regard, he should put a question on the Order Paper, or he should raise the matter on the Prime Minister’s vote.

If a Minister appoints a private secretary and we are dissatisfied, We can criticise the Minister and call him to account, but it seems to me that under the vote of the Governor-General there is no one to reply to questions which we may want to put. I am, however, able to answer a few of those questions. Some one has to do it. The hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) raised a question in connection with the appointment of an Aide-de-camp by the Governor-General. The Minister of Finance has advised the hon. member to put that question on the Order Paper. Now, I can tell the Minister of Finance that I did not get the information from a private secretary, but through my office, that the hon. member for Mossel Bay did put such a question on the Order Paper. It says here: “Dr. Van Nierop to ask the Prime Minister …” He put the question to the Prime Minister, but the Prime Minister did not reply. He the reupon asked the one Minister after the other, but he was unable to get an answer to his question. Let me read this question: “To ask whether Capt. Drysdale, of the Argyle and Sutherland Highlanders, had been appointed as Aides-de-Camp to the Governor-General”. I do not think we need ask where this gentleman came from.

Naturally he came from Scotland.

The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Trollip) need not think that the hon. member for Mossel Bay is stupid. Here in Cape Town we have Cape Town Highlanders; we also have Highlanders in Johannesburg, and other regiments with the most peculiar names imaginable. In this case, we know, at any rate, where this captain comes from. Capt. Drysdale is a Scottish Highlander and he was brought from here to the High Veld and appointed as Aide-de-Camp. The next question was whether he was bilingual. I answer at once: “Yes, he is bilingual, he speaks English, and he speaks Gaelic”. The next question was why a South African had not been appointed? In reply to this question, I must say that of course, there is the British connection. There are ladies who attend the Governor-General’s functions, and they, of course, have to be entertained by a true blue Britisher. There are snobs in South Africa; we owe a duty to those snobs, and we have to appoint a man like that. I hope I have now answered those questions to the satisfaction of the hon. member.

I wish to thank the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) most sincerely for the information he has given us.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Geldenhuys put, and the Committee divided:

Ayes—38:

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Boltman, F. H.

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fouche, J. J.

Fullard, G. J.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Hugo, P. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Liebenberg, J. L V.

Lindhorst, B. H.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Naudé, S. W.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Schoeman, B. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Swart, A. P.

Swart, C. R.

Van den Berg, C. J.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Warren, S. E.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: J. J. Haywood and P. O. Sauer.

Noes—58:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Blackwell, L.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, A. S.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Egeland, L.

Faure, P. A. B.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Klopper, L. B.

Lawrence, H. G.

Madeley, W. B.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Pocock, P. V.

Reitz, D.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steytler, L. J.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, M. J

Van der Byl, P. V. G

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Warren, C. M.

Tellers: J. W. Higgerty and W. B. Humphreys.

No, Mr. Chairman, we still have the amendment of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Genl. Kemp).

I moved that this vote be reduced by half.

I ruled that the hon. member cannot move it. He must move such an amendment to the specific item.

I move it to item (c)— Entertainment Allowance. My amendment is as follows—

To reduce the amount by £2,250 from the item “Entertainment Allowance, £4,500.”

I wish to support the hon. member’s amendment, and I wish to give the hon. member the opportunity of writing it out. There is no necessity now to put aside such a large amount for receptions, because these things do not take place on such a large scale today.

Amendment proposed by Gen. Kemp put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—40:

Badenhorst, C. C. E.

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Boltman, F. H.

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fouche, J. J.

Fullard, G. J.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Hugo, P. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Naudé, S. W.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Schoeman, B. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Swart, A. P.

Swart, C. R.

Van den Berg, C. J.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: J. J. Haywood and P. O. Sauer.

Noes—63:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Blackwell, L.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

De Kock, A. S.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Egeland, L.

Faure, P. A. B.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Klopper, L. B.

Lawrence, H. G.

Madeley, W. B.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Poeock, P. V.

Reitz, D.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood. K.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steytler, L. J.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Tothill. H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg. M. J.

Van der Byl, P. V. G

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Warren, C. M.

Tellers: J. W. Higgerty and W. B. Humphreys.

In regard to this vote “Senate” and the salaries of Senators which have to be voted, I want to put a question to the Minister, and I want to know what the Government’s position is in regard to this matter? In terms of the South Africa Act certain qualifications are demanded for elected senators. They have to have certain qualifications at the time of their election and also during the time of their membership of the Senate. Are any steps taken by the Government to ascertain whether the Senators have those qualifications?

It is done at the time of their election.

No, this is the position at the time of their election. The Minister will find this in Clause 26 of the Act of Union on page 135 of the Standing Rules and Orders: A senator is nominated, and the official draws his attention to the fact that he should hold certain qualifications. He makes no statement, however, that he has those qualifications. Under this system a person may be elected to the Senate without having the necessary qualifications. I do not know whether this matter comes under the Department of the Interior and I do not know what investigations are made to ascertain whether senators have the necessary qualifications or not. It has been stated that there is someone in the present Senate who does not possess the necessary qualifications.

That is a question which comes under the Department of the Interior.

Yes, but we are voting the salaries of the senators here and that is why I am putting that question now.

We shall go into it in the meantime.

A subsequent clause, Clause 54, provides that if such a senator loses his qualifications he ceases to be a senator. He has to have those qualifications at the time of his election and he has to continue having those qualifications. My question now is whether anything has been done to ascertain on behalf of the State whether the senators have the necessary qualifications or not? It is absolutely essential that this should be laid down, failing which one may have someone sitting in the Senate who has not got the necessary qualifications. I want to bring this matter to the Minister’s notice because it is contended that there is such a case in the present Senate. I hope the Minister will give the House the necessary information and tell the House what the Government is doing in such cases when senators are elected.

I would like to raise the question of the advisability of discontinuing the publication of Hansard for the coming financial year. This vote for the Senate is £3,000 and for , the Assembly £13,500, £16,500 in all. I am not concerned so much about the expenditure of money as the expenditure in paper. There is an agitation going on all over the country for paper users to economise in the use of paper. I Think this is an item in regard to which it would be to the advantage of the country if we cut out the publication of Hansard. It consumes a tremendous amount of paper. I am not suggesting that a record of the speeches should not be kept; I think that should be continued. But it is the publication of these thousands of copies that I think should be stopped. I hope the Minister will take into consideration the question of expunging this item.

On a previous occasion I discussed the question of the refreshments which were supplied in Parliament, especially so far as fruit is concerned. I want to know from the Minister why the contract has been changed? Last year the Fresh Fruit Board had the contract; they got the fruit from the farmers and supplied it direct to the Government. We had magnificent fruit then. This year the fruit is bad. A new contract has been entered into and I am told that a certain firm has the contract now for the supply of fruit, and that they sometimes supply stuff which is not eatable. One gets pears which are so hard that they have to lie from a week to fourteen days before they can be eaten. For fourteen days, while the farmers have an abundance of fruit, and have no market, we could not get any grapes. The Government does not know where to turn because there is no export of fruit, but we are unable to get any grapes here. Something is wrong. I have even been told that the person who secured the tender used certain influence to get the contract. I think it is time the Government realised what the position is. The fruit is very poor. We have discussed the matter with the manager of the refreshment rooms but he says he cannot do anything to improve the position. He sends for the fruit and he can only serve what he is supplied with.

I hope this suggestion will not be followed. It would make a great difference to the financial position of the firm which has the contract. I have ascertained that the amount of paper used in the printing of Hansard is comparatively small, and what is more, the paper has been specially imported by the newspaper concerned, and they have something like a two years’ supply. The paper cannot be used for anything else.

Why not?

The hon. member is now referring to the Hansard as it applies to this Chamber, and he must wait until the next vote is under consideration.

There is a separate contract for the Senate.

Last year we said that the Senate was unnecessary. I am now going to move the abolition of the Senate again because I know the House will not accept it, but still I want to ask what the Senate is doing today.

Which item is the hon. member speaking on?

Allowances to Senators. The Act of Union has given this House certain rights, and has given the Senate certain rights, and the Senate was intended to attend to certain matters, but the main idea was that the Senate should not have any political parties.

The hon. member cannot discuss that here.

Under what item can I discuss it then?

The hon. member can propose a motion when Mr. Speaker is in the Chair.

Then I also want to say a few words in regard to the second item appearing on this vote, namely, the Parliamentary gardens. We find the tremendous amount of £385 provided here for the upkeep of the Parliamentary gardens. There is talk already of moving Parliament to Pretoria, and if such a large amount of money has to be paid to the City Council of Cape Town for gardens which largely serve for the embellishment of Cape Town, then I can quite understand the agitation that is going on. I think we should ask the City Council to regard the maintenance of the gardens as a matter which concerns Cape Town. In regard to the refreshment rooms I quite agree with the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) that the fruit we get here is not of the best. Export being at a standstill we expect to get good fruit here, but that is not the case. In passing, however, I wish to express my appreciation of the very fine way in which the stewards serve us in the refreshment rooms. They give evidence of the fact that if one appoints Afrikaners to such positions they serve us better than the foreigners we used to have here as stewards. I think we all appreciate their courtesy and their good services.

I wish to associate myself with the view expressed by the hon. member in regard to Hansard. I am sorry he did not make a proposal to reduce the item to a reasonable amount. In regard to item E, Contribution to the Journal of the Imperial Parliamentary Association, I want to move—

Here we have a paper which we fail to see is of any use to the country. There is no news in it. Here and there we get extracts from the speeches made by a few people and I don’t know how those speeches are selected because as a rule they are not the most important speeches of the season. I fail to see any good reason for our paying this contribution of £250. As a matter of fact there are numerous items which could be deleted. We are passing through times when the Minister of Finance is finding it necessary to impose heavy burdens on the population, and we must prove that we are also trying to do everything possible to avoid unnecessary expense. We should economise wherever we can, and I want to ask the Minister whether he is not prepared to delete this contribution so that the country may see that we are making an attempt to curtail our own expenditure to a certain extent.

The question of Hansard has been raised, and may I just say that the Government might have been disposed to leave it to the free vote of the House to abolish Hansard.

Not altogether.

You must do one or the other, but we have after all entered into a contract for a term of years, and I don’t think in practice we could legally escape our obligations by closing down Hansard now. The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) raised an important point when he discussed the question of the qualifications which senators have to possess in terms of the Act of Union, and he asked what steps were taken to see that these provisions were carried out. The matter really falls under the Department of the Interior and my colleague will go into it further, and if necessary he will deal with the matter when his vote comes up for discussion. Then the question of the Parliamentary gardens was also discussed. I only want to point out that the amount which is to be voted here is not only for the gardens but also for a traffic officer.

What has become of the scheme to change this place and to have large garages for motor cars and so on?

I do not know whether this is the appropriate occasion to discuss it. The Minister of Public Works will perhaps be able to give more information when we reach his vote. In regard to the contract for fruit I fear that that is a matter which should be brought to the notice of the Joint Catering Committee. I personally have no complaints in regard to the fruit, but as the complaint has been raised I hope the Committee will give its attention to it. I am not prepared to accept the amendment in regard to the Imperial Parliamentary Journal. I feel that we do get value for the provision that is being made.

The hon. member for Delarey (Mr. Labuschagne) made a very deserving proposal here so far as it concerns himself and some of his friends. He suggests that Hansard should be reduced. I can quite understand that the hon. member wants less Hansard. The trouble with Hansard is that it can be used against one afterwards. I don’t know where the hon. member for Potgietersrust (the Rev. S. W. Naudé) is at the moment, but if I think of everything he has said against a republic which a few years ago was anathema to him I can quite understand that he wants his past to be relegated to the limbo of forgetfulness. The hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) has also said a number of things which make it desirable for Hansard to be done away with so far as he is concerned. They are anxious to get away from the past; they want to forget what they said, and apparently they don’t want to remain consistent in the future either. That is why they don’t want a Hansard. There we have the hon. member for Kimberley, District (Mr. Steytler) as well. He would probably have been a Cabinet. Minister had it not been for Hansard. The hon. member for Delarey also said that there are quite a number of items which can be reduced, so that we might really show that we are trying to economise. The hon. member does not believe in Parliament, and I think it would be a good scheme to reduce certain items, such, as for instance, his salary. As he does not believe in Parliament, he could render a service to the country by dropping his salary. That is an unnecessary expense which we might as well delete.

It seems to me that it is going to be difficult to give any further explanation, because apparently the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) takes great pleasure in making inane remarks and in being unnecessarily offensive. I don’t think that by doing so he is going to earn the £700 which he gets. I don’t believe that I can only be of use to my electors in being here, but in many other respects as well. I am always prepared, so long as I represent them, to look after everyone’s interests to the best of my ability.

Oh, all right, you can keep your £700.

That does not depend upon the hon. member.

I just want to tell the hon. the Minister that I am not speaking for myself, but that I am speaking on behalf of many people who have been here, and who have tried our fruit, and who have said that our fruit is very poor. The Minister is also wrong if he advises us to approach the Catering Committee, because the chief steward has told me that it is the Railways which buy the fruit. They don’t only buy for their own consumption, that is, for consumption on the trains, but also for this House. The chief steward told me that there has been a change in the contract for the supply of fruit, and I should like to know from the Minister of Railways why the contract has been changed, and why we were unable to get grapes for a fortnight? I understand that the contract is held by a man who is hostile to the Fresh Fruit Board. I was here once with the chairman and the secretary of the Fresh Fruit Board, and I asked for grapes, but the catering service could not supply us with grapes. At a time when the farmers have difficulties in disposing of their grapes we cannot get grapes here. I want to know what the position is?

Perhaps I had better explain this matter of the grapes. That is primarily a matter for the catering contractors to go into, but as far as the Railways are concerned, we did try two varieties in the House, and they were both disappointing.

You have such a rotten contractor.

We decided we would wait until the Hanepoot grape, which is the only grape that members seem to like, came in before we began to supply them. As to the question of the contractors, I am not quite sure whether there is anything in that point the hon. member makes; but I shall go into that. The Railways have, in the nature of things, to deal with contractors, and I do not think it can be alleged that the contractors have done badly by the South African Railways up to now. If there is anything in that, I will take it up. In regard to doing business directly with the Deciduous Fruit Board, we find that is hardly practicable, because they do not really market the fruit in the way it is required by the South African Railways.

I agree with the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. Labuschagne) in regard to the abolition of the subscription to the Journal of the Imperial Parliamentary Association. Most hon. members on this side of the House are no longer members of the association, but apart from that I want to ask hon. members opposite whether the six or seven books per year which we get are worth the £250? I think it is a terrible amount to pay for that journal, and I quite agree with the hon. member for Delarey that it does not give a true reflection of what happens in this Parliament. If one reads that journal one finds that it creates a totally wrong impression of conditions in South Africa. I do not want to say it is done deliberately, but it gives a definite misrepresentation of conditions in this country. If, for instance, we take the issue before last we get the impression that there are only one or two members, or at any rate, very few people, who are opposed to the war. We know that the great majority of the white population, or at any rate a large section of the population, are bitterly opposed to the war, and in any case the great majority of the Afrikaans speaking people are bitterly opposed to it, but if one reads this journal one gets the impression that we in South Africa are enthusiastically in favour of the war. It is a propaganda paper for the Empire and we should not continue to pay that amount.

If I correctly understand the Minister of Railways his excuse for the fact that we could not get any grapes here was that people only wanted Hanepoot grapes, and that he therefore waited until the Hanepoot grapes were available. I can assure the House that before the Hanepoots come on the market some of the finest grapes can be supplied by the Fruit Board, grapes like Alphonse, which are a firstclass grape. I admit that those grapes have not got the flavour of the Hanepoot, but it is a very fine and famous grape. Further, there is the Waltham Cross, which also ripens before the Hanepoot, and which is a very fine grape. The Minister’s excuse therefore, is not well founded. I thought that there was not a great deal in the complaint of the hon. member for Swellendam, but now that we have had the Minister’s explanation we have come to the conclusion that the complaint is well founded, and I hope the Minister will see to it that an improvement is brought about.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Labuschagne put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—36:

Badenhorst, C. C. E.

Bekker, S.

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Boltman, F. H.

Bremer, K.

Conradie, J. H.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fouche, J. J.

Fullard, G. J.

Hugo, P. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Schoeman, B. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Swart, A. P.

Swart, C. R.

Van den Berg, C. J.

Van der Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Warren, S. E.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

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

Noes—60:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bell, R. E.

Blackwell, L.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T B.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

De Kock, A. S.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Egeland, L.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Klopper, L. B.

Lawrence, H. G.

Moll, A. M.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pocock, P. U.

Reitz, D.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Warren, C. M.

Tellers: J. W. Higgerty and W. B. Humphreys.

I don’t want to detain the House long, I only want to draw the attention of the House again to the deplorable condition of our library. The deplorable condition of the library is not due to the Librarian, but it is due to the fact that the library is housed in a building which is totally unsuited for the purpose. Not only is it unsuitable for the purpose, but it is a building which is in danger of catching fire, and we have in our Parliamentary library a collection of books of historical value such as we should do our utmost to house properly and preserve most carefully. One does not have to know very much about the necessity of how a library should be protected against fire to realise that the building in which our books are housed is not only unsuitable, but that actually there is a very grave danger connected with the keeping of articles of such great value in it. I need hardly draw attention to the fact that there have been quite a few fires in South Africa lately. Let me refer to the Witwatersrand University, where a very valuable collection of books was lost, and the value of our books is very much greater than that of the Wit. University, and if anything happens to our books we can only call those people who were responsible for the planning of the building to account for it. I should like to know this from the Minister: Plans were designed for a new library and the danger of fire is getting more serious rather than less, and I should like to know whether there is any chance of the plans which were designed being put into operation?

I move—

This is a Bill in regard to which I am sure I shall have the co-operation of the House. It is in the main a consolidating Bill. If hon. members will look at the last schedule they will find that we are proposing to repeal no fewer than 33 laws some of which go as far back as 1884. That will give some indication of the state in which our Excise Law is today. We have thirty three laws of the Cape, Natal, Transvaal and the Union, dealing with excise questions, and these laws have been passed over a period of almost sixty years. I think hon. members will agree that it is high time that we should clean up, shall I say, the confusion which exists in this particular part of our legislation. Consolidation is therefore overdue and this, as I have said, is in the main a consolidating Bill, but it is also an amending Bill, it is not purely consolidating. Certain amendments are proposed to conform with modern practice. The necessity of them will be clear from my statement that some of our legislation goes back to 1884 and other amendments are necessary to obtain better control in the light of the experience obtained. I propose in my remarks at this stage simply to indicate the chief amendment proposed. I said that I hoped, and indeed I was sure, that I would get the cooperation of the House in regard to this Bill. This is not a Bill which raises any party issues, and for the most part I don’t think it is of a contentious nature, but there are members of the House who I think can help me to make this Bill as workmanlike as possible, and on that account it is my intention, if the second reading is passed this evening, to put the Committee stage down for ten days ahead. I do so in the hope that hon. members who have any suggestions to make will put their suggestions on the Order Paper so that we shall have time to consider them before the Committee stage is reached. I propose quite briefly to deal with the Bill according to chapters, and in doing so to indicate the changes in the existing laws which are proposed. The first chapter is chapter 1 which contains definitions used in the rest of the Bill. I think it is only necessary to draw attention to the definition of agricultural distiller which is only applicable as far as the Cape is concerned, and “own use distiller” which is only applicable as far as the Free State and Transvaal are concerned. In each case it is proposed to insert in the definition a qualification to the effect that the person defined by the use of either of these terms must be in possession of a Still on his farm. That will enable us to exercise more effective control in respect of the operations of these two classes of people. Chapter 2 deals with administration. I think that is quite straightforward and needs no comment. Chapter 3 deals with the imposition of duty and Chapter 3 must be read together with Section 1 which gives the details of the duty to be imposed. In this connection perhaps I may say that certain amendments in the schedule and also in some of the parts of the Bill will have to be proposed by me in order to give effect to the proposals in the Budget, but that I do not think we need discuss now. In regard to Chapter 3 I think I need only draw attention to Section 9. At the present moment when any change is proposed in the Budget in the Excise Law the new or increased excise duty forthwith becomes payable in respect of the stocks held by manufacturers, and all types of dealers, that is wholesale and retail. In some cases that really gives us more trouble than it is worth, and it is therefore proposed to give the Minister a certain amount of discretion in regard to the automatic imposition of duties. I think for instance in many cases it will be more convenient for us not to apply the new duty immediately to the stocks held by retail dealers. It gives more trouble than it is worth, and if this clause is adopted we shall have discretion in dealing with the matter. Then Chapter 4 deals with licences, and that, again, must be read with Schedule 3 of the Bill, which gives details in regard to the fee payable for licences and the licensing year. Now here we are proposing certain changes in the existing law. At the present moment licences are issued free to manufacturers of matches, motor fuel, playing cards, pneumatic tyres, in respect of sugar, and the reconditioning of tyre covers, but in the case of other licences a fee of £1 has to be paid. We propose to harmonise the position and to make a fee of £1 payable in all cases. In the same way at present “own use distillers” who exist only in the Transvaal and the Free State, pay no licence, while agricultural distillers pay a licence. We propose imposing a fee of 2s. 6d. in each case. At present there is a good deal of confusion, too, because the period of licences varies from one licence to another. We propose that there should be a uniform licence year from the 1st January to the 31st December. Then I want to draw attention to Section 32 of this chapter. In order to get an agricultural distiller’s licence, the wine farmer must have produced five leaguers of wine at 20 per cent. proof. Now, in this provision we are getting back to the original intention of the agricultural licence. The original intention for the provision of this agricultural distiller’s licence was to assist the legitimate wine farmer to distil for his own use. Today under the law as it stands anyone who owns land planted with a few vines, even in urban areas, is able to obtain such an agricultural distilling licence, and to distil for his own consumption free. On that account we propose this limitation. Clause 21 in that chapter gives the Commissioner discretion to refuse an application either for a new licence or for the renewal of a licence. His decision is subject to appeal to the Minister. There is nothing else calling for comment in that chapter. Then we come to Chapter 5, which deals with the powers of officers. In Clause 28 it is proposed to give Excise officers the right of entry so as to ensure compliance with the law, while Clause 30 gives power to seize excisable goods under certain circumstances set forth. Otherwise there is nothing new in that particular chapter. Chapter 6 deals with the control of breweries, distillers and factories, and sets forth the duties of licencees who fall within these three clauses. There, I think, there is only one point to which it is necessary to draw attention. In the Cape Province today breweries are not allowed to use sugar in the brewing of beer, except for priming purposes—in other Provinces they are so allowed. We propose to bring the law in the Cape into line with the law in other Provinces. Then there is Chapter 7 dealing with the payment of duty and the control of excisable goods. There, again, there is nothing of importance, except that perhaps I should draw attention of members to Section 70, under which we are entitled to appoint what is known as the Government Brandy Board. That Board exists in terms of the old Cape Act of 1909 as a Board of reference for classification. That Board performs certain important duties today. I think I should say that at present certain administrative changes in connection with the Board are under consideration. It is a matter for consideration whether that Board should not be more closely linked up with the Agricultural Department. But that I need not deal with as far as this Bill is concerned. Then Chapter 8 deals with the rebate of Excise duty for certain purposes. Chapter 8 must be read together with Schedule 2 of the Bill. I would in this connection refer to the position in regard to agricultural distillers and own use distillers. At the moment they are allowed duty free 30 gallons of not more than 10 per cent. underproof for their own use, provided these are consumed on the farm. Originally that provision was put into the law for the benefit of the farmer and his employees. Changes of the Liquor Act in the Cape have largely deprived this provision of its original purpose, and we therefore propose to reduce the 30 gallons to 15 gallons. I would remind hon. members that in the so-called good Wine Act of 1940 we empowered the K.W.V. to supply its members with 15 gallons of wine duty free. Provision is made for that to continue as far as members of the K.W.V. are concerned under item 32 of the schedule. Chapter 9 of the Bill deals with cigarettes and cigarette tobacco. I don’t think there is anything new in that to which I need draw attention. Chapter 10 deals with penal provisions and contains the usual penalties. I think, however, I should draw attention to the fact that in Section 90 we propose to allow the Commissioner to recover as a penalty three times the amount of the duty. The only remaining chapter of the Bill deals with a few miscellaneous matters. I do not think there is anything new in them to which attention need be called. I would then repeat that while this Bill is primarily a consolidating Bill, and as a Consolidating Bill I think it very necessary and desirable, it also contains these amendments to which I have referred. I think it follows from what I have said that we cannot go very far into the discussion of this Bill at this stage It is hardly a Bill which lends itself to extensive second reading discussion, but I welcome the assistance of hon. members who want to help us to make such improvements as suggest themselves to the Bill as drafted. I feel therefore that we can best deal with this Bill in Committee and that our consideration at that stage will be most effective if we could get the amendments which hon. members wish to propose put on the Order Paper. I shall therefore give ample time for the Committee stage so that hon. members may have time to consider their amendments.

I wish to congratulate the Minister on the effort which is being made to go into the out-of-date Acts arid to introduce amending legislation such as he has introduced, and I also wish to assure him that whatever help this side of the House can render in connection with this Bill will be rendered. This is what I feel: The wine farmers always say that if any legislation is introduced into Parliament they are asked about it when the Bill is passed, and I think that I agree with that. Now in regard to this Bill I want to admit honestly, although I have not been able to go into it as thoroughly as I would have liked to have done, but I have thought over it in the time at my disposal—there is a good deal in the definitions that will have to be amended in regard to the other laws. I also think that if a definition is laid down it would pay to study the legislation which we have already passed in connection with the Wine Control Act of last year, as well as that of 1924, and in connection with which we naturally will be able to propose amendments at a later stage and see how we can make as good legislation as possible-, so that it will give as little trouble to the wine farmers as possible. I am always afraid if the wine farmer, or if any farmer, is obliged to make a whole lot of returns and to keep books. All hon. members of the House know how difficult it is for a farmer to keep books in regard to these things, especially after he has been working hard all day, but I realise, of course, that there must be proper control. I also realise that there are dishonest people who want to evade the taxes. I therefore feel in regard to this matter that we welcome it. Still, I cannot refrain from talking about a few matters. The first matter I want to raise is in regard to the differentiation there is between the Transvaal, the Free State and the Cape Province. I fail to understand why the farmer in the Cape Province who is a distiller and who makes a living out of the production of wine should be more severely affected than the farmer in the Free State and in the Transvaal who produces peach brandy. This is the position, that certain qualifications are laid down for an agricultural distiller. Certain obligations are imposed on him which are not imposed on the man who distils his peaches and his naartjes. That seems unfair to me and I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister not to differentiate between the two. The wine farmers feel that it is unfair to them that as they have to make their living out of these things they should be made to bear heavier burdens than the people who only distil for their own purposes. I also feel that an effort is now being made—I knew that an effort was to have been made— to try to prevent the illegal distilling of brandy, and I want to assure the Minister that I am not in favour of that. I don’t consider it right that people should distil brandy illegally, and that they should not pay their excise on that brandy, but I feel that one is not going to stop that by allowing the farmer 15 gallons. It is not the 15 gallons which the farmer distils, it is what he stores and what he hides away from the excise officer. Whether you make it fifteen or thirty gallons makes no difference, it is what he distils over and above the 15 gallons. If he wants to carry on an illicit liquor trade he can distil 100 gallons. Then he will hide 70 gallons, and all he will have to do now is to hide away another 15 gallons. You are doing an injustice to those people. They have been getting thirty gallons for a long time, and now to come along and change the quantity, well, heaven only knows why that has been done. It is simply said that fifteen gallons is enough. Many farmers give brandy to their labourers; there are many who have large families and they use it all. I also know that there are farmers who do not use that quantity, but I fail to see why all the farmers should be made to suffer because a few farmers abuse the position. If a reason can be adduced for a reduction in the quantity I shall accept it, but I want to tell the Minister that under the Wine Control Act the right is given to the K.W.V. only to give brandy and wine to its members in exchange for their crop. Probably there are a thousand members or more who have no crop at all. They get no liquor, whereas the bywoner, or the tenant of a farm, can distil fifteen gallons and can keep it or exchange it with the K.W.V. But the position is this—if the hon. the Minister can adduce good reasons why the quantity should be reduced I am prepared to discuss it with the wine farmers. It is true that when the control Act was put through the farmer was allowed to distil fifteen gallons of wine or spirits; he can only get fifteen gallons of either; not of each of them. And now you are going to give him fifteen gallons of brandy. The position is not quite clear because a man may perhaps taken ten gallons of wine and five gallons of brandy, and then he still has to go and distil to get his fifteen gallons. It seems so perfectly easy to make the change. Originally they took thirty gallons which the farmer required. That is an easy quantity to distil. To distil fifteen or twenty gallons will cause trouble. It is provided that a farmer must have at least five gallons of distilling wine in order to be allowed to distil brandy. Peach farmers can distil fifteen gallons of brandy, while the wine farmer must have five gallons of distilling wine, which means about a leaguer of brandy. Why this differentiation? Surely it was the object of the amending Bill to place everything in the Union on a footing of equality? We are entitled to the same privileges as the Transvaal and the Free State. I only want to say this to the Minister, that in the Southern part of the Free State, especially along the Riet River, there are areas where people can farm on a large scale with vines. They are outside the control and there should be a certain degree of control. If it becomes a danger there the wine farmers will be compelled to approach the Government to ask for protection and to extend the control. We cannot have control in one part of the country and let the other part of the country go free. The Minister must not come and tell us that these are old customs. If he does that he must give us back all our old customs. Serious attention should be paid to this matter, and everybody should be subject to the same rules and regulations so far as the distilling of brandy is concerned. I am sure the Transvaal would not begrudge us being placed under the same rules and regulations as the Transvaal itself is under, no more than we begrudge the Transvaal the same rules and regulations as we have. It is a matter of importance to the wine farmers. I know that there has been a lot of talk about the illegal liquor trade, and that there is an idea to put a stop to it. The K.W.V. said that it would try to prevent those things. We assumed that we would do so, and I made a statement here on behalf of the management of the K.W.V. that we were willing to assist. It seems to me that the powers which are being taken here are fairly drastic. I fail to understand why a licence can be taken away if the Minister has a suspicion that something illegal is being done. It should be proved that an individual has done something wrong before he is deprived of his licence, and it should not be done merely on suspicion. I assume the present Minister of Finance will thoroughly investigate a matter and will only act if he thinks it necessary to take action, and only if he thinks that something serious has been done. But he will not always be the Minister in charge. We may get somebody there who is prejudiced against the wine farmer and who does not care what he does.

He himself is an abstainer.

But no, he denies it. The Minister may be doing serious harm if merely on suspicion of something being wrong he suspends a licence. That is going somewhat far, and I think that there should be evidence, and it should be proved that there is something wrong, before a licence is withdrawn. Here, again, as in other instances, people have licences to enable them to carry on business, and a licence should not be withdrawn merely on suspicion. It seems to me that the Department has not taken into account the fact that the Control Act gives the K.W.V. the right to refuse permission to any individual to distil. A permit has to be obtained from the K.W.V. in terms of Act No. 5 of 1924 before a farmer is allowed to distil. This Bill simply provides that if a person gets a licence he can distil. He will not be able to distil unless he first has the consent of the K.W.V. Provision has to be made for that. Then we come to the payment of the Excise. In the past the trade always paid it, and in terms of Clause 51 it seems to me that the farmer may now possibly have to pay the Excise, and that he will then have to get it back from the merchant. If he is refused a licence the applicant can appeal to the Minister of Finance. I think I should have the right to appeal even beyond the Minister of Finance. If the Minister refuses a licence, the individual should have the right to appeal to court. This is what I feel on this matter: That the Minister may act solely on information he has received from his department. The department which gives him the information has already told him that the licence should be refused, and those people will now have to inform him again and advise him again as to how he should act if an appeal is made to him. He may act wrongly. He may ask the applicant to give his reasons, and if the Minister is a man who does not care he may just turn down the appeal. There should be the necessary safety valve and the applicant must have the right to go to court. The personnel of the court are competent to judge on the facts placed before them; they are trained to do so, and they are better able to judge than people who have not had the experience which they have had. It seems to me that an attempt is being made here again to levy excise on spirits which are used for the fortification of wine. That is a thing which the wine farmers are afraid of, because irresponsible people are continually saying that it should be done. I don’t want to go into that aspect of the matter just now and I dont’ want to discuss it. There is no need for me to do so now, but it is provided here that if wine contains more than 40 per cent. of spirits, Excise has to be paid on it. That seems to me to be the thin end of the wedge. We started with the K.W.V. allowing fifteen gallons of brandy to the farmer who can distil another fifteen gallons to get thirty. Now it is proposed to restrict it to fifteen. It is proposed here that wine fortified above 40 per cent. will come under the Excise provisions and that may be the thin end of the wedge. The wine farmers are afraid of legislation which is brought before this Parliament because they feel that every time a Bill is introduced here the position is put very nicely, but in the end, when it emerges from the House, they are dealt some knock-out blow. I therefore feel that we have to be very careful. Now, I want to give the Minister something else to think about. I do not know whether he is aware of the fact that they discriminate against our liquor in South-West Africa. A sales tax of 6d. per bottle is imposed on our wines. If South-West Africa has the right to levy that tax on our liquor, it does not seem fair to me. If we want to levy a tax on the liquor which is consumed there then we have to pay them the money which we receive from such a levy. They do not pay the administration costs in that connection; they get the full tax back, and now they proceed to impose a sales tax on our liquor by which they discriminate against our liquor. That being the case it seems to me that in the circumstances they cannot expect us to help them. I want the Minister to realise that our liquor is being discriminated against as compared with imported liquor. If they impose such a tax on our liquor, beyond the Provincial Council’s ordinary licences, then I fail to see why we should assist them in the way we have been doing so far. This tax acts very unfairly. A tax of 6d. on a bottle of liquor costing 12s. 6d. means nothing, but on a bottle of wine costing 2s. 6d. it means a lot, because it raises the price to 3s.— that seems very unfair. It should be done on a percentage basis in each case. Anyhow, it seems to me that the wine farmers have the right to ask the Government to protect them against those people. If they have to get the tax on the liquor that is consumed, then it seems to me that it is no more than fair that the Government should say that they will not discriminate in this way by means of a sales tax to the detriment of our liquor. Apart from that, there is another matter I want to bring to the Minister’s notice. The Bill provides that if the Minister proposes a tax on liquor the individual must either pay at once or provide security, and if the tax is not agreed to, the security lapses, but I see no provision whereby a man who has already paid will get his money back. That is a gap. I don’t want to go into the Bill clause by clause at this stage. There are the definitions, for instance, where certain matters have to be rectified. It is not necessary for me to mention all those points at this stage. We are willing to look into the whole question during the ten days placed at our disposal and to discuss matters with the department, and if we fail to arrive at an agreement then to put our amendments on the Order Paper so that the Minister can judge. I think that is all I want to say at this stage.

Unfortunately I have not had the opportunity of studying this Bill very carefully, but it seems to me that this Bill, as usual, is aimed at the wine farmer, and that has always been the position. There has been a continuous tampering with the Excise Laws, and every time it has been to the dertiment of the wine farmer. I say that that is the case here again. The Bill provides that a person must have at least five leaguers before he can be allowed to distil, that means one leaguer of brandy. In our area there are many farmers who have less than five leaguers of must, they have four or five leaguers— are those people now to be deprived of their right to distil brandy? Those people have their stills, why are they now to be prevented from doing what they have always done? It has been stated that people are committing illegal acts. If that is so, then the police are there to deal with offenders. The Minister wants to commit an injustice here, in trying to prevent people distilling if they have less than five leaguers of must. Another thing is the 30 gallons of brandy which the people have been allowed for years, and which is now to be restricted to 15 gallons. This is unfair. I have never availed myself of it, but there are others who have used that privilege for their own consumption. Now they are to be curtailed. No, I think the Minister is acting too drastically against the wine farmers. Whenever Excise Bills are introduced it is always the wine farmer who has to suffer. The result has always been that the wine farmer is in trouble, the farmer has always been the sufferer. I hope we shall get the opportunity of going carefully through this Bill when it comes before the House again. The Minister will have to agree to improvements being effected when we ask for them.

I briefly want to draw the Minister’s attention to a matter which was referred to by a previous Minister, namely, that people who have less than five gallons of wine will not be allowed to have a farm still. The Minister, of course, is thinking of the illicit trade, but there are people who are far away from the railway line. They have not got large vineyards, but still they have a bit of land under vines which answers their purpose, and they are perhaps producing four leaguers of must. The only way in which they can benefit is to convert it into brandy, so as to cheapen the costs of transport. Those people are now to be curtailed, and that will certainly not stop the illicit traffic, because, if a man wants to do an illicit business, he will also do it with his wine, and he will do it all the more with wine, because it will be much more difficult for him to transport the larger quantity of wine to the railway line. I want to appeal to the Minister not to hamper those people, and I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) in his request that the Government should not differentiate between the liquor producing districts and the other districts. In regard to the 15 gallons of brandy which the farmers are allowed, it was stated clearly before the Select Committee that our idea was that the farmers should be allowed to get 15 gallons from the K.W.V. The man has a free choice. He is allowed to distil 30 gallons as he used to do, and I want to ask the Minister to leave it at that. I also want to say a few words about the adulteration of liquor. There is a clause providing that if 40 per cent. of water is added to the liquor the individual adding this water is guilty of an offence, and the liquor may be confiscated. But is not a fine to be imposed as well? I know of a case where water was added to liquor. It was published in the Press in January that a hotel proprietor had adulterated whisky with 50 per cent. of water, and he was fined £2. We have had instances of adulteration of milk by the removal of the butter fat, and the individual concerned was fined £1 10s., while another one, who had stolen bottles, was fined £5. In regard to the adulteration of liquor, I believe two officials have been appointed to control this matter. These people are overworked. They cannot attend to all the work, and yet, if a man contravening the Act is caught, he is fined £2 and less for having adulterated good liquor by adding 50 per cent. of water. Now it is proposed that the liquor shall be confiscated. A man may perhaps adulterate a couple of bottles. Naturally he is not going to keep his shelves full of adulatrated stuff, so what is the use of simply confiscating it? I should like it laid down that a fine of at least £15 or £20 will be imposed, so that those people will be a little more careful in future. This is very important legislation, and I assume that our Excise laws will not be tampered with again for many years to come. I assume the Government is not anxious to introduce a long Bill like this again in the near future, and that is why we should be most careful, and why we should study this measure very thoroughly.

I do hope the Minister is going to stand firm on this question of the fifteen gallons. This question was debated very fully at the time when we examined this Good Wine Control Bill. That Bill was passed on the report of the Wine Commission, which sat in 1935. It was felt by that Commission that there was a lot of illicit traffic going on, and I am going to refer to that report, because I think it just as well to remind the House of one or two passages in that report. An interesting point in connection with that report is the reference to the number of agricultural distillers. At the time the report was issued there were 3,195 agricultural distilllers in the Cape Province, and 865 in the Transvaal and Orange Free State. When you come to analyse the quantity which they produce, namely, 46,339 gallons, only .6 of that was Class A spirit. Class B spirit was also .6, while of Class C, the worst type of spirit, 45,776 gallons representing 98 per cent., was produced. The greater portion of that 98.8 per cent. of this Class C spirit found its way into the illicit trade.

That is not the case today.

No, I agree. Not to the same extent that prevailed in 1935. Since the Good Wine Act has been passed a great deal of that has been eliminated. Let me draw the attention of the Minister to the recommendations of that Commission—

My friend the hon. member for Swellendam points out how very easy it is for a man to say he has only produced 30 gallons, when he has hidden away the other—

The recommendation of that Commission was that the present allowance of 30 gallons of brandy be abolished, and 15 gallons only be allowed. Now, sir, that Commission thoroughly investigated the matter, and I am very pleased that the Minister has accepted the recommendation of this Commission. Another thing I want to bring to the notice of the Minister is the fact that I am sorry he is going to allow this distillation from fruit to be continued. I think if the Minister goes into the question he will find that more evil results from distillation of fruit than even from the product of the vine. I was hoping that the Minister would cut that out altogether, and only allow distillation of the products of the vine. The Transvaal farmer alone is allowed to distil spirits for his own use from grapes, and also from prescribed fruits grown by him on his farm. This latter right is not conceded to the farmer in the Cape Province. I am sorry, indeed, that the Minister has seen fit to continue to allow this, because it has caused a tremendous amount of illicit traffic, especially in the Transvaal. Let us keep control of our wine production and of our wine in this country. There is a tremendous discrimination in favour of the Transvaal, for whereas here in the Cape Province there is a limit to distillation for the farmer’s own use, in the Transvaal there is practically no limit on distillation of the products of the wine and also of fruit. There are facilities in the Cape which enable brandy to mature for several years, and thereby you get a decent product. These facilities are not available at these private stills, and no man is going to tell me that the farmer is going to drink a Class C brandy himself when he can exchange it for a good brandy, which he can obtain from the K.W.V. No, sir, that Class C spirit is produced very largely for the illicit traffic in this country, and I want the Minister to exercise all possible control over its production.

I wish to associate myself with what the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Warren) has said when he urged the Minister not to interfere with the rights and privileges which the wine farmers have today. The wine farmer in the past had the right to distil 50 gallons of brandy. We find that that has been reduced to 15 now; we are continually interfering with the rights of the wine farmer. That seems to be the principle laid down. I want to ask the Minister to reconsider the tax on spirits used for the fortification of wine. This, again, is a principle to impose a fresh burden on the wine farmer. I notice that the Minister is allowing a rebate in respect of all brandy kept for three years. Every year there is a rebate of 1s. per gallon on brandy which has been kept for three years. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that the longer the brandy is kept the better its quality becomes, and I want to ask him in Committee to consider lengthening the period to at least ten years. I don’t know whether the Minister is aware of the fact that the longer brandy is kept the better its quality becomes, and we should set ourselves out, as we have to compete with liquor from overseas, to make our South African liquor as good as we possibly can. I want to ask the Minister to grant the rebate on brandy that is kept for at least ten years.

I wish to express my appreciation to the manner in which this Bill has been received, and I particularly want to thank the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) for his willingness to help in further improving the Bill. I think it is clear from the discussion that I was right when I said that we would be able to discuss the various points better during the Committee stage. The hon. member for Swellendam said that the farmers got scared when a Bill of this kind was introduced, and the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Wolfaard) said that we should study the Bill very carefully. Well, we are putting our cards on the Table in regard to this Bill. So far as we are concerned no attempt is going to be made to push the Bill through Parliament in a hurry. We are going to give it ample time and we shall welcome any suggestions to improve the Bill. Consequently, most of the points raised here this evening can be discussed more effectively when the House is in Committee. So far as the main point is concerned, however, the reduction of 30 gallons to 15 gallons—I hope the House will be prepared to accept the proposal contained in the Bill so far as that point is concerned—that question has been thoroughly investigated and considered. The hon. member for Queenstown (Mr. van Coller) quoted from the report of the Commission which enquired into the subject and the facts mentioned in that report have given many of us food for thought. All we want to do in this Bill is to give effect to the recommendations. I feel that the time has come when we should no longer delay in dealing with the matter and I hope that so far as this proposal is concerned the provision contained in the Bill will meet with the approval of the House.

As we explained during the second reading debate, we are definitely opposed to this Bill. The principle is contained in the first clause, namely, that the Germans whom we really asked to accept naturalisation are now again to be declared aliens. We pointed to the injustice of this matter and we pointed out that the Government by this Bill was going to do considerable harm to South Africa’s fair name. We are opposed to it. I tried by moving an instruction to the Committee to get another matter included in the Bill, but Mr. Speaker ruled me out of order. I wanted to include that if these people are denaturalised others should also be denaturalised, but I cannot proceed with that because Mr. Speaker has ruled it out of order. We have opposed the principle of this Bill, but I now want to give the Minister of the Interior the opportunity of considering the matter in a different light and of adopting a different attitude, namely, this—don’t make a general rule, do not say that all these people are to be automatically denaturalised. We want to give the Minister the right to consider every matter on its merits. We consider it quite unfair to treat the whole lot of those people alike. Those people were years ago granted the right of citizenship, and now the Minister, by a stroke of the pen, wants to wipe out everything that has been done, he wants to deprive them of the rights they have obtained as citizens, and he does not want to take into consideration the question whether a man who has been denaturalised has turned out to be a good citizen of this country or not. If there are Germans who are hostile to the Union then I want to say that there are also numbers of others who are not hostile. Our objection is that the Minister wants to mete out the same treatment to all of them. I want to move an amendment which will test the Minister’s bona fides and which will show whether he only wants to declare those people who are hostile to the Union to be aliens. As the Bill now reads it provides that certain people, namely, Germans, who used to be domiciled in South-West Africa, and who were specially naturalised in 1924 and 1928, and to whom special citizen’s rights were granted, are all to be declared aliens and are to be deprived of their citizenship rights. Now we want to propose that the Minister should have the right to denaturalise any of these people if an individual comes under the provision of the original Act and constitutes a danger to the State. There is a clause in the Principal Act in regard to the British nationality and naturalisation and status of aliens, namely Clause 7, which provides that a certificate of naturalisation can be withdrawn by the Minister by order if the individual has committed certain offences, for instance if he has been sentenced for high treason or unlawful trading or communication with the enemy and so on. In this Bill the Minister assumes further powers and he adds that an individual can also be denaturalised if he promotes the interests of a foreign state at war with His Majesty, or if he acts to the detriment of the interests of the Union. I want to move the following amendment—

The clause will then provide that any individual who has been naturalised under the special Act under which Germans have been naturalised will lose his certificate of naturalisation if he comes under any of the provisions of Clause 7, and if he has been guilty of any of the offences set out in Clause 7, and the certificate of such a person can also be withdrawn if he has been guilty of the offences falling under the new addition which the Minister has proposed in this Bill, namely if he renders services to the enemy, or does anything to the detriment of the interests of the Union. The Minister will be able to denaturalise such individuals. In other words, the guilty ones can then be punished, but those who are not guilty, who have become citizens of the State and who comply with all the requirements of a Union National, will not come under the provisions of the Act. The Minister has told us that he has heaps of documents to show that certain people have done subversive work or are hostile to the Union. Very well, if he has all that evidence, he can deprive the guilty persons of their naturalisation by issuing an order. He will then be punishing the people who are guilty, but he will not be affecting the innocent individuals who have lived in South-West Africa, and who today are perhaps living in the Union and who have become good and loyal citizens of the country in every respect. He will not be depriving them of their citizenship. I think the Minister should meet us on an important question of principle like this. The Minister says that he has all the information at his disposal in regard to certain individuals who are hostile to the Union, and who have been guilty of sebversive activities. Under my amendment the Minister can deprive them of their citizenship, but not those who are not guilty. The whole of our case is founded on the ground that the Minister, or rather the previous Government, has granted rights of citizenship to a number of people while today he wants to deprive them of their citizenship without having good reasons for doing so. If he has reason to deprive certain people of their rights of citizenship, let him do so, but don’t deprive people of their rights without any reason.

I support the amendment and I also want to make an appeal to the Minister to adopt a reasonable attitude. I want to remind the Minister that the implications of the clause are that people who were in the service of the Government for 25 years or 27 years and who go on pension, are now suddenly robbed of their pensions.

No.

I personally applied to the department for the grant of a pension to one of the people who is entitled to it under the agreement which we entered into in 1924, and the reply of the Prime Minister’s department was that they could not or would not pay the pension. Must such a breach of faith now be committed towards these people? There are people who were in the service of the Union for 20 years, and you are now going to rob them of this pension, all of a sudden. I believe that the laws of the country also say that if you are a foreigner, the State cannot pay money over to you. Is it not the law or regulation at the moment that money cannot be paid out to a foreigner? Will the Government not fall under that too? I beg the Government to discontinue this scandalous course which they have adopted. There are a number of these people whose pensions will be affected. In the one case of which I am talking, the person was entitled to two different portions of his pension, the first which he earned under the German Government and the other relating to his service under the Union Government. He did not enter our service without having been asked by our Government to come in. All these years he has done important work, and are we now going to commit a breach of faith?

When did he make application?

Last year in July he had to get the pension automatically, and when it was refused we asked why it had been refused.

What has it to do with the Bill if it already happened last year?

This is another scandalous thing, that it was done in anticipation knowing that the Bill was going to follow. I want to ask the Minister, if South Africa were today to be placed in the circumstances in which Malaya was placed for six weeks, would he then have come forward with this Bill? Would he then have introduced such a Bill if South Africa had today been placed in such a position?

I am not afraid of threats.

It happened there. They ran away and are still running. Today the Government of Java fled to Australia.

And you are rejoicing about it?

I am not rejoicing about it at all, but it is your fault that South Africa is today in this position. South Africa is in this critical position as a result of the action of hon. members on the other side, and especially the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, District (Mr. Hayward), who is one of the people who left his nation in the lurch. But that does not concern the debate at all. I want to confine myself to the matter under discussion. The Minister says that he is not afraid of threats. Now, all of a sudden, he is a hero; he can act like a great man towards those people. It is very easy, very cheap to be so courageous and then to say that you are not afraid of threats. I am not threatening the Government. If they feel that they are being threatened then they are being threatened by something from outside. But I say that for the sake of propriety and fairness the Government ought to abandon this scandalous course. If there are people with dual nationality, and they commit certain misdeeds which they should not do, then it is time enough to act. What I say here is not a threat. We are looking facts in the face. We know that the Government is not fighting for South Africa, not even for Britain any longer; they are now fighting to perpetuate communism in the world. These are facts. If that happens, what nationality will the Minister then have? Then he will no longer have any nationality at all. It is the Minister who threatens these people. He wants to deprive them of their rights, and I ask him to return to a reasonable attitude. What you want to do is not right. There is not a semblance of justice in it. It is an injustice. Give it up.

This amendment of the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) is a real effort to help the Minister. At the second reading the Minister quoted certain extracts from letters from people who became South African subjects under the laws of 1924 and 1928, letters of such a nature that he says that these people no longer deserve to be citizens of the Union. He is now seeking powers to deprive them of their Union citizenship. We on this side of the House have not the slightest objection to a person being deprived of his Union citizenship who makes himself guilty of acts which render him unworthy of being a Union citizen. We have not the slightest objection against the Minister wanting to apply that principle further. I cannot now speak about the extension of the application of the principle, because it has been ruled out of order, but if he also wants to deprive the large number of other people of their Union citizenship who are also unfaithful in respect of their Union citizenship, and who have a divided loyalty, he will receive our hearty support. But he now deals with a certain number of people only. The hon. member for Cape Town, Castle (Mr. Alexander), pointed out to the Minister that he has that power under Section 7 of the principal Act. Under that he has the right to withdraw any certificate of naturalisation if the holder of the certificate falls under any one of the provisions of Section 7. Later, in the Act of 1928, provision was made that any person who was naturalised under the Acts of 1924 or 1928 will be regarded, for the purposes of the principal Act, as having been naturalised under the principal Act. May I just quote this to him in English, because the other evening the Minister apparently did not quite follow the argument in Afrikaans; it did not quite penetrate his brain. The clause reads—

That was the argument of the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle)—and I did not want to interfere in the brotherly dispute between him and the Minister—that the Minister already possesses all the powers which he needs, and if he was right, the Minister has the full right, under Section 7 of the principal Act, to deprive those people who are guilty, of their certificate of naturalisation, to withdraw the certificate. He can withdraw the certificate in all those cases where people are found guilty. If a person is found guilty of having obtained the certificate under fraud or false pretences, if he is guilty of high treason, of rebellion, or violence, or of unlawful trade or intercourse with the enemy, the certificate can be withdrawn. It is sufficient to single out every guilty person. But if the Minister is not certain as to whether the argument of the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) is correct, then the hon. member for Winburg moves an amendment which places the matter beyond all doubt. Under the amendment it is quite clear that the Minister has the power under Section 7 of the principal Act, to deprive any guilty person of his naturalisation. Now we ask the Minister to accept that. It is a test of his sincerity and his honesty. If it is really his object only to single out the guilty people by means of this Bill, he would accept the amendment. But if it is all the same to him, whether guilty or innocent people are singled out, then he will refuse to accept the amendment, because then he will insist on Clause 1 of the Bill, which not only singles out the guilty people, but also all the innocent people. That would mean that all those people who were automatically naturalised under the Acts of 1924 and 1928, would lose their civic rights. The Minister himself admitted that not only these people are bad Afrikaners. He said that there were some of them who did the wrong things. But whether these people behaved themselves as good Afrikaners or as bad Afrikaners, the Minister deprives them all of their rights. For that reason we are so opposed to this measure, and move the amendment which gives the Minister all the power which he requires, without having to commit an injustice. We shall protest against this injustice with all the fibre of our beings. We protest not so much for the sake of the Germans who are being treated unjustly, but we protest against it for the sake of the good name of South Africa. Here is the test for the Minister. He can show that he only wants to single out the guilty people by accepting the amendment. If he does not accept it, then he is adopting the attitude that he wants to treat innocent and guilty alike. We want to give him the opportunity of having the power which he requires, but not in respect of innocent people. We give him the power, even without any appeal. We want to take the risk that he will exercise that power in such a way that it is not a discredit to him. We are prepared to do that, but then the Minister must meet us, and not place this blot on our Statute Book.

I also want to ask the Minister to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Winburg. I must say that I personally do not believe that the Minister will accept it. But the Minister simply cannot reply to these arguments. I believe, however, that the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) is too optimistic, because I feel that this Bill is being introduced in order to persecute people. Whatever we may say, it will not deflect the Minister from his plans. But we protest against the Bill because we belong to a section of the people which has not been treated in the best manner in the past, and we feel that a great injustice is being committed here. The hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) said that the Minister is dealing here with people of whom a section have become good Afrikaners, and he wants to treat them all alike now. We want to go further, and we point out to the Minister that he is depriving people who are good Afrikaners of their nationality, and that he is allowing those people who are poor Afrikaners, people who are prepared to fire at their own people, to retain it. Those Germans who are prepared to take up arms against their own blood retain their nationality. I want to ask the Minister to abandon this Bill. When he introduced the Bill, he said that he was not out to hit the innocent people if we could show him a way whereby he would not have to treat them all alike. He said that he would be prepared to meet us if we could point out to him some way of not getting at those people who did no harm. We now propose an amendment whereby those people who want to remain Afrikaners and who sincerely want to live up to Afrikaner principles, and who want to study the interests of the country, will be able to retain their civic rights. We propose that, and we enable the Minister to deprive those people who act against the interests of the country, of their civic rights. The amendment of the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) does not ask that these people should remain Union citizens. He says: Give the Minister a chance to go into the merits of the case, and not deprive these people en masse of their nationality. The hon. Minister is not known in the country as an impartial person, but if it is possible this evening, I want to make an appeal to the Minister, for the sake of those people who are in the minority, to give those people who had a right to protection by the Union Government a chance, and to treat them reasonably, as he would have treated his own people if they had been in the minority. The hon. Minister said this evening that he was not going to be frightened by threats. But I want to tell the Minister that there is something like a wheel which revolves, and that a time may arrive when the hon. Minister, or the race to which he belongs will be in the minority, and will be placed in the same position as these people. I want to ask the Minister not to create a precedent, whereby the Minister and his people can be treated in the same unmerciful way in which he is now treating these Germans. When you speak of these Germans, you are not talking of a barbaric nation. You speak of a people who occupy a foremost position in the world; you speak of people who have done much for civilisation. I want to make an appeal to the Minister, almost in despair, to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Winburg, if he wants to make a desperate effort to win the war.

To give the hon. Minister an example of the implications of this Bill of his, one can refer to sub-section (3) of Section 1. It lays down—

I shall be glad if the hon. Minister will give me his attention.

I am listening.

Then that woman will not have the right which she has under Section 12 of Act No. 18 of 1926, of making a declaration to the effect that she wants to remain a British subject. The general principle is laid down in the 1926 Act, that the wife of a British subject in the Union is regarded as a British subject, and that the wife of a foreigner in the Union is regarded as a foreigner. In other words, it is not only those people who were automatically naturalised in 1924 and in 1928 at our invitation—but also their wives, who are now being deprived of their nationality. That section has the first proviso for the ordinary foreigner. There is this proviso that when, during the existence of his marriage, a person ceases to be a British subject, his wife may make a declaration that she wants to remain a British subject, and thereupon she shall be regarded in the Union as remaining a British subject. That is the first proviso and it is the first proviso which is now being taken away.

But the second remains.

I am talking about the first proviso. I now want to put this example to the Minister. When you have an Afrikaans girl who is married to one of those people who were naturalised under the 1924 or 1928 Acts, she accepted the nationality of her husband and became a Union citizeness. But if her husband is now denaturalised, he becomes an alien, and then the first proviso is not applicable to her. Then it means that that Afrikaans girl is now regarded as a foreigner, because she is the wife of a foreigner. It is not only a question of injustice towards these particular people whom we invited to accept citizenship in 1924 and 1928, but it is also an injustice towards those married women who are altogether innocent, who were formerly Afrikaans citizenesses; they are also being deprived of their Afrikaans citizenship. One really feels that this is a violation of every principle of justice and propriety. The hon. Minister, by means of this third sub-section, goes beyond the limits which one would expect even in a barbaric state, by depriving people who were born in South Africa and who grew up here, people who know no other fatherland or who share no other loyalty, of their firstborn right by one stroke of the pen, and declaring them foreigners. I do not know whether the hon. Minister appreciates the implications of his Bill, but that is the implication. I do not want to utter threats, but I want to tell the hon. Minister that we shall stand by him in order to give him the power to single out the guilty people, but if he persists in this course, he must not be surprised if the people rebel against this violation of every principle of right and justice, and if they say that a Minister who does such things is no longer qualified to he a Minister of the country. I want to move, as an amendment to sub-section (3) the following—

In other words, that the first proviso to Section 12 of the principal Act should be applicable to the wives of people who are being deprived of their citizenship by this Bill.

I should like to support the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) and for the same reasons advanced by him. I notice that the hon. member for Parktown (Mrs. L. A. B. Reitz) is not here this evening. I remember a previous occasion in 1939 when we discussed in this House the Bill on the registration of aliens, and there was a clause in that Bill which provided that wives should also fall under the provisions of that law, and then it was the hon. member for Parktown who was particularly energetic in preventing that wives should also fall under the provisions of that Bill. At that time we made no secret of the fact that we were in favour of that law, because of the undesirable alien who entered South Africa, and more particularly a large number of Jewish immigrants, and it was on account of the Jewesses who were aliens in South Africa, that the hon. member for Parktown particularly exerted herself at that time, and with success. The predecessor of the hon. Minister then accepted the amendment of the hon. member for Parktown, and as a result of that amendment which she moved, there is now a provision in the Aliens Act which reads as follows (Section 20 (d) of Act No. 26 of 1939)—

1. (1) if she resides permanently in the Union and (2) if she was born of a British subject or as a national of the Republic of the Orange Free State, or of the South African Republic, or as a Union national in any part of South Africa which forms part of the Union: Provided that if the Minister deems it necessary in the public interest, he may give notice in writing to any such woman that he withdraws the exemption conferred by this paragraph, and thereupon such woman shall cease to be exempted.

The hon. Minister is nodding his head and admits that what I am saying here is correct. Here the principle was accepted, accepted on the plea of a lady member of this House, although we did not want it to be applicable, and the principle was accepted that that Act would not be applicable to a South African woman who is married to an alien. I know what the Minister is going to say. He is going to say “If she permanently resides in the Union.” But the Act says that this law is also applicable in the mandated territory of South-West Africa. That Act, therefore, was as much applicable to SouthWest Africa as to the Union. We want to ask the hon. Minister, since his predecessor was only too willing to grant that concession to women who were married to aliens—often to a type which was an undesirable type in the country—and since we are dealing here with people with whom we made an agreement, and who are possibly married to Afrikaner women, also to apply the principle in this case which was applied in the Aliens Act. The principle was introduced by a former government, and that is precisely the principle for which we plead, that the South African women who are married to these men should not be prejudiced by the fact that this measure is applied to them, and we hope that the Minister will be prepared to accept the amendment.

I want to make an earnest appeal to the hon. Minister this evening and ask him to consider at least to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) as well as the amendment of the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges). I want to ask the Minister to take into consideration the fact that we already have so many troubles in the country. We have Afrikaans speaking and English speaking people who get along with difficulty. In this Bill we are again dragging in another section of the community. The hon. Minister must understand that if we now take the step proposed by him, then he can expect to create bitterness which will create a third problem in the country. I want to make an appeal to the hon. Minister, and I do not want to say, as did the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop), that I do so in despair. I believe that the Minister himself feels the injustice of the measure which he is sponsoring this evening and in respect of which he will have to accept patrimony in future. I remember that the hon. member expressed his opinion to me personally shortly after we entered this war, and he said that he hoped that we would do nothing in this war to incite the feelings of one section against another section. The Minister is in a position this evening of being able to do something in connection with that opinion which he expressed at the time. If the Minister really feels that there are Germans in South-West Africa who are abusing their civic rights, or the privileges which they enjoy as citizens of the Union, I want to ask him to deal with each case on its merits, and not to denaturalise these people en masse,’ thereby showing the world that he is engaged here simply in wreaking vengeance upon a small group of people who are in the minority and are members of a great and powerful nation, because he cannot do so on the armed forces of that nation. The Minister will benefit South Africa; he will benefit the Afrikaans and the English speaking sections of South Africa if he displays that generosity this evening by saying: I can well appreciate that such a small section of a nation which is involved in a great struggle against us can perhaps not be expected to join the army, but as long as they acquit themselves calmly and peacefully I am prepared to leave them in peace and to consider their attitude. If there are people who do anything whereby they forfeit their rights, they can be brought before the ordinary courts of the country to give an account. The amendment does make provision for that. If any one of these people abuse their rights, then the Minister has the fullest right—and according to that amendment there are not even limits imposed on him. We leave the responsibility in his hands without restriction to take action, but we ask that he should save us from that further blot on the history of this country, and that he should think two or three times before committing this injustice. The hon. Minister can get everything that he wants. Why offer this great insult to those people?

Only a person who is in the position in which the Afrikaans speaking section of the people stood, and are still standing today, can realise what the Minister is doing; but as hon. members said to the Minister just now, he must remember that we are living in a world which is changing very quickly. We are living in a world where the man who is on top today is the under dog tomorrow; and the hon. Minister must not cause more trouble than is necessary. I want to make an appeal to the Minister—and I hope that for his part he will adopt that generous attitude, since we approach him with a reasonable request—to accede to that request. We ask that he should not do this great injustice to these people.

When we dealt with this Bill on the occasion of the second reading, I tried to explain the attitude of this side of the House. The hon. Minister wants to do a great injustice to the Germans by means of this Bill. He expects them to join the army in order to get exemption from the provisions of the Act. But I want to remind the hon. Minister that blood is thicker than water. If the Minister passes this Bill, he cannot expect other nations to regard us with respect. At the second reading I also made a serious appeal to the Minister. What is proper; what is generous in a nation? Propriety demands truth. Generosity demands that you should not do an injustice to others, and that you should not manifest a spirit of cowardice. Is it fear which the hon. Minister manifests by introducing this legislation? Is it the case, as I recently put it, that the Government is suffering from neuritis, from a nervous disease as a result of the war position, so that, by applying this legislation they now want to go so far as to commit an injustice; and against whom? Guilty people? No. It is because we are at war with the fellow countrymen of these people that this legislation is now being passed. It was as a result of our own choice that we are now on terms of enmity with them. We in this country would like to have the right of existence, but it seems that we begrudge other people the right to exist. I want to associate myself with what has been said by previous speakers on this side of the House in regard to this Bill. I am not a lawyer. The hon. Minister is a lawyer, and he ought to know that this legislation is tantamount to a cruel injustice. This legislation is now to be applied to foreigners who became subjects of the Union, not by their own choice, but as a result of our appointment as mandatory of that territory; and on the ground of a sacred agreement, which we entered into with the German people as mandatory We are dealing here with the honour of our own people. One should never trample upon anyone who is down. It is the most cowardly act which anyone can commit to break a person who is in his power. That is what a bulldog does when it has a small terrier under it. I want to make an appeal to the hon. Minister to accept this amendment of the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) and of the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart); let us incorporate it in this Bill, that anyone who makes himself guilty of contravening the laws of this country, can be denaturalised within the discretion of the Minister. Let every case be dealt with on its own merits, but do not denaturalise en masse these people, some of whom are innocent. I hope that the hon. Minister will consider this, so as to let right and justice prevail.

Mr. Chairman, Clause 1 of this Bill has received the most careful consideration of the Government, and I can assure hon. members that it has not been introduced lightly. It is of a far-reaching nature, it is an extraordinary remedy, and it is designed to meet an extraordinary situation which has arisen. I fail completely to understand the sensitiveness of hon. members opposite in regard to a number of persons who were formerly German nationals living in the territory of South Africa, who have patently abused the hospitality they were given by the Union Government in terms of the London Agreement.

What about those who became good South Africans?

I agree with the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. Labuschagne) when he says that in these days one does not want to do anything unnecessarily which might be calculated to inflame feeling, but let me remind my hon. and good friend again that that comes strangely from his mouth, when he is a member of a party which has promised us, in advance, that if they ever get into power they will take away the rights of persons who sit on this side of the House; they have said that quite openly. They have a sensitive regard for a number of former Germans in South-West Africa who have been actively working against the interests of the Union and employing themselves as Nazi agents, while on the other hand they tell us in advance that they are going to perpetrate on a number of Afrikaners in this country the grossest and gravest injustice when they get into power; they are going to deprive Afrikaners of their votes, while at the same time they say we must not touch former Germans in South-West Africa, who, in time of peace and in time of war, have failed to render their obligations to the State which has given them a home and given them hospitality. Hon. members opposite fail completely to have regard to the circumstances under which we are acting. The Union Government has been patient for a number of years. My hon. friend should read the report of the Van Zyl Commission, and they will realise that even when that Commission reported in 1935 the position was very grave, indeed, in SouthWest Africa. A case was made out by that Commission to show that the vast bulk of those who had assumed British nationality by automatic naturalisation had not been prepared to fulfil their obligations. Since then the evidence which has come into the hands of the Government had made the picture more complete. We have a large amount of evidence to show that these automatically naturalised Germans within the German Bund, and similarly within the Nazi Party, were conspiring with German officials in South-West Africa, to the detriment of this country. Much of this evidence I say has only come to light since the war. We had not that in our possession beforehand, otherwise the Union Government would have been in a position to take stronger representations to the German Reich at the time. But the evidence is quite complete now, and the complicity between high German officials in Germany and in the territory in South-West Africa with those Germans who were automatically naturalised. A great number of the persons for whom my hon. friends opposite are now pleading are at present in our internment camps, and apparently they do not resent being there. They pride themselves on being supporters of the Reich. Where I have, on occasion, attempted to segregate them with Union nationals, Afrikaners in the ordinary sense of the word, born South Africans, they have repeatedly protested, they have said: “We are not Afrikaners; we are Reich Germans, and we always have been. We are not going to be segregated with Union nationals. We want to be amongst our own people.” I can tell hon. members opposite that one of the highest forms of punishment one can inflict upon these Germans from South-West Africa is to send them temporarily to a Union national internment camp, a camp where there are South Africans. These representations have been made to me personally.

They don’t want to be amongst strangers.

These are the persons whom the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) said the other night had become Afrikaners. My hon. friends are shedding these tears for these strangers who have not only failed to assimilate themselves to South African conditions, but who have been actively engaged in trying to subvert our Constitution and the whole system under which we are governed.

Would you rather be interned with Afrikaans speaking South Africans than with English speaking South Africans?

These people are complaining that they are segregated from their friends. One of them told me he had been a gauleiter in South-West Africa, and he did not want to suffer the indignity of having to live next to a number of persons that he has been in charge of in South-West Africa. My hon. friends are wasting their sympathy on a cause which does not deserve the oratory they have expended on it. These people were naturalised en bloc, which resulted in the creation of this dual nationality. The Government has now decided once and for all to do away with this dual nationality and it is proceeding to do so by the provisions of Section 1 of the Bill. I want to admit that the method advocated by the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) in his amendment could be adopted in terms of the 1927 Act. I do not admit that the 1927 Act if unamended would enable the Government to deal with these people. But the hon. member’s amendment would make it clear. On the other hand even without the hon. member’s amendment, as a result of Section 3 of this Bill, that could be done. Because although I am sorry that the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) thinks that I did not understand his argument the other night, because he was speaking in Afrikaans, perhaps it may be possible that as I was replying in English he did not follow my argument. The position is perfectly clear that Section 2 of the 1928 Act provides that any persons automatically naturalised under the 1924 or the 1928 Act shall be deemed persons to whom a certificate of naturalisation has been granted for purposes of the 1926 Act. The 1926 Act recognises certificates granted under the 1926 Act and under prior Acts. And it is quite clear if my hon. friend will go into it more closely, these persons, the automatically naturalised Germans in SouthWest Africa, are deemed to be persons to whom certicates of naturalisation were issued under a prior Act, and then under Section 3 of the 1926 Act the Minister can only denaturalise a person naturalised under the prior Act if he was absent for seven years from the Union, or was guilty of fraud. Under Section 7 of the Act provision for denaturalisation is made on other grounds. But the other section is not applicable. In terms of the amendment which I am making under Section 2 (b) of the Bill, I am dealing with denaturalisation under Section 3 of the 1926 Act. In future both persons naturalised under a prior law and under the 1926 Act can be denaturalised only under Section 7 of the 1926 Act. Does my hon. friend follow that point? Therefore even without the amendment of the hon. member for Winburg it would, if this Bill is passed in its present form, be competent for the Minister of the Interior to denaturalise Germans individually—automatically naturalised Germans —in terms of the 1926 Act. Therefore the amendment of the hon. member for Winburg is superfluous if Clause 2 of this Bill is passed; but I take my stand not on the legal argument but on the merits of the case, and I regret that I must inform the hon. member that the Government is not prepared to accept this amndment. The Government is not prepared to deviate from the position it took up to denauralise these people en masse once and for all and to remove this automatic naturalisation. It is true that that may affect a number of Afrikaans women who were married to automatically naturalised Germans.

Very few of them.

I imagine there would be very few. The hon. member has waxed very eloquent and very wrathful about it. Here is this monster thing that I am denaturalising these Afrikaans girls? Does the hon. member forget that that has happened frequently? That in terms of international law if a South African girl marries a Hollander, a Frenchman or a Dane, she loses her South African nationality?

Why this provision in the 1926 Act?

How often was that provision used?

Why was it put in?

How many South African women availed themselves of that provision? And let me remind the hon. member for Fauresmith that we still have the second proviso to Section 12 of the 1926 Act. That says that a woman married to an enemy alien, if she was a British subject at the time of her marriage, may, during a period of war, apply to resume her former nationality. That remains. It will be competent for any woman to apply under Section 12 of the Act. But the cases of hardship would be very few. And the hon. member will appreciate this also, that there is nothing in this Bill itself to prevent any person who may be affected, who bona fide wishes to fulfil his obligations to the Union, from applying for full nationality under the 1926 Act. That provision still stands. If there are those who unlike some hon. members here who every time the Axis forces have a sporadic success imagine that the war is going to end in a few weeks …

Did you say sporadic?

Then, of course, they will not apply for naturalisation, but if they want to throw in their lot with the Union and want to face out the position in adversity, well, they may apply under the 1926 Act, and one great and real test of their bona fides will be their doing so, but pending their making such application, I am afraid they must all be treated in the same category. I admitted on the second reading that there were cases of automatically naturalised Germans who abided by their obligations, and who have been loyal. Their interests will be safeguarded.

How.

True, they will lose their franchise rights, but they will have the opportunity under the law as it stands of applying for full naturalisation; but quite apart from these academic issues, if one gets down to bread and butter issues, does the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Dr. Bremer), or does the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) imagine that these people, if they are entitled to pensions, are not going to be paid pensions? And if they are employed, does the hon. member think that they are going to be thrown out?

We believe that.

The hon. member for GraaffReinet quoted a case.

No, he quoted the case of a German employed by the German Government before the last war. His pension was paid to the German Government, and the German Reich Government paid that person his pension, and he has been paid his pension until the war started. I understand means are considered how his case can now be met, but that has nothing to do with the terms of this Bill. The hon. member himself admitted that that case arose some eight or nine months ago, before this Bill was introduced. So to suggest that this Bill is intended to deprive persons of their income, or of their rights, is unjustified. There is no such suggestion. This Bill deals with nationality.

Is not that a consequence of the Bill?

No. I said that the Union Government has treated these persons in a manner such as no other Government would have treated them. There are people who quite legitimately might have been in internment camps, but who, because they are acting peacefully, are allowed to carry on. We have not interned every one in South-West Africa. We have only interned those who were blatantly showing their hostility. We are dealing with the whole question in the interest of the Union population in SouthWest Africa, and in the interest of the safety of the country. In those circumstances I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Winburg, or of the hon. member for Fauresmith.

The hon. the Minister of the Interior has now put this matter very clearly; in other words, that he is passing this measure not in order to protect the interests of South Africa, not to protect the interests of the South African citizens against terrible aliens or naturalised Germans, because he frankly admits that there are cases amongst these Germans who have shown their loyalty to the Union, and who have fully discharged their obligations towards the Union, and who cannot be accused of any contravention. He admits that there are such people, but he treats them on the same footing as the other terrible people of whom he speaks. This measure is one of vengeance, a measure which flows from hatred and nothing else. It is not a question of protecting the interests of the Union at all. If it were a case of protecting the interests of the Union, then the Minister would have accepted this amendment. The test has been put to him, and if that were his purpose he would have accepted this amendment, on his own admission. He says that he has full evidence concerning the attitude of these people, and as to which of them were guilty of undermining activities, and which of them were not disloyal. The Government has the complete evidence, and it does not require anything further. Why then does he not use this complete evidence and arrest the guilty people and put them where they belong? If he has that evidence, then he can arrest the guilty people and punish them, and then we on this side would have had very little cause to say that an injustice is being committed here. If the Minister had been able to furnish evidence that these people were disloyal to the Union and that, for that reason, he wanted to take away their citizenship, then no one would have been able to complain about it. He admits, however, that there are others who were not disloyal. He says that there is a certain percentage of them who loyally discharged their obligations towards the Union. There may be quite a large percentage amongst these naturtalised Germans who are loyal to the Union. The Minister cannot give us the percentage. He says that his evidence is complete, but nevertheless he cannot give the Committee this information in regard to the percentage of Germans who are loyal to the Union. The Minister admits that this is a far-reaching measure, that it is an unusual measure on the part of the Government, but he cannot tell us how far the measure is justified. He says that there is a certain percentage of these people who are loyal to the Union, and we do not know whether that refers to 90 per cent. of them. On the strength of this slender evidence and information, this House has now to accept a measure which is unfair and unreasonable. Then the Minister advances the feeble argument that certain Germans who were interned were not prepared to be in the same camp as the Afrikaners, but that they wanted to be with their own people. What sophistry that is! It goes without saying that a person from South-West who has been interned, in the difficult circumstances in which he finds himself, would want to be in a camp with his own people. When I spoke here about aliens there was laughter on the other side as though that were a terrible word. I did not use the word “aliens” in the sense of being alien to the nation, but I meant alien in the sense that they were not with their own people. This pertinent question was put to the Minister by my hon. friend next to me: If he were to be interned as an alien in South Africa, would he not prefer to be interned amongst his own people? I am really surprised that a person with the intelligence of the Minister should use such an argument, and that he holds it against these Germans that they prefer to be interned with their own people.

You are making a mistake in regard to his intelligence.

It is assumed that he is intelligent. He says that because these Germans say that, in view of the critical conditions in these camps, they want to be with their own people, that that shows that they were not loyal to their citizenship. That argument is really not worth bothering about, and it is really not a credit to the Minister. We again put this position to the Minister of the Interior. He says that his evidence is complete and that he can lay his hands on every person. Then he says, too, that we on this side are wasting our sympathies on those people. It is not a question of sympathy. We are championing the honour of our own people, of the Afrikaner people and of the Afrikaner Government which, in passing this Bill, is going back on its word without just cause. I plead here for those people who are not guilty, and I say that we are depriving those people of their rights, and that thereby we are making ourselves guilty of a breach of faith, the Minister admits that there are some of them who are innocent. By means of this special legislation the Government is going back on its promise to these people. The Minister himself admits that there are innocent people, but we nevertheless deprive these people of their rights.

Why cannot they make application again?

Now they have to make application again to be naturalised. The Government takes away their naturalisation, and now they have to ask for it again. The self-respect of these people will prevent them from doing that, because they will have a very strong suspicion that they will be turned down. They are being deprived of their citizenship by force, and then they must please come and ask for it again. Let the Minister place himself in the position of these people. No one will ask for citizenship if he knows beforehand that he will be turned down. I say that it is very clear that this is not a protective measure for our people, but it is a measure of vengeance and hatred.

The Minister of the Interior said here that we were particularly sensitive in connection with this matter. It is not a question of sensitiveness but a question of what is right. I should have thought that the Minister would have understood that, because he is one of those people who continually say that they are waging this war for right and justice. How many times have we not heard that this is a war of “right against wrong” or “fight for what is right.” We are told so frequently that we are fighting for right and justice, and what we are doing here this evening is not a question of sensitiveness, but we are fighting for right and justice. The Minister of the Interior put up a particularly weak defence here this evening, having regard to the fact that we clearly pointed out in the amendment which was proposed by the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) that the Minister has the power, under that amendment, and also under the old Act, to take action against those people who are guilty of disloyalty to South Africa. The hon. member further asked in his amendment that this measure should only be applied to those people who made themselves guilty of some contravention or other. If the Minister does not want to accept that amendment, then it is very clear what the purpose of this legislation is. The hon. member for Winburg correctly says that we are dealing here with nothing else than a measure of vengeance, because the Minister has the necessary power under the amendment of the hon. member for Winburg, and the amendment has therefore put the matter in its right perspective. The Minister admits that there are many of these people who are not guilty, and why should the innocent have to suffer in this case together with the guilty? In that lies the unfairness of the whole thing. The hon. member for Winburg asked a question on that point, and I want to repeat the question in a somewhat different form. In his speech on the second reading the Minister advanced the peculiar argument that those people would have been in the internment camps of the Germans and not in the internment camps of the Afrikaners. Let us now take a person like the Minister of Mines. I am not taking the Minister of the interior personally. He can speak Afrikaans, and in certain matters he has come to share the Afrikaans spirit. But just imagine the Minister of Mines being placed in such a camp with Afrikaans speaking people who cannot speak a word of English and he cannot speak a word of Afrikaans. Would he not prefer to be in a camp amongst his own people? Now I want to put another point to him. The Minister denied that there was any question that these people would suffer in so far as their pensions, etc., were concerned. I made the interjection that they were losing their civic rights. The Minister knows that when a person is a South African citizen, he enjoys certain rights in the country. When he is an alien he does not enjoy those rights. A person cannot practice as a doctor or dentist, or advocate or attorney if he is an alien. I do not know what the position is in SouthWest Africa, but it would mean that we not only deprive those people of their naturalisation, but we also deprive them of the consequences which flow therefrom. We deprive those people of rights which, as citizens of the country, they would have enjoyed. And then the Minister tells us, as he did repeatedly, that they can again make application for naturalisation. They must crawl back and say: Take us back as good citizens of the country. I wonder how many of those people will be accepted as citizens if they accept the Minister’s advice and apply under the ordinary law. The Minister knows that he will not accept them. Even before the war it was difficult for those people to be accepted. I remember a case where I had to plead with the former Minister of the Interior on behalf of a German who was in South Africa for many years and who made application; and what chance have these people now of being accepted in the present circumstances? He kicks them out, and then they have to crawl back on their stomachs, and he will not accept them again. South Africa is in this war, and these people are now the enemies of the Minister and of South Africa, according to international law, but they are nevertheless people with a certain sense of honour, and we should not apply this type of thing to them. No, I say that this is one of the most scandalous things which have ever been proposed in this House. It is a measure of hatred and nothing else, and it is as we have described it here.

If I had any doubt whether the Minister would be able to understand my argument, then those doubts have been entirely set at rest by the speech he made this evening. He shows that he has been under a chronic disability to understand the true point in the attacks from this side of the House. It is not so much a question of our concern about what is happening to certain former nationals of the Union. The real concern of this side of the House is that the honour of South Africa should be sustained. We do not want a blot on our Statute Book—that is the main point made by this side of the House, and that point, if any proof was needed, has been amply confirmed by two admissions the Minister has made. He made the admission, firstly, that there were a large number of these people who were automatically naturalised under the 1924 and 1928 Acts, who have faithfully carried out their obligations of citizenship.

I did not say a large number.

If there was only one it is sufficient for my point. The Minister has not given any figures; he read a few letters here on the second reading. At the most he read five letters. We know that there were more than 7,000 people who had been automatically naturalised. Will the Minister say that in regard to more than half he has this evidence?

Of those that are left, yes. There are only about 4,000 left.

And what about their wives, and children below the age majority? Is the Minister able to stand up and say that more than half of the people affected under this Bill have been unfaithful to their obligations as citizens of the Union?

The adults, yes; I am not concerned with the children.

Can he say that as far as the adults affected by this Bill—and I think he told us that the number affected by this Bill was over 5,000 …

Between 4,000 and 5,000.

Is he prepared to say that he has evidence that more than half that number have been unfaithful to their obligations?

That is the general evidence one has.

Pure guess work.

Does he say that more than half of these have been unfaithful to their obligations? All the Minister can say is that there is the general evidence.

He has not got the evidence, that is why he comes forward with this Bill.

If there is only one—that is enough. The Minister admits that certain people will be affected by this Bill—people who have been faithful to their obligations. And then we have his second admission that he has power to deal with individual cases under this Bill, with the amendment of the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart), or with Clause 1 of this Bill. So we have the admission that there are certain people who are carrying out their obligations, but who will none the less be affected by this clause, and that he has power under Clause 2 or under the amendment of the hon. member for Winburg to deal with all the guilty ones. And, in spite of that the Minister comes and persists with this Bill. We on this side of the House by this amendment have given the Minister and the Government the opportunity of showing their true colours to the country. We have given them an opportunity, if they want it, to get into their hands all the necessary powers to deal with the guilty ones, and they are throwing that aside. They say: “We know we have that power, but we want more than that; we not only want the power to punish the guilty ones, but we want the power automatically to punish everyone.” After that, I can only say this to the Minister and to the Government: “His honour rooted in dishonour stood, and faith unfaithful kept him falsely true.” Now, let me deal with a few of the arguments which the Minister put before us. He said it is an old principle to take away the nationality of a married woman. He said you find it in every civilised country, that a wife assumes the nationality of her husband. That is not the case here. That principle of international law is well-known, and when a woman marries she knows that she has to accept the nationality of her husband. But what have we here? These wives married their husbands, thinking that they were Union nationals, and now the wives are deprived of their nationality through their husbands being deprived of theirs. First you have given them the assurance according to the ordinary principles of international law that marriage with a Union national would give them Union nationality. Now this is an entirely different principle, and how can the Minister compare the two? When these women married they had no idea that any Government would stoop to such a measure as this. It could never have been within their contemplation when they married. The hon. Minister has said that it is a very easy thing for these people who are affected by the Bill to apply for Letters of Naturalisation under the 1926 Act.

Is the Minister serious when he says that? Will he say that he is prepared to grant Letters of Naturalisation under these circumstances to enemy aliens? Let me remind him of what has happened to these Netherlanders who, in the last couple of months, have applied for Letters of Naturalisation. Have they been granted that? And they are not even alien enemies, they are not members of a country which is at war with South Africa; they are our allies, and they have been refused naturalisation. There is a second reason. The Minister ought to know and if he does not, his advisers should have told him, why these people cannot obtain naturalisation. In terms of Section 2 of the 1926 Act you cannot obtain Letters of Naturalisation unless you have been resident in the Union for five years. These people were given that automatic naturalisation in 1924, because there was that provision that they could not get it if they were resident in a mandated territory, but only if they were resident in a part of the Kings Dominions. Now, Mr. Chairman, there was a provision in the 1926 Act that the Minister might grant a certificate of naturalisation to an alien who made an application for the purpose and satisfied the Minister that he had been resident in His Majesty s Dominions for a period of not less than five years or had been in the service of the Crown. At the Imperial Conference in 1926 a motion was carried to the effect that that was also to apply to mandated territory. I have the amendments here up to 1932, but I have not followed it after that. The Act simply says “within His Majesty’s Dominions.” It is true that in the definition clause the Union is said to include SouthWest Africa, but in Section 2 it does not say anything about the Union, resident in the Union, but resident in His Majesty s Dominions, and my submission is that that does not include South-West Africa, which is clearly mandated territory.

I think I ought to correct the hon. member. He attempted earlier on to attribute his lack of appreciation of the legal position to his failure to understand me. This time he cannot raise that excuse, because he can read the law, which is perfectly clear. The hon. member has referred to Section 2, and may I say that his contention is entirely wrong ? If an alien is resident in South-West Africa for the prescribed period under the 1926 Act he may apply for naturalisation. That residence is as laid down in Section 2, which says—

The first qualification is that he has resided in His Majesty’s Dominions for a period of not less than five years in the manner required by the section. The hon. member will then turn to Sub-section (2) of Section 2, and he will see that the Act goes on to say—

So there is a reference to the Union. Previously there was reference to His Majesty’s Dominions, and now there is reference to the Union. If the hon. member will look at Clause 30, he will find that Union is defined as meaning the Union of South Africa. I must therefore dismiss the hon. member’s appeal with costs on that particular issue. It is as plain as a pikestaff that anyone having the requisite residence in South-West Africa is entitled to naturalisation under the 1926 Act. In fact, a number of applications have been granted prior to the war to the Germans in South-West Africa, including automatically naturalised Germans. There was this difference between automatically naturalised Germans and Germans naturalised under the 1926 Act, so far as the Reich Government was concerned. The Reich Government has always demanded the allegiance not merely within the territory of the Reich, but in South-West Africa of those persons automatically naturalised in 1924 and 1928. It is said that a person who applies under the 1926 Act has done so freely of his own will, and therefore that person no longer retains German nationality although, as I showed in my second reading speech, that in some cases there was a clandestine arrangement between the German Consul and the applicant under which certain rights in the Reich would be reserved. The hon. member scoffs at the idea that applications would not be granted coming from suitable persons in South-West African territory. Does the hon. gentleman know that since the outbreak of the war quite a number of Germans have been naturalised, a number who have shown that they are anti-Nazi.

You take the political test.

I take as the test whether a German wishes to identify himself with South Africa and whether he is a defender and upholder of Nazi principles or not. One of the best ways in which these people have shown they are anti-Nazi is the fact that they have joined up for military service and are serving with the forces up North. There are a number of cases where Germans have divorced themselves from Nazi influence, or who have never come under Nazi influence and have assimilated themselves with South Africa.

Won’t you be honest and say they are all Jews?

No, but whether they are Jewish or not hardly seems to be a relevant factor. I can, in any event, give him an answer and say there has been a number of Jews joined up for active service, and good luck to them and all honour to them for being prepared to fight for the country of their adoption.

Why are so many of them sitting at home?

My hon. friend is worthy of something better than that. Don’t let us allow this discussion to descend to the level of some hon. members on the opposite side.

You take that as the big test?

The Government takes it as a test, in considering when an enemy alien asks for naturalisation, whether that person genuinely has adopted this country and is prepared to defend it as his adopted home. That is a fair test. Normally, of course, there would be no such thing as naturalisation of an enemy alien in time of war. It is done only sparingly now, but it is done because this world struggle is which South Africa is involved is a most curious struggle in which you have members of the same race divided, as you have in Germany people divided on the issue. You have large numbers of people who have been driven out, both Jews and non-Jews, because they could no longer stomach the Nazi regime, and if they have honestly come here as a refuge we are prepared to give them a haven. One more word in regard to the hon. member for Fauresmith. He has said that we are doing a dastardly thing, an inhumane thing, by depriving one or two innocent persons of nationality. Well, the hon. member knows that a number of innocent people are suffering today, and if one or two innocent people have to suffer in South-West Africa this deprivation, then their complaint is against their fellow-Germans, whose conduct has led to a position where a continuance of their automatic citizenship became intolerable as far as any self-respecting Government is concerned. The position could no longer be tolerated. I have said before, and I repeat, that those persons who have honestly abided by their obligations will in no way be prejudiced. They will have an opportunity of applying, and their applications will be treated on their merits. In other words, no attempt will be made to prejudice them. There is no intention whatever to be vindictive as regards the others who will remain German subjects. For the duration of the war they will be there, and they will be able to remain just as peacefully as they are remaining at the present time. The Bill does nothing more than place upon the Statute Book a measure which will enable us to revert to the status quo, and in that way do a simple act of justice to a very large number of persons in South Africa who have been under the tyranny of these people in the past.

I am afraid the hon. Minister has not carried his legal researches far enough. He has confined himself to this Act. I would like him to tell the House whether this naturalisation, based on residence in a mandated territory, has any value outside South Africa. This Act adopts British nationality; it adopts the British Naturalisation of Aliens Act. At the Imperial Conference it was stated that there were some of the Dominions who had attempted to give a general naturalisation by having a clause of this nature, based on residence within a mandated territory, and it was said that that was not worth the paper it was written on. That proposal was actually put before the Imperial Conference in 1926. I want to put to the Minister this further question. Has such an amendment ever been introduced into the British Act, which allows residence outside the British Dominions in mandated territory to be the basis of naturalisation throughout the British Empire? Will the Minister tell us that?

I cannot answer you offhand. I can only say that naturalisation under this Act imposes a common status. This was done with the approval of the other people concerned.

That was the argument advanced when the proposal was made. Our Act is dependent on the existence of the British Act, it is a reciprocal measure. We could not give this right unless an amendment were made in the British Act. I want to ask the Minister, whose researches seem to have carried him far, whether that amendment has ever been made. If it has not been made I still say that no naturalisation of a person based on residence in a mandated territory, can confer common status on him. There is a third reason. It is idle to talk here about applying for Letters of Naturalisation by an alien enemy in a country which is at war with his own country. If he does that he commits an act of high treason. So what the hon. Minister wants these people to do is to commit an act of high treason. The remedy does not lie in that direction. The remedy lies in the direction which has been indicated from this side of the House; don’t take away those rights which you not only invited, but pressed these people to accept in 1924 and 1928. Take the guilty ones and punish them, deprive them of their citizenship, but leave the innocent ones alone. That is the principle which we say is fair and just. If you persist in this attitude of punishing the innocent with the guilty, we say that is a course which we, on this side of the House, cannot tolerate. I appeal to members with some sense of justice, members who, at any rate, are engaged in practice before our courts, to say whether this is a fair thing, to deprive innocent people of a thing which you not only invited, but pressed them to accept, and a thing which has been made the subject of a solemn covenant with the German Reich

Germany does not observe it.

Germany does not enter into this; Germany has nothing to do with this. If there are guilty parties who are not carrying out their obligations under the contract, then I am prepared to let the Minister have power to deprive them of their nationality. But it is a different matter when he attempts—he admits that some have faithfully carried out their obligations—to deprive such people of their citizenship. That is the whole point of our attack, not to defend those people who are guilty, but to save South Africa from the stigma of punishing the innocent. Does the Minister realise the implications of this measure as far as these people are concerned who are now to become enemy aliens? Does he appreciate that they and their property will be confiscated and taken in charge by the Custodian of Enemy Property? They are liable to that, and it affects not only them, but their minor children. These are the implications of this Bill, and it is because we know that these are the implications, we say this is a measure which one would not expect to find in a Legislature of any civilised country.

I am sorry to say it, but the Minister has systematically and deliberately evaded all our arguments on this side of the House. He said, on the contrary: Do you know, I got hold of letters from Germans who want to be in a German camp and who do not want to be interned with Afrikaners. Is that any reason for acting in this manner? Does that show any sense of responsibility on the part of the Minister? Is it right on his part to regale the House with such arguments? We know that there are Germans who are hostile, who are aliens, but I also know of numbers of Germans in South-West who are firstclass farmers and who are law-abiding citizens. Not because they are so fond of our Government or of the British Government, but because they are people who cleaned the country and who did pioneer work, people who made the desert habitable. Now the Minister wants to denaturalise them and deprive them of their property, although they developed the land and rendered it fertile. By means of legislation he wants to rob these people and to take steps which will land them in the internment camp, and which will possibly rob them of their property. Will the Minister give us the assurance that he will not intern these people after he has denaturalised them? Because if he has no such plans, why then this denaturalisation? And if they are interned, what is he then going to do with the property of these people, with their farms?

The Minister has already given the assurance that they can be naturalised upon application.

The hon. member is altogether under a misapprehension. He thinks that the Bill has been introduced in order to safeguard the vote of the people. On the contrary, these people will be deprived of their rights and possessions. Does the hon. member want to assist in committing that injustice? The Minister should be careful with regard to this measure and we warn the Minister. He is committing this injustice now, but possibly the same legislation will be applied to him some day; perhaps the speeches which he makes here will be read out to him some day. What will his answer be then? The Minister now says that I should be the last person to plead for uprightness, because I belong to the New Order, and when we get into power we would deprive people of their rights. The Minister need not spend sleepless nights about that. I can give him the assurance that we shall not apply the measure which he wants to apply. I am disappointed in the attitude of the Government, and because the Minister has not allowed his feelings of right and fairness to prevail; because he cannot see that he is committing this injustice. Let him get up and say at least that he will see to it that the farms of these people are appraised on the day when they are interned, and that the Government will hold itself responsible to return to these people, when peace is declared, their full capital possessions together with interest. If the Minister is not prepared to do that, then he is committing an injustice. The Minister says that even at this moment he is naturalising German subjects in the Union. I want to tell the Minister that we have a suspicion that the greater majority of these are people who belong to the 30,000 who streamed over the borders of the Union when the war broke out, who came here unlawfully, and who, notwithstanding our immigration laws, are now getting the vote in our country. The Minister is shaking his head, but I believe that that is the case.