I move—

This means that we shall not sit on Good Friday. The intention is to resume on Saturday and also to sit on Monday. We want to sit on those days in order to be able to end the Session early next week. The only business which has still to be dealt with is on the Order Paper and covers everything up to and including item No. VIII., and furthermore notice of motion No. II by the Minister of Commerce and Industries. Then there are still the Pensions Bill of which notice was given this morning and the necessary Bills. If we sit on Saturday and also on Monday, there is every chance that we shall be able to dispose of the remainder of our work during the first few days of next week, and I now move.

I second.

None of us has any objection to this motion, and nobody can object to the contents thereof, more in particular not against there being no sitting on Good Friday. It is obvious that that should be so. I also do not think that there will be any objection on the part of hon. members to sit on Saturday and also on Monday, which is a public holiday. We are all anxious to see the end of this Session of Parliament and to go home. The sacrifice asked for will therefore be readily made by members of the House. I want to ask the Prime Minister to give us an indication when more or less the Session will actually come to an end. He said that it would be early during next week. But is he not able to know and tell us more definitely on which day it will end. I think it is essential that we should know more definitely, for members are staying in hotels and boarding houses and have to book on the trains and make all sorts of arrangements for their families. It will therefore be most desirable for us to know on which day the Session will actually come to an end. I furthermore want to make a few remarks on something else. Amongst the various items on the Order Paper I do not notice anything in regard to the extension of the life of this Parliament. That is a matter about which we have so far been kept in the dark. I think, however, that the Prime Minister will agree with me that it can no longer be kept an uncertainty. One of these days the House will rise. The members of Parliament must commence their work in regard to the election campaign if an election is to take place. I believe that the Prime Minister and the Government have already come to a decision. It would be most remarkable if they had not yet decided whether there is going to be an election or not. If the case is as I think it is, then the Prime Minister’s duty towards this Parliament and the country is to make a statement now before the end of the Session as to whether an election will take place and whether the election for the House of Assembly and for the Provincial Council in at least two of the Provinces will take place simultaneously. It causes confusion when the country does not possess that information, and I hope that, when the Prime Minister replies, he will be able to make such an announcement.

As there are something over twenty items on the Order Paper still to be disposed of, and as we are getting towards the end of the Session, I wonder whether the Prime Minister will be prepared to state whether he is in a position to give any time to private members’ Bills. We shall be glad if the Prime Minister will give us some assurance on that.

I am sorry that we shall not be able to give any time for private members’ Bills.

*In regard to the point raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition I wish to state that I think we should be able to finish our work on Tuesday, but I should rather see the whips come together to make arrangements. I do not see why we should not be able to finish on Tuesday, but I cannot fix the day definitely unless the whips discuss the matter further. As far as the other point is concerned, it is obvious that, since the Government has not put a proposal on the Order Paper to introduce legislation for the extension of the life of this Parliament, the election will take place in the ordinary course of events during this year.

When?

That is difficult to say. It seems as if it is going to be somewhere in August. The difficulty here is more a question of drawing up the rolls and the printing of all the necessary papers and the work connected therewith. This still makes the position somewhat uncertain. It seems, however, that it will be more or less in August. The question whether the election will take place simultaneously for both the House of Assembly and the Provincial Councils in all four provinces, has now been solved up till the following point: It will be possible and will be done in the two larger provinces. As far as the two smaller provinces are concerned, we are faced with a number of difficulties and attempts are being made to try and see whether those difficulties can be eliminated and whether it will not be possible to have the simultaneous election also in those two provinces. In the two larger provinces, however, it is definite that the election for the House of Assembly and that for the Provincial Council will take place on the same day.

And the two elections will not be far apart in the case of the other two provinces?

Perhaps a week. There are only technical difficulties standing in the way of having the two elections on the same day. If they cannot be held on the same day, they may possibly be a week apart. Quite likely it will still be found possible to have the elections for the House of Assembly and for the Provincial Councils take place on the same day right through the country.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

Yesterday I was informed of the particulars of certain transactions being effected at the moment in Johannesburg, which, however, owing to the effect of two of the taxation measures contained in this Bill are threatened with failure. Because this case throws such an illuminating light on the oppressive burden of a few of the taxation measures of this Bill and on the way they make the continuation of trade and business impossible, and furthermore in view of the position which is being created by some of these taxes, I take the liberty to divulge in the public interest the particulars of this case to the House. The subject of the transaction is the sale of certain gold claims on the Witwatersrand. Twenty-two gold claims were bought some time ago by a company which was established specially for the purpose. The company was registered on 24th November, 1939, just after the fixed property profits tax came into force. I want to point out that the purchase of these claims was intended as a speculative investment. They were situate near an important mine. The people concerned had a good nose for business and knew that in the course of time the value of those claims would appreciate and even if they had to invest three, four or five thousands pounds in them, they would after a period of ten years get their money back with interest and a profit. That is what they expected. Due, however, to certain circumstances the value of the claims increased very rapidly. After four years they received a favourable offer from the mine. They paid £3,000 for those claims and the offer they received was for £12,500. That means that in four years time they could make a profit of £9,500. Before, however, deciding to sell the claims, they had a conference to consider in how far they would be affected by the taxation measures, and because they wanted to be quite sure, they consulted one of the most important firms of accountants on the Witwatersrand. What I am going to tell the House now, are the facts as supplied by this firm of accountants. This firm first of all stated that this company had been specially established for the purchase of these claims, and therefore—

Secondly the firm of accountants comes to the following conclusion—

That is the finding of this firm of accountants. The company will be assessed for the fixed property profits tax, for excess profits tax, and the shareholders will have to pay taxes on their shares of the profits. The firm of accountants thereupon figured out what the taxation would amount to which will be payable on the profit of £9,500 under each of these headings. The property was bought for £3,000. They can sell it for £12,500. The accountants then worked out that the excess profits tax at 15s. in the £ would amount to £6,975. The fixed property profits tax would amount to 6s. 8d. in the £, i.e. to £3,166. That means that for these two taxes alone an amount of £10,141 would be payable. The profit amounts to £9,500. That means in other words, according to this firm of accountants and they are people who know their work, and I give the information to the Minister as it has been sent to me, for I take it that we are dealing here with a firm of responsible people—that means that this company will have to pay in these two taxes an amount of £10,141 on a profit of £9,500. That means that if this company were to sell its claims it would have to contribute £600 of its capital in order to meet the taxes. The gross profit is £9,500. The excess profits duty is £6,957, which leaves a balance of £2,525. This amount is distributed amongst the shareholders in nominal sums. The accountants then figured out what each of the shareholders was to receive and how much taxation each of them would have to pay on it in ordinary income tax. The conclusion they arrived at was that this company on a profit of £9,500 not only had to hand over the whole profit to the Minister of Finance but that it had to add something of just over £800 of its capital in order to pay the taxes. There is, however, another way out for the company and that is to sell shares; not to sell its claims but to sell its shares. There are however six shareholders in the company. One of them only holds one share. He is the least important of the shareholders. The company can sell its Shares only when it sells them en bloc, i.e. that all six the shareholders have to agree to it, but because the one shareholder who only possesses one share, realises what he can make out of this position, he refuses to give his consent to the sale of the shares, unless he receives a very good price for his share, a price which is much higher than the amount to which he would have been entitled. If they sell the shares they are not liable for excess profits duty. In that case they are only liable for the fixed property profits tax and the other normal taxation, and those two would amount to £3,295. The one shareholder, however, realises that with his one share he is holding the whip hand and he is now submitting impossible demands to the other five shareholders. He wants to receive the lion’s share of the profits, instead of it going to the Minister of Finance. This company is now between the devil and the deep blue sea, between the Minister of Finance and the shareholder with his one share. What can that company do?

Why has he only one share?

It is a preference share.

What is the value of it?

The value of the share is £13, but he holds the key to the whole position. They now cannot sell their claims, for according to the calculation of the accountants, the company will then have to pay its full profits of £9,500 plus another £800 of its capital in taxation. They can only evade that by selling their shares en bloc, but now they are stuck with this one shareholder who refuses to sell unless they pay him a few thousand pounds. He realises the position the company is in. I do not think this is an isolated instance, but this one case teaches me two things, viz.: that if the Minister of Finance does not review and revise his whole taxation system, the whole basis of his taxation measures, he is going to make trade and business in this country virtually impossible, and furthermore he is going to destroy and paralyse all spirit of enterprise. I do not know whether the Minister noticed what the Chamber of Commerce and the Federation of Industries in South Africa decided. The Minister reproached them that they did not assist him to improve his taxation system. Their reply is that it does not help to patch up the taxation system of the Minister today. If the Minister wants to remove the anomalies and injustices in his whole taxation system, he will have to recreate the whole of his taxation system. I think I have mentioned sufficient cases this year to show that the burden of taxation under the Minister’s system is unjust and not equitable. If the facts of the case I submitted are correct—and I take them to be correct for the figures have been supplied by a well-known firm of Johannesburg accountants—then it clearly shows that there is something wrong somewhere. I am fully prepared to give all the particulars to the Minister but it is obvious that I do not possess the liberty to divulge the name of the firm to this House. It is, however, clear that during the recess the Minister will have to go into and recast his whole taxation system before Parliament meets again. I agree with the Chamber of Commerce and Industry that it is no use trying to patch it up. One has to rebuild it from the bottom upwards. With his present system the Minister will be exercising a paralying influence on commerce and industry and he will precipitate the economic collpase in our country. In order to prevent this he will without delay have to devote his attention to the recasting of the whole system.

The hon. member for George came here today with a particular case of which he did not give me notice beforehand and he asked me what advice I would give to those people. It is somewhat difficult to advise people without having had the opportunity of going into all the facts. If the hon. member had shown me the courtesy of informing me beforehand of the case, I would have been able to give the advice. In the meantime, however, the only advice I can give those people is that the proper course for them to take is to settle their differences. I am not responsible for differences between shareholders. That is their business, not mine. But apart from that I find it difficult to understand how in this case on the same transaction both excess profits duty and the fixed property profits tax can be leviable. It is not clear from the information the hon. member gave. In any case, I am not able to give any further advice without knowing more of the particulars. Apparently this is a quarrel between shareholders for which I cannot be held responsible. The one case, however, does not prove that trade and industry can no longer exist. From the figures at my disposal in regard to the yield of the taxation I cannot, in fact, notice in any way that commerce and industry in South Africa are having a difficult time. The figures of the taxation yield are still exceptionally high and there is no indication that commerce and industry are being smothered as a result of the taxation measures. I furthermore want to say a few words in connection with the other matter to which the hon. member referred, namely the attitude taken up by the Chambers of Commerce and Industry. I was reproached for not being prepared to accept the advice of practical people, and for allowing myself to be influenced by the experts of my Department only. Six months ago the two Chambers with the association of accountants approached me and asked me whether I would be prepared to accept advice of a constructive nature from them. They promised me such advice and as proof of the fact that I am always prepared to accept the advice of practical people, I accepted the offer with much pleasure and I was fully prepared to accept the advice of these practical people, if of a constructive nature. To my regret I had to find ultimately that the Chambers were not, generally speaking, in a position to offer advice of a constructive nature. They now say: Well, the circumstances are such that we cannot give advice of a constructive nature. That was, however, what they had promised me in the first instance, viz. to give advice of a constructive nature, and all I said to this House was that I would be prepared to receive such advice, but that advice ultimately did not reach me.

Motion put and the House divided:

Ayes—48:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Blackwell, L.

Bowker, T. B.

Clark, C. W.

Collins, W. R.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gluckman, H.

Hayward, G. N.

Henderson, R. H.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Lindhorst, B. H.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Marwick, J. S.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Robertson, R. B.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sutter, G. J.

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.

Waterson, S. F.

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

Noes—23:

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

Erasmus, F. C.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Hugo, P. J.

Loubser, S. M.

Malan, D. F.

Oost, H.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, C. R.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

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

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I have an amendment to move here. It is printed on the Votes and Proceedings on page 575. It merely involves the deletion of certain unnecessary words, which do not affect the Afrikaans. The amendment is purely of a verbal nature. I move—

Agreed to.

May I at this stage raise a question of some importance in relation to Section 118 of the Defence Force Act, which is sought to be amended. There are cases that have occurred in which a man coming forward as a volunteer in the present war has been wrongly enrolled as a member of the permanent force, for example, as an air mechanic, and when he suffered a very severe disability, it was ruled that his case was one which fell under the Defence Act, and was therefore not capable of being considered under the War Pensions Act of 1940 or 1942. To remove that disability I would ask the Minister to agree to so amend the law that where such a case has been rejected by the Military Pensions Board, it is competent for the unsuccessful applicant to appear before the Special Grants Board. The case I mention is a very serious one. It is the case of Mr. D. G. Malcolm, who came forward as a volunteer, but being none the wiser as regards the relative rights of a volunteer and a member of the Permanent Force, he was enrolled as an air mechanic in the Permanent Force. That apparently seemed to disqualify him from appearing before the Special Pensions Board. The report of one of the leading doctors in Pietermaritzburg on his case is briefly to the following effect—

He then describes the symptoms, which I shall not weary the House with, but he concludes—

That was written in 1941, but at the present date this lad’s condition is unimproved. He remained an invalid, unable to work, unable to do more than take a strict diet on which he is obliged to live, and this is the sort of case that disquiets people in the countryside when they realise that a man who went forward voluntarily and with a wish to serve his country in a time of need, is turned down—his case is rejected—because of some difficulty under the law, not because of the merits of the case. He was enrolled without his particular wish in a unit in which the conditions are much more difficult than the conditions applying to a volunteer.

I shall be glad if the hon. member will give me some details of the case. It is not clear to me from his statement if this man joined up as a volunteer for this war or not.

He came forward as a volunteer, but he was enrolled as a member of the Permanent Force.

In any event, I do not think it falls within the scope of this clause. If my hon. friend will be good enough to give me the details I shall go into the case.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 4,

I have an amendment here which is printed on the Order Paper and which I shall explain. As hon. members know, we are now proposing, as far as the War Pensions Act of last year is concerned, to make the supplementation payable, in respect of the man who is permanently incapacitated for work, 75 per cent. instead of 50 per cent. In these early clauses of this Bill we are applying certain provisions of the Act of last year to prior law cases. We therefore intend also that as far as the people who fall under the old War Pensions Act are concerned, they should also be eligible for the 75 per cent. supplementation instead of 50 per cent. supplementation from the time when this new Bill will receive assent, but we have to cover them as far as the 50 per cent. is concerned, which they have already been getting in relation to the period up to that time, and to ensure that they do not lose that 50 per cent. this amendment has to be moved. This amendment, taken together with the clause as drafted, will mean that they will go on getting the 50 per cent. up to the time the law is passed, and then they will get 75 per cent. I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 5,

On the motion of the Minister of Finance, an amendment was made in the Afrikaans version which did not occur in the English version.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On New Clause to follow Clause 5,

I move—

1. 6. Section 25 of the War Special Pensions Act, 1919, is hereby amended—
   1. (i) by the deletion, in Sub-Section (1), of the words “one hundred” and the substitution therefor of the words “one hundred and twenty”;
   2. (ii) by the deletion, in Sub-Section (3), of the words “one hundred and forty-four” and the substitution therefor of the words “one hundred and eighty”.

As hon. members will remember, I said that I intended to move an amendment in Committee to the War Pensions Act of last year, which would raise the maximum amount payable to a parent from £100 to £120 when one son has been lost and from £144 to £180 when more than one son has been lost. That I am doing by an amendment to a subsequent clause—I think in Clause 22— but here in the early part of the Bill we are making in effect consequential amendments to the previous law, so that we can deal with similar cases under the previous law similarly, and this amendment therefore merely has the effect of applying also to cases which do not fall under the 1942 Act, the same provision in regard to the increased amount of the award to parents.

There is a fairly wide feeling amongst people who have been before the Military Pensions Board, that the difficulty in regard to parents’ pensions, does not lie so much in the present maximum, which I always declared to be very low and capable of considerable improvement, but in the interpretation by the Military Pensions Board of the question of dependants. The Military Board appears to have rejected cases in which, at the time of the volunteer’s death, his parents were actually dependent on him, and in such cases they should have been awarded the maximum pension that can be granted. It is that, that is the burden of the grievance amongst volunteers. They feel that whatever proof is produced before the Military Pensions Board, the parents will not succeed in getting the maximum or anything like the maximum. The minimum is what they have been awarded in cases which are a crying grievance in the country, and I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that accompanying the improvement of the maximum there will be better administration and less perversity on the part of the Military Pensions Board to disregard the dependence of the parents upon the volunteers.

I merely want to say again what I said before, that in all cases where there is objection to the action of the Military Pensions Board in matters of this kind, any request for appeal to the Military Pensions Appeal Board is always granted. So that the ultimate responsibility does not lie with the Military Pensions Board but with the Military Pensions Appeal Board, which would naturally take account of the intentions of Parliament.

That is quite correct—what the Minister says about the Appeal Board, but the difficulty I find is that the people who have to appeal to that Board are not always aware that they can do so. They feel that as a Board has dealt with their position and has turned them down, it is simply wasting their time to make a further appeal to the Minister. I would suggest that these rates should be made maximum rates. It should be possible to delete these two items and lay down an amount of £280. The feeling is in the country and it has been allowed to get abroad that the Military Pensions Board are most unsympathetic. I think it is a waste of time to take matters to appeal. It is not right to put the Military Pensions Board in the position where they are compelled by law not to consider anything on sympathetic grounds. They are restricted to deal with cases under the laws of the country, and they cannot go beyond it. Some members of the Board would like to, but they are prevented from doing so. I say to the Minister in all seriousness that the volunteers of this country are more concerned about the people they leave behind than they are about themselves. That is the greatest worry of any soldier, and it is our duty to be generous in dealing with the dependants of these men, particularly when the dependant happens to be a mother. I say that the country as a whole is prepared to pay and pay handsomely for the services which our soldiers, our volunteers, are rendereing, and when they have given all they have, when they have given their lives, nothing is too good for the people they leave behind, and it is a crime for Parliament not to see to it that the dependants are properly looked after. If there is to be any aristocracy after this war, the aristocracy of the country should be the men who have defended the country. The country belongs to the men who have fought for it. The House favours more generous treatment, and the country is prepared to pay for it. We are trying to give the country a good Pensions Bill, let us perfect it, so that everyone will realise that we are doing our duty by our men. The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) has pleaded with the Minister and I hope the Minister will see his way to grant his request.

The Minister has quite courteously referred me to the fact that an appeal is always possible from a decision of the Pensions Board. I want to deal briefly with that reply. It is true that an appeal is permitted and I believe the Minister has always adopted a generous attitude in allowing permission to appeal. But in the last twelve months, or rather in less than twelve months, 2,767 applications to the Pensions Board were unsuccessful. Of those only 440 appealed to the Higher Board, the Military Pensions Appeal Board. Now, what does that show? It shows that there was very little hope, otherwise a larger number of these men would have appealed, and the chief obstacle is that the Act has been so worded that a large proportion of those applications were unsuccessful, because the cause of death, or the disablement, was ruled to be unconnected with military service. I maintain that we shall not be permitted to rest in regard to this matter, until a change has been made in that respect. The idea that soldiers are disabled or are killed, and that in spite of that their parents or their dependants will receive no sort of gratuity or grant, is one that haunts every honest man. You have a condition of affairs which is very unhealthy, and when you come to appeals to the Higher Board you find that out of 440 odd only 46 were successful, so the rate of successful appeals is very small indeed. Once a man’s application has been rejected he has very little chance of being successful in his appeal.

New Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 9,

I have a small verbal amendment here. I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 10,

I want to ask the Minister if he will not consider the point which I raised in my second reading speech in regard to the definition of “widow”. It is very difficult to see why a distinction of pensions should be made to a woman who was separated from her husband at the time of his death, when she was being maintained, and in whose favour an order of court had been made. I cannot see why she should be treated differently from an ordinary widow. I ask the Minister to look at the definition as it now reads. Later on, in Clause 20, it is laid down that the pension for such a widow is not to exceed £84 per year. I should like the Minister to tell me why he did differentiate between a woman separated, a woman who was being maintained by her husband, and an ordinary widow? Technically the woman who is separated from her husband is a widow in exactly the same way as the other woman, and in every way she should be treated as an ordinary wife. There may be a distinction drawn between a widow who was not being maintained at the time of the volunteer’s death, and who had not been maintained for a period of five years, and in respect of whom no order of court had been made. But I take strong exception to this distinction here. And then there is another point—a point of sheer humanity. It has also to do with the definition of widow. I am referring to someone who has not been married within the period of five years. I appeal to the Minister to wipe out that five years clause. Very often soldiers who are so badly disabled that they can never earn anything at all, may want at some period to marry a woman—perhaps a woman who has been attending to them. It is the least we can do for a man who has made this sacrifice. I appeal to the Minister’s sense of humanity and fairness.

We are in fact making substantial concessions in relation to the present law by accepting the five year period for the widow.

I appreciate that.

Yes, I know my hon. friend appreciates that, but her gratitude has a lively sense of favours to come. I find it difficult to see how one can amend the law to meet the particular case she is referring to. I am prepared to consider the point, but I see considerable difficulties in it. As far as a separated wife is concerned, that, of course, is a point which does not fall within the scope of the definition clause, but of a subsequent clause. There I can only say that there has always been a distinction between a wife and a separated wife, and I have never had any particular representations made to me to get away from that distinction. I am prepared to go into that further but so far I have not had any representations to show that this is causing dissatisfaction.

What about the widow of a man who has held very high rank, a widow who had been maintained under exceptionally good circumstances. She has been separated from her husband but all the same been maintained. I certainly think if such a widow had gone to the Supreme Court for subsistence in accordance with the conditions in which she had been accustomed to live she would have got considerably more than £7. There must be such cases where the husband has been making substantial money, and has allowed his wife, from whom he was separated, considerably more than £7. Anyhow, I am glad the Minister is prepared to look into this.

I should like to ask the Minister to consider increasing the period of five years in respect of the definition of a child. The period is so short when you think that we are proposing later to allow a man to marry within five years of his discharge. It means that the man who marries within five years can never in respect of his children get the allowance which the Act allows in other cases. I have the case of a young fellow who joined the army and in January, 1941, when he was 20 years of age he was discharged totally deaf. Deafness, of course, is a very big handicap for a young boy like that. He was granted a small pension and later on his pension was increased under the new Act. Through the efforts of the Commissioner the boy was provided with vocational training to start him off in life again. His vocational training, which started in May, 1942, entailed an apprenticeship of five years. When that boy comes out of his apprenticeship he will have been discharged from the army for about six and a half years. That boy will be debarred under the further section, when he marries, from the allowance due to his wife, and any children he has will never be able to qualify for the children’s allowance. I made a plea last year for an increase in respect of this period in the definition of a child, and I moved an amendement that the period should be increased to fifteen years. We know that the responsible soldiers organisations, such as the South African Legion, have also advocated a period of fifteen years. When I returned to Johannesburg after the last Session of Parliament, I found that there was considerable feeling over the provisions which had been passed, and various branches of the party organisations passed resolutions and forwarded them to the Minister. I want to submit that the period of five years is not sufficient. This war is a young man’s job, and I do feel that a period of five years, whether it is applicable to a boy of twenty or a man of forty, is not equitable. This could be much improved if we could introduce an age as well, such as advocated by the Moths. They recommend that an age limit should be laid down and a period of fifteen years. They advocate prior to the 45th birthday. That would help the position considerably. I submit that five years is very inadequate. Then, in regard to the widow, the same remarks will apply to the widow and to the wife, that they should be treated on an equitable basis. Whatever period is fixed for the wife a longer period should be fixed in respect of the child.

I have already said that what we are proposing represents a considerable concession. We have had representations to go a good deal further, but it has not been felt possible to depart from the position taken up in the original law by Parliament. Now, this is a compromise between these two points of view, and I think it will be accepted as such. I do at least wish to see how this new proposal works before we press for further modification. It is a substantial concession, and it makes a difference in the financial provision to be made.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 11,

I move—

The Sub-Section (2) of Section 11 very largely meets our case, that the volunteer who is accepted for service as being fit, and placed in medical category A or B, subsequently contracting tuberculosis or some other disease or disability which reduces him possibly to category E, is as much entitled to a pension as one who suffers an actual physical wound in battle.

I am not going to object to your amendment.

I am very glad indeed to hear that, and had hoped that was in the Minister’s mind. I am not going to waste the time of the Committee either. I wish only to suggest that this is merely a provision to cover deterioration after leaving the army.

What the hon. member is moving was in my mind—it is in accord with what we intend doing. I don’t really think strictly as a matter of legal drafting that his amendment is necessary, but if there is any doubt I am prepared to remove that doubt and to accept the amendment. I do not think it makes any financial difference and therefore I don’t think there is any necessity for the Governor General’s approval.

I just want to thank the Minister most cordially for accepting this amendment proposed by us, for now it will be definite what the position is. The Minister went very far to meet us and we are grateful for it.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 16,

On the motion of the Minister of Finance, an amendment was made in the Afrikaans version which did not occur in the English version.

I wish to move the amendment standing in my name to this Clause 16. I move—

1. (i) the deletion, in Sub-Section (1), of the words “outside the Union” wherever they occur, and of Paragraph (e), and of the words “unless the volunteer’s death was caused by his own serious misconduct”.

I am sorry I cannot accept, the amendment, it involves increased expenditure, and it cannot be moved without the Governor General’s recommendation.

Then can I ask the Minister very seriously to consider the object of this amendment., and if possible to put it forward himself. It appears somewhat involved, but the Minister knows the 1942 Act, and by reference to that it becomes very clear. The effect is merely that the man who serves in the Union and unfortunately dies, as it were, off duty, has the same privileges as at present are accorded to the man who has actually left the Union. There have been very serious instances of cases which this amendment intends to cover. A man for example is on leave and takes part in C.P.S. work, and while doing so is injured or even killed on such service. Now, that man could not receive any recompense—or his dependants could not, and I feel sure it is within the intention of the Minister that such cases shall be met. There has been a case referred to in the House this Session of a man who was practically carrying out a command and while doing so was run over by a passing car and killed. His widow could not be compensated. We know the Minister wishes to do the utmost good and I think all we need do is to ask the Minister to be good enough to take over the amendment.

The hon. member is quite right when he says that this is a comprehensive amendment. It would have this effect, that the widow of any volunteer who is killed or dies on military service inside or outside the Union during the war would be eligible for a pension. It is perfectly true that when anyone is killed, or dies on military service outside the Union under the present law, we give a pension to the widow and we do not enquire what the cause of death is, but this would mean that the same would apply to every person inside the Union, in whatever medical category he was when he enlisted, whether A.1. or C.5, and whatever the cause of death, whether connected with military service or not. I have looked up the pension laws of other countries in the Commonwealth, and in no case do they go as far as that. I do not think we can expect the State to take that kind of liability; we cannot expect the State to be liable whatever the cause of death. We have to remember that we have recruited over a very wild field of medical categories. It will be seen that what the hon. member asks for goes much too far.

In relation to this Clause 16, we are now confronted with the original Clause 17 of the Act of 1942, and I do urge that the time is appropriate to consider what the effect has been of a clause which places matters in the hands of the Military Pensions Board, which gives that Pensions Board the right to reject any claim whatever whether in respect of the death of a soldier, or his complete disablement, or partial disablement. I think without moving at this stage any amendment, the Minister should listen to what is said on this subject, because the records speak for themselves. They show that within one year of the introduction of the 1942 Pensions Act 2,767 cases were unsuccessful, and according to his own Department the reason for their being unsuccessful was that the disablement or cause of death was unconnected with military service.

That is not the number of cases of widows. We are dealing with widows now.

I am not in possession of information as to the number of widows or parents in these cases. I am drawing attention to the effect of Section 17 (e). Whatever the dependants may be, I maintain that it is a reproach upon us as a Parliament and the department which has to deal with these cases, that these things should happen, that you should have a long line of unsuccessful cases in which the unfortunate people are not given any pension because the man’s death in the Union did not take place in the course of military service. The man went out in uniform with just as much devotion to service as anyone else, and if he dies do you mean to tell me that we are justified in taking refuge behind a subterfuge of this kind and saying that this man did not die in military service? The Minister has said that there is no difference between the Acts in other countries and our present Act. Southern Rhodesia has a clause which makes it clear that it is for the Government to prove in what respect this man’s death was not occasioned by military service, and until that is proved by the Government it must be accepted as having been due to military service—unless the contrary is proved. The difference between that form of Act and our present one is that in the case of the Rhodesian Act the clause is accepted as an earnest of good faith on the part of the Government; the Government indicates thereby that they will not endeavour to rob their people of any pension or any gratuity unless the circumstances are such that they are obliged to maintain that this man was not on military service at the time of his death. But in the case of the Union Act every volunteer goes down. There is no opportunity of arguing because the law is against these unfortunate people. But if the law was so altered as to place the onus upon the Government, of proving individual cases, that would be accepted by the volunteers with a very wide spread and an almost universal sense of gratification, because they would realise that they were not all classed as people who had no rights. It is singularly unfair, I think, that those who have not been lacking in love of their country should, when the breadwinner is killed, be turned away without any pension whatsoever and I think that the work of this Special Grants Board has not done a great deal to remove the bitterness which has been caused by this section of the Act. I move—

I regret that. I cannot put the amendment to the Committee without the recommendation of the Governor General, as it would involve increased expenditure.

May I ask the hon. Minister if he will sponsor this amendment in view of the figures I have quoted to him, showing the hardship which has been occasioned to many people.

I do not quite know what the full effect of that amendment is. At the moment I am not prepared to sponsor that amendment, but it appears to me to go considerably beyond the section which we are now discussing.

I thought it was generally understood, insofar as this question of the volunteer on service is concerned, that the State would accept the full responsibility for anything that happened to him by way of accident or disease whilst on service.

That is so.

If that is so, I do not know how far the amendment of the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) is necessary. If the State covers the volunteer on service in the Union, where he takes ill or meets with an accident, then I am not clear how far this amendment is necessary—he is covered already. What we are concerned with are the volunteers who meet with an accident or who succumb to disease whilst on leave, away from their duties, and that has been the part that has worried so many people. It may happen that a man is given leave after a year on active service and that he is killed on his way to the station. If he had been detailed on military duty to fetch rations in one part of the camp and he met with an accident in the course of that duty, he would be covered.

Yes.

But if he goes to the bus and he is killed at the same spot, he is not covered. I am not so concerned from the point of view of the efficiency of the Special Grants Board. I think the hon. member goes a little too far. He has pointed out quite clearly that they acted in accordance with the Act. If there is any fault, it is due to the Act and it is not the fault of the Pensions Board. I have always found the Pensions Board to be most helpful in trying to meet the different cases. But if, of course, the Act prevents them, that is a matter for this House and the responsibility does not rest on the Pensions Board. I can appreciate the difficulty which faces the Minister in meeting the case that has been put up. If originally a Pensions Bill had been put in to cover every single form of disease or death, a large number of volunteers would never have been accepted because of the state of their health, and it does seem in that case to go rather far to ask the State to accept full responsibility in the event of people contracting a disease or being killed whilst not on duty. I do feel that in view of the case that has been put up, where the Pensions Grant Board has definitely been precluded from dealing with the case of death caused by accident whilst off duty… .

The Special Grants Board is not precluded from dealing with such a case.

I understand that they could not deal with these cases.

No, they can deal with them.

I know that it is difficult to frame a clause which will cover everything, but I think we can be satisfied in the knowledge that every one of these cases will be referred to the Special Grants Board, and if they are treated on the same lines as the others outside the Union, it will go a long way in removing the anxiety which is now felt. Very great hardship indeed has been caused to young widows with babies. Take the case of a young widow whose husband was actually on service. He went off duty on leave and was killed. This widow now gets the small grant, and I do hope the Minister will do everything in his power to meet these cases.

I think there is possibly a misunderstanding. The Special Grants Board can deal with any of these cases. The only qualification is that the case must previously have been dealt with by the Military Pensions Board. One of our main purposes in establishing this Special Grants Board was to enable it to deal with this type of case. As my hon. friends are aware, I am proposing an amendment, increasing the scope of the powers of the Special Grants Board, so that they will be enabled to give a larger amount than they have given hitherto. I cannot help feeling that in view of the difficulties which there are in this matter, we must be content to leave the matter in the hands of the Special Grants Board, with the powers which we are proposing here.

I should like to draw the Minister’s attention to one particular point. I am positive that he will afterwards have to accept an amendment of the nature I shall indicate. The point is that there are a large number of cases in the Union where men go on active service and actually get ill there without it always being possible to prove that they contracted the disease during their military service. I want to illustrate the matter with an example. Take for instance a scout doing coastal reconnaissance work. He may have to sleep in the open tonight. He is not in the camp where he can receive decent food and care. Perhaps he may lie in the rain that night, be without food for two days and eat only what he can get hold of and his health consequently suffers. Perhaps he has to spend another two days in the field, suffer more hunger and eat poor food. After six months or a year of such service his health may be completely broken. He goes to hospital, his health deteriorates more and more and finally he dies. The doctors then say that he died of tuberculosis or some other disease which he had at the time. He was, however, A1 when he went on active service. How are you going to prove that the man’s death was due to military service?

It is accepted as such in most cases.

They establish that the man died of tuberculosis and how are you going to prove that he contracted that as a result of military service? It is impossible to prove that.

There have already been 596 cases where it was accepted as such.

If that is the case, then you have partly admitted it. Why not admit it in all cases? Surely when a man has been classed as A1 on attestation and is totally unfit after a year’s service, it is reasonable to demand that. The Minister says that in 596 cases the disease has been accepted as due to military service. I asked the Minister a question in this connection and from the reply it appears as if more cases were rejected than accepted.

No.

I had a question on the Order Paper as to how many people had been discharged as medically unfit, and if one compares those figures with the number of people who received a pension, the Minister will at once admit that my case is well-founded. I took the example of a scout. But let us now take the Tank Corps. All the soldiers serving in the Tank Corps suffer in their health. Even if you are made of steel, once you have served for two or three years in the Tank Corps you can no longer be Al. There is no such thing. The man is hurt today and again tomorrow and in the course of years he becomes unfit. He is in hospital for a long time and when he is in hospital where he does not have the usual amount of movement and fresh air, his health rapidly deteriorates. He dies. His death is attributed to pneumonia or something else by the doctors. The doctors cannot state positively that he contracted pneumonia whilst on military service. If we go into the statistics of the number of people who join the Tank Corps in an Al condition, how many of them are still Al after two years? I mention this to convince the Minister that he should make some concession here. It is very difficult to prove that a person has become medically unfit whilst on active service and in the execution of his duties. When a man goes on leave and falls ill while being at home and dies, it is impossible to prove that he actually contracted his illness during military service. A man may have served up North, falls ill, comes back to the different climate of the Union, goes on leave and falls ill because he is physically weaker than he used to be. Ultimately he dies. In that case too the doctors cannot prove where he contracted the illness. I know that the Minister is very busy, otherwise I would have liked to discuss the matter with him privately in order to convince him. I think, however, that apart from all other arguments, the Minister should take into consideration that we, perhaps unknowingly, can do a section of our soldiers a grave injustice. I therefore hope that the Minister will change his mind so that every soldier who is classed as A1 and afterwards becomes unfit will be supposed to have contracted his disease on military service. As a State we should protect these people and their dependants. I therefore again appeal to the Minister. He may say that we can talk easily since we have not got to find the money, but my argument is that we as a State must accept responsibility towards the man and his dependants. He gives his services for our country and I hope that the Minister will change his mind. Otherwise we may be doing a grave injustice. Mention is made here of “special allowances”. This already goes to prove that we are accepting liability. The State would accept the full responsibility. It should not be left to depend on whether the man finds his death within the borders of the Union or just outside.

I should like to express my agreement with practically every word spoken by the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) because a special case was brought to my notice in connection with which in my opinion an injustice was done. The House does not want injustice to be done. The hon. member for Pretoria Central (Mr. Pocock) at least gave me the impression that only when a man is on leave and not on active service, his case is not taken into consideration if he falls ill while on leave or meets with an accident while on leave. The case which I want to bring to the notice of the Minister is of a person who was actually on active service and not on leave at the time. I know him well. He was a strapping young Afrikaner of about 35 years old. He was 100 per cent. fit when he attested and certified by the doctors as Al. He was married and left a widow with three small children. Whilst he was in the camp, I think it was the Premier Mine camp, he fell ill. That was 2 years or 18 months after he joined up. Ultimately he died and his widow with her three children does not receive any pension whatever.

Will you give me the particulars?

I shall, and I want to mention his name straightaway. He was Sgt. J. Mathieson. I shall write you about it.

I shall go into the case.

The widow appealed and there was so much doubt in this case whether the illness could be attributed to his participation in the war or not, that Dr. Conroy, the district surgeon, declared that he was convinced that his military service was a contributory cause of his disease and his death. In spite of that, the Military Pensions Board unfortunately found it impossible to grant the widow a pension. She then went further and appealed to the “Special Grants Board”. Here again one would have thought that when dealing with such a case they would have granted the maximum amount possible, viz.: £10 per month, which is little enough as it is. But that did not happen. She was compelled to seek employment. Her husband had earned £50 per month. She had to work again and then she was told that as she had obtained employment she could help herself and could therefore not receive any compensation. All she receives is the ordinary mother’s pension of £2 10s. per child or £7 10s. in all. On that she and her three children have to live. I took up the matter with the Commissioner of Pensions and we are grateful for his willingness to assist people and to inform them of the position, but this woman has not yet been assisted. I think this is a case of a person who joined up as an Al recruit, fell ill whilst on service but in whose case the doctors could not form a definite opinion and where consequently no pension was granted.

I shall go into it.

I wish to thank the Minister in anticipation and I hope that he will take care that justice will be done.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 19,

I would like to move the amendments on the Order Paper as printed. I move—

This clause has a bearing on the points we previously discussed in regard to the insurance companies. Under the stipulation which is approved under our legislation of 1940, the insurance company, in order to escape liability, must in the case of a war death, establish either (1) that there is a dependant and that that dependant has received or is entitled to receive a pension, or (2) that there is no dependant and that if there had been one he would not have been entitled to receive a pension. Under the law as it now stands, it can be held that the payment of this £13 to a parent proves that that parent is a dependant, and that that dependant has received a benefit. The amendments that I move will make it perfectly clear that that is not so. It will therefore make it impossible for the insurance company to proceed along those lines. They would then still be able to contend that there is no dependant and that if there had been one he would not have been entitled to a benefit.

In view of the trouble we have experienced in regard to this allowance of £13, I would like to suggest that the Minister should qualify “allowance” by calling it a “token allowance”, so as to bring about a greater distinction.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 20,

The hon. member for Parktown (Mrs. Reitz) raised a matter appertaining to this clause just now. She is unavoidably absent at the moment, but I wish to support her. In Section 21 of the Act, which this clause seeks to amend, it is provided that a woman, who has been separated and who has been maintained by her husband and who now becomes a widow, should be limited to £84 a year. That is the effect of Section 21 of the principal Act.

That is the law as it stands.

The widow who has not been separated can receive under the Third Schedule of the Act an amount, according to the rank of her husband, ranging from £132 per annum to £400 per annum. There seems to be a tremendous distinction between the woman, who happens to be separated from her husband, and the woman, who has not been separated. The woman who has been separated from her husband receives £84 per annum. That is a very niggardly sum in relation to the other payments which are made under this Act. It does seem to me rather unfair that a woman, who is separated from her husband, who may have been maintaining her on a liberal allowance, should now receive £84 a year, whereas if she had not been separated she would have received anything from £132 to £400 per annum.

I have already promised to look into that matter and I shall do so hearing these figures in mind.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 22,

May I move the amendments standing in my name on the Order Paper—

1. (i) the substitution, in Sub-Section (1), for the words “one hundred” of the words “one hundred and twenty” and by the deletion of the proviso to the said sub-section;
2. (ii) the substitution, in Sub-Section (3), for the words “one hundred and forty-four”, of the words “one hundred and eighty”;
3. (iii) the substitution, in Sub-Section (4), for the words “as may be” of the word “if”;
4. (iv) the addition thereto of the following new sub-section:
   1. “(5) In the event of the death of one of the parents, any pension awarded under this section may, as from the date of the death of such parent, in the discretion of the Board be continued or transferred to the surviving parent at the same rate or at such higher or lower rate as the Board may determine”.

This will give effect to the intention I announced of raising the maximum amount payable to £120 and £180 respectively to parents, and as far as the new sub-section is concerned, that will merely ensure continuity in the event of the death of one parent.

I am grateful to the Minister for increasing this parental allowance to £180, but I personally do not think it is sufficient, and I want to ask the Minister to increase it to £240. My reason is that I know of a case—and there may be other cases as well—where the parents have lost three sons during the war. They were dependent on one son and they are too old to earn their own living. Now the most they can get is £144 per annum. But worse was to happen—the son on whom they were dependent had overdrawn his military pay to the extent of £30, and in spite of the great sorrow which these parents had to suffer they were called on to pay back this £30. It is a very hard case indeed and there may be other similar cases, but these people are unable to live on the pension granted them of £144, and I still maintain that they will not be able to live on the new rate of £180. And that is my reason for appealing to the Minister to agree that such payments should be raised to at least £20 per month.

I hope the Minister will amend Sub-Section (4). Where a pension has been granted power is given to the Military Pensions Board to review such cases from time to time. It says here: “If deemed necessady by the Board”. I wish to move the deletion of the word “Board” and to substitution of the word “Minister”. It will be far better if applicants can approach the Minister for a review of their cases. Today it will be left to the discretion of the Board which has granted the pension—and it may be unwilling to review its own grants. After all it is their decision and they may be reluctant to review their own decision, whereas the Minister is in a different position. I move—

I appreciate the fact that the hon. member wishes to leave the matter in my hands but I do not think it desirable that the Minister should be involved too deeply in matters of administration, especially in this case where there is an appeal to the Appeal Board. We have the machinery of the Appeal Board and I do not think we should provide over and above that for an appeal to the Minister. As far as the case raised by the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Acutt) is concerned, I appreciate that there are individual cases of hardship, but I think that by raising this maximum from £144 to £180 we are dealing generously with this kind of case. We cannot, of course, legislate for every case—there must be border line cases, and I do not think we can go beyond the maximum we have proposed.

The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) moves an amendment for the deletion of the word “Board” and the substitution of the word “Minister”. I regret I cannot accept the amendment in this form as it is inconsistent with the context of the clause.

Amendments proposed by the Minister of Finance put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 24,

I move—

1. (ii) the addition of the following words at the end of Paragraph (b) of Sub-Section (1): “unless such husband is, by reason of physical or mental infirmity, dependent upon her for maintenance, in which event an allowance at rates corresponding to those laid down in the ninth column of the Second Schedule may be granted in respect of him for as long as such infirmity continues”:

and to add the following new paragraphs after the old Paragraph (ii):

1. (iv) the addition of the following new subparagraph (i) of Sub-Section (2):
   1. “(d) to the widower, if by reason of physical or mental infirmity he was dependent upon the volunteer for maintenance at the time of her death, a pension and a gratuity at rates corresponding to those laid down in the second and third columns of the Third Schedule, for as long as such infirmity continues”;
2. (v) the addition thereto of the following new sub-section:
   1. “(3) For the purposes of this section, the word ‘husband’ or ‘widower’ does not include a man whose marriage to the volunteer took place more than five years after the date of her discharge from military service”.

I promised during the second reading to make provision for the case of the disabled woman volunteer who has a husband dependent on her, for whose maintenance she is responsible, and also for the case Where the woman having such a husband, should die, and the amendments here are to give effect to that intention.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 25,

I move—

This is an amendment of a verbal nature—it is merely the omission of the word “respectively”.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put angreed to.

On Clause 26,

I move—

This amendment merely aims at deleting certain words which are unnecessary.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 27,

I move—

1. (5) Any pension granted to a woman under this section shall cease when she contracts or again contracts a union which is recognised as a marriage by the law of the Union (including native law and custom), but any allowances payable in respect of children may be continued, subject to the provisions of Sub-Section (3) and to such conditions as the Commissioner may determine.

I have given consideration to certain points raised on the second reading. I agree that the words “discretion of the Board” are unnecessary. I also agree that having regard to other figures the maximum pension payable to a parent should be £25. We have increased the pension for Europeans, and I therefore propose to increase the amount here to £25. I shall also move an amendment to the schedule.

I want to express my appreciation to the Minister for having taken these points into consideration which I raised on the second reading, and for amending the section. There are, however, just two further points which seem to me to have possibly escaped the Minister’s attention. With regard to the children of a separated wife, he has amended this clause by, in line 55, cutting out all words after “provisions of” down to and including “wife” in line 59 and inserting a reference to Sections 20, 21 and 22. Now, Section 21 makes provision for a pension for a separated wife, and an allowance for her children at the rate set forth in the Third Schedule. Now, that third schedule applies only to Europeans. The mere application of Section 21 here would not make provision for the children of native separated wives. When I was speaking on this subject on the second reading, the Minister, by way of interjection, told me that he was going to introduce an amendment to bring the children, the native children, into this provision, and that is what I understand is the intention of the changed wording. Now, with regard to Sections 21 and 22 if they are applied to native children, it will bring them under the third schedule of the Act and that cannot be intended I want to ask the Minister—I cannot move an amendment because it might involve increased expenditure—if it is not necessary to lay down the rate for native children? He has laid down specific rates for the parents, and it seems necessary to apply the provisions of Sub-Clause (1), so far as children are concerned, to the children of these women who are covered by this subsection. There is one other point, also concerning children, the children of a native widow. The clause as it reads now says that a pension is to be granted to a widow, of £25 per annum. And then it says that an allowance, not exceeding £6 per annum, is to be granted for each child. Now, in the case of Paragraph 1, the words “not exceeding” are used with reference to the children of a native widow. It seems that the case of a widow—that is where there is only one—is that her rights are definitely established, but not those of her children, and in order to clarify my meaning I want to refer the Minister to the wording of Section 30 of the Principal Act which lays down a pension for a disabled native volunteer, and an allowance for his wife and children. Now the seventh schedule says nothing about “not exceeding” certain rates. The amount laid down is £6 per annum. Therefore the introduction of the words “not exceeding” seems to import a discretion in the case of the children of a native volunteer who is killed which is not present when he is alive. I am sure that was an oversight. The children who have a right to an allowance when their father is alive should know that a specific rate is laid down for them when he is killed.

I shall look into that. I follow the points which the hon. member has made, and I shall be glad to look into them. The one point, at any rate, is of a somewhat technical character, and in either case, although the amount involved would not be large, there will be some expenditure involved and I cannot deal with it now.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 31,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 37,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 39,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 41,

I move—

1. (i) by the insertion, in Sub-Section (1), after the word “members”, where it occurs for the first time, of the words “and to the widows, children, parents”;

1. (iv) by the substitution in Sub-Section (2), for the words “Such treatment”, of the words “and not being less than the rates of pension (excluding allowances) for men and women volunteers respectively, laid down in the Schedules of this Act, in respect of one hundred per cent. disability. In the case of a person who is not a member of the Essential Services Protection Corps, such treatment”.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 42,

On the motion of the Minister of Finance an amendment was made in the Afrikaans version which did not occur in the English version.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 43,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 44,

On the motion of the Minister of Finance, an amendment was made in the Afrikaans version which did not occur in the English version.

This clause deals with Oudstryders’ pensions, and there was one matter which I raised on the second reading and I cannot remember the Minister of Finance having mentioned it in his reply. The point in question is that when an Oudstryder receives a pension and has furthermore a small income on which he receives a cost of living allowance at present, deductions are made from his pension or he may even lose his pension altogether as a result of the means test. I quoted a case here of a man who received a letter from the Commissioner of Pensions which said inter alia—

That means that the person simply does not benefit from his cost of living allowance. He receives a cost of living allowance because the cost of living has gone up, but immediately his pension is cancelled. I therefore wish to move the following amendment—

1. (4) The amount paid as cost of living allowance to any person who is, in terms of the provisions of Part II of the War Pensions Act, 1941 (Act No. 45 of 1941), entitled to a verteran’s pension, shall not be regarded as income (or means) for the purposes of Sub-Section (1) of Section 6 of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1928.

I may say that there is already a paragraph in Clause 3 which lays down that the increase which the Oudstryders will receive as a result of this Bill will not be taken into consideration for the means test. I now want to have it laid down that any cost of living allowance will not be taken into consideration for the means test.

I regret to have to inform the hon. member that the Minister of Finance intimated to me that the amendment would involve increased expenditure and I am therefore unable to put it to the Committee without the recommendation of the Governor General.

But it is not a question of proposing a specific increase. We only alter the provision in the Bill which may incidentally mean an increase. I should like to hear the Minister’s reply to it.

This is a matter which not only affects the Oudstryders’ pension but also the old age pension.

Yes, we know it affects both.

As my hon. friend knows, we apply according to the law, the provisions of the Old Age Pensions Act in regard to the calculation of the Oudstryders’ pensions. Under that Act we have the means test and where that is the case an allowance for the cost of living has to be considered as part of the means. I do admit that it may sometimes be unfair in its effects. We are considering the whole question of old age pensions, and I shall give my attention to this aspect of the matter. But we cannot at this stage and only in regard to this Bill make a change and leave the general problem as it is.

In what manner will the Minister give consideration to it? He should realise that it is mere eyewash to grant these people a cost of living allowance and thereafter deduct it again from the old age pension. Will the Minister not be prepared to consider moving an amendment at the report stage.

No, I cannot do so.

I cannot see what objection the Minister can raise against that.

When legislation will be introduced it may perhaps if necessary, be made retrospective in effect.

But we are faced here with an injustice which already exists. If the Minister moves an amendment during the report stage he still has the opportunity of first obtaining the Governor General’s consent. This is an injustice which exists already and we cannot wait another year before the position can be remedied. I hope that the Minister will realise that the best way of dealing with the matter will be to lay down now that the cost of living allowance will not be considered as “means” for the test. I earnestly hope that the Minister will not wait another year with it.

Is it not possible for the Minister to agree at the eleventh hour to include the widows of Oudstryders, even if it would apply only to the widows of our Oudstryders to whom they were married before the war or within two years after the war? Even if he includes these only, it would already cause much satisfaction. If the Minister has read what happened at the Congress of Oudstryders held last week, he will know that one of the greatest difficulties they have is the means test, where the means are based on the income of the children. These are the two things they object to. They object to the income of the children being taken into consideration too or being added, when the means of the parent are being established. When an Oudstryder has a small income himself, perhaps from a few head of cattle, he does not receive the pension. The request was therefore made that the Minister should abolish the means test. Then there is a further point affecting lines 51 and 52 of Clause 44, and in regard thereto I wish to move the following amendment—

I should like to see the old age pension to remain in force and the Oudstryders’ pension to be granted in addition to it.

I am sorry but for the same reasons as given in respect of the hon. member for Winburg’s amendment, I cannot put the amendment.

I regret that the amendment has been ruled out of order, as otherwise I should have liked to support it. In view, however, of the fact that I cannot speak on it, I should like to remind the Minister that on a previous occasion he stated that he would at some later date announce in what manner the Oudstryders who are now receiving an old age pension, could switch over to the Oudstryders’ pension.

We did make that announcement in the Press. There the whole position was made clear.

There is of course a way out of the difficulty created by the ruling of the Chairman in regard to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Vrededorp (Mrs. Badenhorst) and that is if the Minister were to have the necessary formalities passed. In that manner he would meet the wishes of her, of the House and especially of the country. Her request is most fair. Not that we do not sufficiently appreciate what the Minister of Finance has already done. On the contrary, we want to encourage him further to demonstrate his fairness. This is a matter of fairness, not of rights. I therefore ask the Minister to meet the wishes of the hon. member. He himself must surely feel some sympathy for her. The hon. member travelled all over the country for months and addressed scores of meetings of Oudstryders and here in the House she brought up the matter in a most sympathetic way. In view of the amount of work she put in for this cause, I think that the Minister should in any case give serious consideration to her request.

At the second reading stage I drew the Minister’s attention to the stipulation that Oudstryders who had hitherto received the old age pension would only become entitled to the increased Oudstryders’ pension as from 1st April with retrospective effect, if they now convert their pension into an Oudstryders pension before 1st August. If they do not do that, they cannot obtain the increased Oudstryders pension. I want to point out to the Minister that there are many Oudstryders who hitherto received the old age pension and never troubled to switch over to the Oudstryders pension because these pensions were identical in amount. If they now do not apply before 1st August, they cannot obtain the increased allowance.

I shall give them two more months in which to do so. Of course I cannot move that here for it might mean increased expenditure, but we shall remedy that at some later stage.

In the Senate?

I cannot do it there either, but we shall find some way out of it.

Will the Minister give this House the assurance that in cases where in the past for instance the father and the mother each received an old age pension, and the man’s Oudstryders’ pension is now to be increased by one-third, that will not make any difference to the old age pension the woman is receiving?

Certainly, that will not be affected.

We have had very bitter experiences in the rural areas.

I give the definite undertaking that the increase in the Oudstryders’ pension will not have any influence on the old age pension of the wife.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 46 put and negatived.

On New Clause to follow Clause 45,

I move—

1. 46.
   1. (1) The Minister of Finance may appoint a committee of persons under the chairmanship of an officer in his department, to consider any application for relief by any person who—
      1. (a) is in receipt of a civil pension in respect of the former service of such person or of any other person, in the employ of the Government or of the Government of any part of South South Africa now included in the Union, under any law administered by the office or department of the said Minister; and
      2. (b) is in necessitous circumstances as a result of conditions arising from the present war.
   2. (2) The said committee shall have power, notwithstanding anything in any other law contained, to supplement the pension of any such person by the award of a bonus in accordance with such rates as the said Minister may from time to time prescribe in respect of any class of such persons and with effect from a date not earlier than the first day of April, 1943.
   3. (3) Any such bonus may be paid during the period of the present war and thereafter until the date referred to in Sub-Section (4), at the same or at such reduced rate as the said Minister may prescribe.
   4. (4) The provision of this section shall cease to be in operation on a date to be fixed by the Governor General by Proclamation in the Gazette.

Agreed to.

New Clause to follow Clause 46,

I move—

1. 47. Sections two, four, thirteen, paragraphs (iii) and (iv) of section seventeen, sections eighteen, nineteen, paragraph (i) of section twenty-one, paragraph (i) of section twenty-two, paragraph (iv) of section twenty-three, paragraph (i) of section twenty-five, section twenty-six, paragraph (iii) of section twenty-seven, sections thirty-seven, thirty-eight, thirty-nine, forty, forty-one, paragraphs (i) and (iv) of section forty-two and section forty-four shall be deemed to have come into operation on the first day of April, 1942, section eight and paragraph (i) of section nine on the first day of November, 1942, and paragraph (ii) of section nine on the first, day of April, 1943.

Agreed to.

On the Schedule.

I move—

I simply rise to express my appreciation to the hon. Minister.

Agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, put and agreed to.

The Title having been agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill with amendments; amendments to be considered on 22nd April.

I move—

I do not intend making a long speech. In fact I shall confine my remarks to a speech of about 1½ minutes. In connection with this Bill the Minister of the Interior had to face fairly severe storms, storms from outside which were serious enough but also storms from within which were more serious. The Minister is now sitting there with a broad smile on his face like somebody who has completed a task and has done his work well. It may be that the little bit he did was done well, but the great problem as a whole has not been touched.

In a certain measure this Bill, which has no great substance, is yet of some considerable importance. Of great importance by reason of its implications, particularly in view of the Indian question as a whole, but also in view of the much bigger, the more comprehensive colour question in South Africa. For that reason I think it is necessary that I should take this opportunity at the third reading to say a few words in connection with it. This Bill has been passed by the House with a large measure of disappointment so far as our side is concerned—disappointment with the Bill itself and disappointment with the course that this discussion has taken. In spite of that we are yet not prepared to vote against the Bill at any of its stages, and we shall support the passing of the third reading of this Bill. The reason for that is not that we are satisfied with the Bill as it is now, but we are acting in accordance with the principle that half an egg is better than an empty shell, and this Bill is half an egg and scarcely that. This Bill is obviously no solution; it is no solution; it is not effective, but it denotes, so far as Natal is concerned, a slight improvement in the position that existed. For that reason we are not prepared to oppose or to obstruct the passage of this Bill. I say that we are disappointed with this Bill. I said at the beginning of the second reading that the Bill must be improved and improved considerably. I indicated in what respects it must be improved, and in those various respects certain amendments were proposed during the Committee stage. I am very sorry that the Government did not see its way clear to accept those amendments. The Government refused all the amendments that were proposed en masse. Those amendments would have met our objections, and not only would they have met the objections of this side of the House, but they would have met the wishes of the Natal members and of a large proportion—the overwhelming proportion—of the population, the European population of the country, and of members on the other side of the House. The Government did not see its way clear to go so far. I have said that this Bill is no solution of the problem. Is is nothing but a tinkering a repeated tinkering with a great and serious problem for this country.

It is nevertheless a good beginning.

The results of this tinkering with the question, without arriving at a real solution, simply makes the matter worse for the future than it was before, because where you pass a temporary measure here in the House in connection with this question it imposes the responsibility, the necessity, on the Government of coming to the House time and again either to renew this legislation or to pass other legislation in its place. The pot is simply being kept back at boiling point perpetually, as I expressed it on a previous occasion. You do not arrive at a proper, satisfactory, abiding relationship between the races. You tamper with the question today and tomorrow you have to tamper with it again, and you simply keep the pot boiling. That is one of the deficiencies, one of the drawbacks, of this legislation. The other objection we have, of which I want to remind the House again, is that here on the altar of expedience is sacrificed the interests, the great interests, of one of the provinces of the Union, namely Natal. If there is one part of South Africa in which this Indian question is serious, where it is acute, then it is precisely that part of our country. But so far as Natal is concerned, so far as that part of the country is concerned, its interests are sacrificed on the altar of expedience. The Government, for its own purposes, does not want to grapple with this problem and to solve it properly, and for that Natal and its interests have to be sacrificed. The other disadvantage we saw in this Bill and which is still contained in it, is that here in this Bill the blame for that malrelation between the European race and the Indians in Natal is temporarily, or by implication laid at the door of the Europeans. The blame is laid on the shoulders of the Europeans, and the law, as we saw here during the discussion, simply treats the Indians and the Europeans alike so far as infiltration is concerned. It is clearly admitted that the Indian is a danger to the European by virtue of his infiltration methods, but it is clearly indicated, and the blame is laid on the European population, that they are also a danger to the Indian in respect of infiltration. It is made clear by implication that the European is a danger to the Indian in the matter of infiltration. This is a brand-new doctrine that is being preached in the House. As has been clearly pointed out here, there is no such danger from the side of the Europeans as against the Indians. For Europeans do not purchase property in the Indian locality, or in areas that are definitely demarcated as Indian. They do not buy property there, and even if they should buy there, then it has not the effect of depreciating the surrounding properties of the Indians. But if the Indian infiltrates into the European locality, damage is not done only from the point of view of race purity and the prestige of the European race, but financial damage is also caused, because European property around the Indian property depreciates in value. In this Bill the European, so far as this danger is concerned, is simply placed on the same footing as the Indian, and the European is being considered as much a danger to the Indian as the Indian is to the European. It is an unjustified and undeserved blame that is being laid on the shoulders of the European. I just want to say this further in connection with the third reading. If we look back on the discussion that has taken place here in connection with the Bill, then we see that it has cast a very revealing light on the whole position here in the House and in the country with reference to this most serious of our national problems, namely the relation between the European and the non-European races. It throws revealing light on the position taken up in this House, quite wrongly, by the representatives of the native population in the country. The representatives of the native population sit here specially for the interests of the natives, to represent those interests and to make those interests known to this legislative body. They must protect those interests here and they do not sit here as the representatives of any other section of the population. But now what has appeared from this discussion? It has appeared that the representatives of the native population arrogate to themselves the right to act on behalf of and to care for the interests of other sections of the non-European population in the same way. They arrogate to themselves the right to act also for the others, and even more than that. I think I say here with justification that this discussion showed clearly that the representatives of the native population are taking up an attitude here not only of being protectors and representatives of the interests of the natives, but they adopt the attitude of anti-European action. One would have said that if they should go outside the scope of those whom they represent, namely the natives, and act also as the representatives of the population, that they would include not only the Indians and the coloureds, but also the European population of the country. But when we look at the action of the three representatives of the natives, then we find that they act, so far as the colour question is concerned, not only pro-native, pro-Indian and pro-coloured, but also anti-European in general.

That is untrue.

The European population is the danger, according to them, and they want to show up the European population in the country as a danger to the non-Europeans. I agree with what another hon. member on this side has said, that generally one comes to the conclusion that the solution found in 1936, in consequence of which those three members sit here in the House, has apparently been a failure just as it appears more and more that the Representative Native Council, which must represent native interests, is becoming more and more, as the minutes of the conferences that are held in Pretoria annually prove, a breeding ground for dissatisfaction and agitation and for anti-European action and sentiment. That was our objection at the time. I was leader of the Purified Nationalist Party at the time. When that legislation was passed, we prophesied that thing, and that thing has come, and I think the country is coming more and more to the conviction that that solution was the wrong one. It is not conducive to a good relationship between the European, and non-European, but it is operating just in the opposite direction, and it ought to be reviewed. I just want to add also, that this discussion has cast a revealing light on the whole character and position and attitude of the Dominion Party. I do not know whether we on this side of the House have ever taken up any standpoint that has received such wholehearted agreement from members of Natal in general and from members of the Dominion Party as on this occasion. There is not one amendment that we proposed that was not either silently or openly supported by them in this House. They agreed with them. But with what result? The result that they confessed that that is their conviction but that they are not prepared to vote for it. They cannot agree with the Government, but when it comes to a division, then they walk out of the House. This, let me remark, is precisely what I expected of the Dominion Party. They are loyal to their fundamental principle, and their fundamental principle is that they love the Empire better than they do Natal, and that they love the Empire more than they do South Africa. That is their fundamental principle and therefore when, in their judgement, there was a conflict between the interests of the Empire and the interests of Natal, they sacrificed Natal on the altar of the Empire, and they are prepared time and again, when the Empire’s interests stand against South Africa’s interests, to sacrifice South Africa on the altar of the British Empire. That is the radical difference between this side of the House and a large part of that side of the House. The Dominian Party, by taking up that standpoint and by acting in the way—the standpoint that they love the Empire better than South Africa or even Natal—have proved that they are not South Africans. They are, although they may protest against it, actually nothing else but foreigners. I just want to say this in connection with them, that something else came to light in respect of their attitude, and that is that they cared to some extent for Natal, provided Natal’s interests do not conflict with the interests of the Empire, but evidently they do not care a rap for the interests of the rest of the Union. They are interested in the Indian question because it affects Natal. But we have the same situation so far as the coloured question in the rest of the country is concerned, and in connection with that we do not hear their voice, but they throw in their weight with those who want to keep the matter as it is. They do not care a rap for the interests of the rest of South Africa. We do not act like that towards them. Natal is a province in which the representation of the Nationalist Party is very scant. But we do not simply throw Natal aside. That part of Natal where the Nationalist Party is represented, and I hope will again be represented, is protected against the Indians just as is the Free State. They may not go there from Natal or from the Transvaal. From a party point of view we have no interest in this question in Natal, and yet we as a party are prepared, on behalf of Natal and South Africa, on behalf of the European race, to step into the breach also for Natal, even where Natal itself does not want to do so. Then I also want to say that the discussion has thrown a revealing light also on the attitude of the Government. I said at the second reading that the Government would certainly not have tackled the legislation in connection with Natal were it not that strong pressure was exercised by the Natal members, more particularly by the Dominion Party. They brought up this legislation concerning Natal under pressure, and because it was done under pressure, it was done gingerly. Because of that internal strife in that party, for that reason, the Dominion Party gained the victory. But that the Government will not go further than it has gone, and that it sacrifices the rest of Natal, more particularly for Durban, and in a large measure sacrifices the whole of Natal for the Empire, that is no victory for the Dominion Party. There are in South Africa other people who have gained the actual victory. That victory has been gained by Harry Snitcher and Mrs. Gool. They have gained the victory. The actual position is that the Government is afraid to protect Natal and to grapple with and to solve the colour question, even though it concerns only the Indians—it is afraid of the effect it will have on the coloured population and on the coloured people and on the vote that the coloured population can exercise at the election. I say it was a victory for Harry Snitcher and Mrs. Gool. Harry Snitcher is a Jew from Russia who has been washed up here and who has now so much authority over the relations between race and race that he has gained a victory against the Government of the country, and the result of this—if Harry Snitcher should have authority over the relations between race and race, and where in fact he has gained a victory—there I say that Natal has not only lost, but South Africa has lost and the European race in South Africa has lost. The Prime Minister takes refuge in good relationship and says that he does not want to force the matter. He simply wants things to develop. He wants consultation and a solution of matters by way of agreement. Behind that shields a good and right principle. It is true that this is a principle that we once entertained, but that principle was put to the test in Durban and it has appeared to be a hopeless failure there. But now the Prime Minister wants to continue with it and does not want to take further legislative steps. He clings to the principle of consultation and agreement, although it has already appeared to be a failure. All I can say is that I do not understand the Government. So far as the Indians are concerned, he wants to consult them before he takes steps. So far as the coloureds are concerned, there the Government has created a permanent Advisory Coloured Commission to act as a link between the Government and the coloureds, so that everything may run smoothly. Well and good. But where it concerns the Church, the Church which, when the State would do nothing, concerned itself with the poor-white question and created a settlement at Kakamas beside the Orange River with great success, when one of the Ministers in connection with it thought that things were being done that should not be done, he did not take the Church into his confidence. No, instead of consulting the Church and saying to the Church what he would like to have done, instead of meeting the Church at a round-table conference, he did nothing of that kind, and he mentioned the Church here in the House and made a hefty and spiteful attack on the Church such as we have never heard in all the history of Parliament. How must we now understand the Government? It is prepared to consult the Indians and the coloureds. But it does not do this in connection with an institution such as the Church, which has such a high prestige in the country. I just want to say this, that this Government adopts that attitude of the Prime Minister not because it wants to solve matters by way of consultation, but it is nothing else than a revelation of weakness, weakness in connection with the colour question in South Africa, and weakness in connection with the colour question in our country is fatal. We see this more and more every day. In connection with this question too much weakness has been displayed all these years. If we had acted more strongly in connection with this matter and with more determination, and had not only looked to votes but to the interests of South Africa as a whole and of the European race of the future, then the colour question would not have been left in abeyance so many years. Then we would not have had a joint committee of both Houses of Parliament which took evidence for seven years on the matter, which deliberated and came with a solution that was satisfactory, then we would not have seen the spectacle of that good solution which was right being thrown aside by the action of the Prime Minister; we would not have had the spectacle of a compromise, made as a revelation of weakness, which leaves the colour question in the same condition that it is today and which entails the conferences of the Native Representative Council held in Pretoria year after year becoming nothing but a revelation of anti-European sentiment, an incubator of agitation against the Europeans of the country. That is the price we are paying for weakness. So far as the Indian question is concerned, I must still say this in connection with the attitude of the Government. Although the Cape Town Agreement should have been terminated—as I have said, the representatives of the Prime Minister at that conference together with the representatives of India took up the standpoint that there should be an opportunity to see if there would not be emigration of Indians, if not back to India then to other countries—I say that although that experiment has failed and the agreement should have been terminated, they are still dragging forward with that and they are doing it for votes. In those circumstances the Government has come to light with legislation which is as unsatisfactory as it now is, and which virtually does nothing other than to shelve the matter and to make it become worse, until we shall have to say also in connection with this matter. It is too late. These are the remarks I wanted to make in connection with this Bill. We shall not oppose the passage of the Bill. We shall support it. But at the same time we want to express our bitter dissatisfaction with the hopeless weakness of the Government. South Africa, I fear, will have to pay the price for this in future.

The speech we have just heard from the hon. Leader of the Opposition was a tirade more violently anti-colour than any speech I ever remember hearing in this House. The hon. member at one stage of it particularly directed his remarks to myself and my colleagues on these benches, and he made a statement which I say is utterly and entirely untrue, and which our whole record in this House has shown to be untrue, namely, that we were anti-white. He said that we were here to represent the interests of a particular racial group, the native people, as though the true interests of the various racial groups in this country clashed. He said we should be confined to advocating those interests as though we were lawyers carrying a brief. The reason why I am here, the reason why the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) is here, and the reason why my colleague from the Transkei (Mr. Hemming) is here, is because we profoundly believe that the true interests of all races in this country are the same, and it is those interests, European no less than non-European, that we have always tried, and I believe faithfully and honestly tried, to support in this House. If the speech of the hon. member were correct, if there was a deep conflict of interests between the native people and the European people in this country, if that were in truth and in fact so, there might be something in the implication that he made. It is precisely because we do not believe that if fairness and justice are done there is any conflict of races in this country, that we stand for the most backward and in many ways the most oppressed section of the people of this country. If the Leader of the Opposition were correct in saying: “You represent a particular racial group whose interests conflict with the European section of the population,” then on his own showing there might be something in his contention. I am absolutely amazed, Mr. Speaker, because I have always held the impression that the Leader of the Opposition has listened carefully and fairly to the views expressed from these benches over a period of years, and I am very surprised that he should have made such an imputation. Perhaps it is that the Leader of the Opposition just cannot understand the tradition for which I stand in this country. I have read speeches of the hon. member in which he mentioned my forbears in this country by name as men who were capable of seeing the Afrikaans-speaking people’s point of view, and I may tell him this, that on all questions of colour, whether native. Asiatic or with reference to the coloured people, these forbears of mine whom he quotes held exactly the same views as I hold and gave expression to exactly the same opinions that I have always given expression to in this House. They were not criticised by people like the Leader of the Opposition because they took, and rightly took, the line that I would have taken if I lived in those days. The people of the Transvaal and the Free State whom they believed, were oppressed by a small group of capitalists in the Transvaal backed by an outside power were supported by my forbears. They stood by these people and the so-called “Cape rebels” not because they were of their blood and race—they were not—but because they thought it was in the interests of South Africa to do so. The history of South Africa has proved that they were right. At the same time, on the issues connected with the native and coloured people they took exactly the same line as I have always taken and not because they were anti-white. They did not stand up for the “Cape rebels”, so-called, and the Transvaal Republic, because they were anti-English, they did so because they felt that it was in the interests of the country. A forbear of mine was the first Englishman to take a step towards independence of this country in the Cape and he did so not because he wanted to throw off the connection with the British Empire but because he thought it was in the interests of the country. It is the same with the hon. member for Cape Eastern. Her father fought as a burgher in the Free State in the Anglo-Boer War and suffered for it for the rest of his life. The hon. Leader of the Opposition must try to understand the fact that whatever racial relations may be in this country, that it is possible for an individual to stand up for people of a race other than his own because he feels it is in the interests of the whole. Now, Mr. Speaker, we have always made our position on these benches clear, and that is that we do not believe that discriminations on the ground of race and colour are in the interests of the future of this country. It may be that today that is something novel. So far as the particular section whom this Bill deals with is concerned, they are represented by nobody in this House. The members of this House are either elected by European voters or European and coloured voters here in the Cape, or by native voters, and I again emphasise that every member of this House has a duty towards the whole of the people of South Africa. If someone who is elected for the Native people has no right to speak on behalf of the other sections, then one wonders who has the right to speak. I can understand that some members of the House—I would not before today have put the Leader of the Opposition among them—don’t understand anyone standing up for the rights of people who have not got votes. I would not have thought that the Leader of the Opposition would have been one of those. But there is no doubt of the distressing tendency on his part to make attacks on various sections of the community for political purposes, and there is one common characteristic in regard to those weaker groups on whom attacks have been made, and that is that there is no possibility of their hitting back. I do not think that that is in accordance with the best traditions of the people from whom the Leader of the Opposition descends. To criticise us because we have stood up for our convictions is only too typical of a certain tendency in this country, and I think this Bill itself is an example of it. Here in this Bill we have this condition of affairs when a racial minority becomes successful in business a law is passed to restrict their opportunities. Where a minority puts forward arguments which deserve to be answered on their merits, as we do, we could expect a proper answer, but no answer is forthcoming, the only answer is “stop them, stop them from talking, put them out.” There is a tendency unfortunately in this country, in this House, to threaten us, because we have stood up for our convictions, with a review of the legislation under which we are here. That is a tendency which is not worthy of the traditions of this country. Now, with regard to this Bill itself, I have already made clear my view thereon. I regard it as an example of discriminatory legislation, and I just want to recite a few of the points which have been put forward in its favour during these debates. The first is that this Bill is not in fact discriminatory. So far as the Transvaal is concerned, I do not see how that argument can be put forward. With regard to Natal it will in the Durban Municipal area, have the effect of confining, except under ministerial exemption, a population of 25,000 Asiatics to 360 acres in a total area of 8,200 acres. I cannot see how that can be described as other than discriminatory. The point has also been made that this is temporary legislation. My experience of temporary legislation in the Transvaal does not give me confidence to believe that this will be temporary. And then also there is the fact that the supporters of this Bill on all sides have expressed the view that legislation of this kind must be of a permanent character. It is next suggested that it is based on facts showing that the position of the European people in Natal is threatened by Indian encroachment. I do not know whether that argument is seriously put forward by the Transvaal seeing that there are only 28,000 Indians in the Transvaal. Now, in regard to Natal, let me again remind the House of the facts of the case. In the old Borough of Durban where the Asiatics constitute about one quarter of the population they occupy only 360 acres. Can that be regarded as a threat? The old Borough is only one-fifth of the total Borough of Durban. With regard to the other four-fifths I wish to remind the House again of the evidence of the Broome Commission where it is said that there is no doubt that the added areas were not originally predominantly European, but on this evidence all that there is—it has now been decided that this one-fifth constitutes a threat to the rest of Durban. On what evidence can it be said, that the population, the Asiatic population, inhabiting the added areas, constitutes a threat to the European population in the rest of Durban? In regard to the rest of Natal that is not included in this Bill so far as its immediate operation is concerned but can be included by proclamation. I have already reminded the House that according to the Broome Report the penetration that has taken place there is only a mere trickle. I have no hesitation therefore on those clear facts, which have been set out in the report of the Broome Commission, in saying that there is no threat to the European position. I particularly deplore legislation of this type at this time. I particularly deplore it when this country is involved in a war for the upholding of the rights of minority peoples, of weaker peoples. That is one of the objects for which we are fighting this war—and I believe that the United Nations are sincerely fighting the war for that object. I particularly deplore it when India, a country inhabited by people of the same race as those who are dealt with in this Bill, stands as one of the ramparts between this country and another aggressive imperialist power. I am referring to Japan. And so I say that to introduce a measure of this kind at a time like the present is ill advised. I have great difficulty in conceiving how this country got into this habit of taking steps against weaker groups—we know that steps like this have already been taken in other directions against other racial groups. This is not the only country in the world where there is a mixed population. This is not the only country where questions of race minorities have caused difficulties. Those difficulties have been present in many other countries—for instance in Central Europe and the Near East—for longer periods than in this country, and yet I know of no country where specific legislation has been passed in order to limit the ordinary activities and rights of various racial groups. For these reasons I take this last opportunity of saying that I deeply deplore this legislation, and I fear that in days to come it will be regretted by this country.

This legislation rests on only one principle, and that is the principle of self-preservation, and I cannot understand why the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) cannot realise that. There is no motive behind this legislation other than the feeling which is experienced by every person, namely to fight for self-preservation, and practically every member of the House regards it in this light. For that reason, although this legislation does not go as far as each one of us would like it to go, we accept the fundamental principle and in that spirit we are going to pass this Bill at the third reading. If it were not for the Dominion Party which had a say in the Government, the Government would have left Natal to the Indians. They could not have introduced legislation, because they always have to bear in mind what the coloured people and the Asiatics in the Cape will do at the next election. There are many hon. members on the other side who feel just as we do, and who advocate the same legislation which we advocate, and it therefore gives us a feeling of satisfaction that the other side of the House is now beginning to wake up, because we shall have to solve this colour problem, and we shall not be able to do it by means of half-hearted measures. It is unfortunate in this connection that in our country political advantage should receive preference to national interests. When one examines this Bill and the amendment which we on this side moved, one feels that we put this matter as was demanded by national interests, and as hon. members on the other side, too, wanted to put it. We want to maintain the European civilisation in this country. Hon. members who represent the natives should also realise that. The hon. member for Cape Western spoke of his forefathers, but his forefathers lived in an age when these problems were not so acute, and if they were to take steps today in the interests of South Africa, they would act like Afrikaners. But what I should like to say is this, that the legislation which we have before us, fills me with hope for the future, in that there are young men on the other side and on this side who will view these problems in the future in the right perspective, and who will not be satisfied with half-hearted measures when any danger threatens which will undermine our European civilisation. I make an appeal to hon. members on the other side, especially the younger members, when in the future these problems come before the House, not to regard them from the party point of view but from the point of view of the interests of South Africa. In the Cape we are faced with a problem which is just as serious and perhaps more serious than the problem facing Natal, but Natal does not come to our aid. We cannot get assistance from the Government, certainly not from the older section opposite, because they regard everything from a party point of view. In the Cape we want legislation in connection wth separate residential areas. There is penetration in the Cape too, and I only got up to ask hon. members on the other side, especially the younger members, when in the future we have to deal with such legislation to assist us to solve those problems at the very root. As our leader has said, one must not tinker with these things. These are not matters to be tinkered with. If the evil day is postponed these difficulties will become all the more acute, and we shall be powerless. Although we therefore support this half-hearted measure, we hope that in two or three years’ time, when according to the provisions of this Bill the House will again be called upon to consider legislation in connection with this matter, they will not regard it from a party political point of view, but that they will help us to tackle this matter from the point of view of the interests of South Africa, because otherwise their party may win but the people of South Africa will lose. Let us look at these matters from the point of view of the maintenance of the European civilisation of our country, and let us co-operate in these matters for the salvation of South Africa.

On this, the third reading of the Bill before the House, it is perhaps convenient to refer to the origin of the movement for the continued separation of the residential areas to be occupied by Europeans and Indians. It is necessary to do this because the question has been somewhat clouded by the nature of the various speeches which have been made. It has been made to appear that this request for separation of residential areas has emanated from a dictatorial and gasping body of people among the Europeans. The contrary is the case. I recall that the late Mr. Graham MacKeurtan who was recognised as a man of brilliant intelligence, and devoted to the interests of his country placed a motion before this House to indicate how necessary it had become in Natal to deal with this question. There was nothing in the motion proposed by him which anyone could demur to. It was merely an indication that the purchase of land by Indians was not under any sort of guidance or control and that some of the finest and most beautiful regions of Natal were being invaded and getting into the possession of Indians who were ousting the Europeans from the townships which had been laid out before by their forefathers. The treatment of that question in this House may be briefly referred to. After a lapse of five years, during which the late Mr. Mac-Keurtan continued either as the proposer or seconder of motions in this House to draw attention to the growing evil, a Bill was introduced by the then South African Party Government. On their being defeated at an election the succeeding Government introduced a somewhat similar Bill. A Select Committee was appointed to enquire into the vast question and a delegation from India arrived to give the views of the Government of India. A Union Parliamentary delegation of which I was a member was sent by arrangement with the Government of Indian to tour various districts in India, and to supplement their knowledge of the situation as it was in South Africa, with some knowledge of affairs in India. I was a member of that delegation, and when I returned I spoke in this House, when the stage was reached of the calling of the Cape Town conference, or at least a Round Table Conference was summoned, and the Cape Town agreement brought about. I was not a member of that Round Table Conference, and I was not consulted about it, but I expressed my views subsequently, and I said that the Minister of the Interior—the present Leader of the Opposition—was taking on a heavy responsibility in entering into an agreement which contained the terms of the Cape Town agreement, and I pointed out that the logical end of that agreement would be that the Indians under the removal of restrictions on the purchase of land in Municipal areas would soon reach the stage when they would demand the franchise and I pointedly asked the then Minster of the Interior whether he would agree to their receiving the franchise as a sequel to the considerable rights which were held out under the Cape Town agreement. If there is anyone in this House who should bear that responsibility it is the Minster of the Interior of that time, the present Leader of the Opposition, who, while he was in office, had an opportunity of introducing legislation that would have prevented the penetration with which we are faced today. He could have made it possible in those days to do a great deal towards regulating the residence of Indian people in relation to the European people in Natal. In the course of one’s visit to India one saw a great deal of the conditions there, and the impression those conditions made on me was that the depressed classes in India corresponded very largely to the type of Indians who had come to this country, but that they were not in any more favourable condition in India than the immigrant Indians in South Africa. As a matter of fact our people in Natal, the Indians in Natal, were treated far better than the people of a similar type in India. They were able to earn considerable wealth, and examples can be quoted of people who came here as immigrants, whose estates were returned as being in the neighbourhood of five figures. Those are not frequent cases but they have occurred. Among the places which we visited and among the developments which we were called upon to examine I must say that the most hopeful feature in the way of town planning which I saw in India was the work carried out by the Improvement Trusts of Bombay and Calcutta. Those bodies have spent millions in wiping out insanitary and unhealthy areas, and rehabilitating them for the benefit of the Indians, and there is no doubt that though the present Bill is strongly objected to by the wealthier Indians, that it is not going to satisfy those who regretfully view their townships being overrun by Indians, so that they are no longer a credit to the Europeans who profess to govern those townships, and profess to be responsible for the amenities there. Some such course will have to be followed in this country as is followed by the Improvement Trusts in Bombay and Calcutta. Money will have to be voted and powers will have to be given by somebody or authority so that big areas formerly belonging to the Europeans, can be bought back, and in the course of time areas may be established in which only Europeans will live, while on the other hand areas which should properly belong to the Indians may be occupied by Indians. There is no doubt that considerable adjustment will have to take place because of the penetration that has gone on in the course of years. When Mr. MacKeurtan spoke on this subject in 1922 he said: “The Asiatic is peacefully penetrating and eating the Europeans out.” That policy has now gone on for more than twenty years, and we are seeing the results of it today. As recently as yesterday I received from the Chairman of the Local Board of Richmond information about a typical case of the kind of thing that is going on, showing the way Indians are buying up property. He describes in a letter to me dated the 14th inst., what happened to a certain property belonging to a lady who recently died in that area. And he says this—

He goes on to mention the properties that would be sacrificed in that case, and he says—

And then he continues—

That is the kind of penetration that may take place tomorrow and I understand from a reply which I have received from the Minister about another property that there will be no hope of ante-dating the restrictive provisions of a law which might be introduced after the sale of such properties. These matters cause considerable misgivings in our minds, about the Minister’s legislation, and I feel that though we are legislating today in this manner, as soon as the coming election is over, the matter will have to be dealt with in a firmer way or efforts will have to be made to buy back the property of which the Europeans have been despoiled by the way Indian penetration has set in in many of the larger towns of Natal. I spoke the other day of a beautiful property that has been acquired within the last few weeks and which at one time belonged to the late Sir John Bisset when he was Governor of Natal, and the Minister in replying to me by letter said—

And he goes on to indicate that there is no provision which would make the restriction retrospective. I hope you will realise that the Indian invasion has really been brought to this town by the wealthier Indians of Durban. It cannot be argued that the penetration in Richmond comes from the Indians there who desire to buy residences; it is brought by the Durban Indians who realise that the restrictions to be imposed in Durban will prevent them from carrying forward the campaign on which they have embarked, and I hope the example I have given will satisfy those who still continue to argue as though they were fighting the battle of the poorer class Indian. The ordinary Indian of moderate means has no wish to buy extensively merely for the purpose of investing money or for the purpose of speculating. Whatever may be said to the contrary, there is no doubt that the records laid before the Broome Commission indicated that a very large number of those properties bought had mortgage bonds passed. I think the Minister will realise that the legislation may serve perhaps to put a stop to what is going on in Durban, but is will not be sufficient, it will be completely unsatisfactory, in regard to the other towns such as Verulam, Estcourt, Umzinto, Ladysmith and Stanger where Indians have overrun the best areas. Every one of those towns will need some such intervention as will enable the Europeans to re-establish their position in these towns rather than to abandon the position to the Indians. Unless some such movement takes place, it is doubtful whether the Europeans will ever be able to re-establish their positions in each town.

I feel that I cannot let the third reading of this Bill pass without taking an active stand alongside my colleague, the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno), in what he has said this afternoon, particularly in view of the speech by the hon. the leader of the Opposition. I do not feel that it is necessary for me to add much to what the hon. member for Cape Western has said in specific reply to the hon. the leader of the Opposition, except to add that the only explanation I can find for the attitude the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan), has taken up on this occasion, is one which has always been recognised by us as one of the major difficulties which face us in the work we have undertaken; that is the failure of so many South Africans, even among our legislators, to realise the economic factors behind the political scene, to realise the material foundations upon which our lives are based. The hon. member for Piquetberg spoke as if in fact our racial groups were in watertight compartments instead of being, as they are in reality, interdependent, as they must be for ever. The failure to appreciate this aspect of our national problem is the heritage of our history. The experience of progressive industrialisation will gradually adjust the balance, but in the meantime those of us who are fighting the battle for South Africa as we see it, and are trying to defend the future of South Africa, must, I suppose, for a long time, meet the challenge of those who see our problems in purely social terms. So far as the Bill itself is concerned there is also not much that I need add to what the hon. member for Cape Western has said. I just wish to repeat for myself the fact that we are opposed to this Bill, because we believe that it is based on insufficient evidence, that the evidence, so far as we know it, is all against legislation of this kind. We are particularly opposed to it because it is a measure which takes away a right without putting any counterbalancing rights in its place. It is a measure which has given us no undertaking in regard to the future, as the Government visualises it, of a racial minority which is as much the responsibility of the Government as any other section of the community. We have not been told on what foundation the Government conceives the material and cultural future of the Indian minority in this country to be based, and untid the Government affords us some evidence of their appreciation of the necessity for the material and cultural advance of this group, we must continue to oppose a process of differentiation which amounts to discrimination. We have tried on various occasions to make it clear to this House that we are not opposed to policies of differentiation, that we recognise the composite character of our population, and that we realise that it is impossible and would be unwise to attempt to deal with all sections of the community in exactly the same way. But we take our stand on differentiation and not on discrimination. Discrimination we must oppose as being contrary to the whole democratic principle which we claim as the foundation of our State and of the civilisation we are trying to build up. So until the Government presents us with a policy for the future development of the Indian community, we can only regard legislation of this kind as essentially discriminatory in character. I wish also to deprecate very strongly indeed the way in which this legislation has been brought into this House. There was no understanding—there was no reason to believe when this Session began, that before the end of it we should be passing a measure of this kind. The first intimation that we had that there was any intention on the part of the Government to legislate on a matter of such grave importance, was the Minister’s statement in Another Place in the course of last month. Even then there was no definite assurance that legislation would be brought forward, and those of us who do appreciate the wide implications of a move of this kind by the Government, did not in fact believe that the Government would come forward in this hasty fashion with a measure that was bound to have tremendous repercussions not only in South Africa but in other countries whose interests and attitude are of the utmost importance to us. We feel that this is not the way in which a really responsible Government would have tackled a matter of this kind. And finally, Sir, we wish to point out what we see as again the proved dangers of a policy of appeasement. This is the first concession in a new field to a retrogressive pressure of a most reactionary kind. It is the first concession in a new field to the policy of reaction. There have been growing evidences that those who have achieved this first concession intend to push it to the utmost limit. Today we have had convincing proof in the speech of the hon. member for Piquetberg. That speech, I think, is the final and convincing proof of the dangers of a measure of this kind. I trust that even now the Government may be prepared to reconsider the position and decide, for the welfare of society, that this is not the sort of legislation to put forward—now or at any time.

The hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) who has just resumed her seat—I am sorry that I did not hear the whole of her speech—stated that this was not the time to embark on legislation of this nature.

I said now or at any time.

The hon. lady now qualifies it.

No, I do not.

Would the hon. member prefer to wait until things get so bad in Durban that the steps contemplated by the Opposition would have to be taken to remedy the trouble. These hon. members on my right, the representatives of the natives, have during this debate put forward no constructive suggestions to deal with the situation.

Yes, we have.

They definitely know very little of Durban. The members who represent Natal, whether they be members of Parliament or members of the Provincial Council, were all wrong and the people in the Transvaal know what the people in Natal require! I have said before that the hon. members who represent the natives are doing the cause of the Indians no good by the attitude they have adopted in this matter. They say that this is an oppressive measure, that we are inflicting on the Indian community in Durban something which is outrageous. That is the sort of thing that is going to be repeated in India, and it will do South Africa a tremendous amount of harm. We have in South Africa in our Prime Minister a man who enjoys the respect of the world. The people of India know that he is not a man to embark upon any repressive legislation. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister finds himself faced with this position that no Prime Minister of any Dominion can allow a position like this simply to drift. If this position in Natal were allowed to drift, you would have civil war. And what is suggested by the three members on my right? Absolutely nothing. They want the situation to drift along; they have made no constructive suggestion to deal with the position. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister of South Africa has pleaded with these people and with their Government to prevent their countrymen from penetrating into predominantly European areas. They would not listen to him.

If the Prime Minister is so wonderful, why don’t you join his party?

That is another question. That is a matter with which we are not concerned at the moment. We have had differences with the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister and we have not been afraid to tell him so. I do say, Sir, that anyone who has a respect for South Africa should not be broadcasting to the world that we in this House are embarking upon legislation that will oppress the poor non-represented people in South Africa.

You tell and run!

We are just as much concerned about the Indian community as my hon. friends on my right. We have gone out of our way to find a solution to this problem. Commissions have been appointed; committees have been appointed, and this question has been dealt with by various governments in the last 30 years, and the Indians have been threatened almost yearly that if they do not endeavour to prevent this penetration into European areas, legislation would have to be introduced. Encouraged by people with the same outlook as the native representatives in this House, these people have adopted the attitude that this Government is afraid to introduce legislation, that they will get the Indian Government to intervene on their behalf and that this Government will be afraid to introduce legislation. Commission after commission has been appointed, and in Durban particularly we have endeavoured to convince the Indian community of the seriousness of the Indian penetration into predominantly European areas. But the necessary co-operation was not forthcoming. Here was an opportunity of taking advantage of a Government who was co-operating with another sister Dominion in the war effort, a Government who would not dare to introduce legislation in this House; and we find that the Prime Minister has now been compelled to introduce this legislation. The Opposition says the Government is afraid, that the Prime Minister dare not give Natal what she is demanding. The hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan), says: “You should go the whole hog; you should introduce segregation, which this Party has been advocating for so many years.” The Native representatives are now doing everything in their power to persuade the Indians to oppose the Government.

That is an absolute untruth and you know it.

The hon. members who represent the natives have done nothing. Those members have done nothing to assist the Government in the trying position in which they find themselves today; rather the reverse. They are the people who are responsible for all these cables coming from India; they are responsible for the agitation that has been set up in India.

What is your evidence?

And what is going to be the result? The result is going to be that the Indians will be encouraged in this system of penetration. The Europeans in South Africa have done all they possibly could. We do not want to hurt the feelings of the Indians. We do not want to introduce legislation in this House which will hurt their feelings, but there has been no alternative.

What did you say when you were in India?

What I said in India I repeat today in this House. I know what I am talking about because I lived in India for some years, and I know India. We all regret the necessity for this legislation. Now we find a section in this House saying: “You must not have any form of zoning. You must not have anything that may upset the susceptibility of any race; no matter what they are doing; even if it is a criminal offence, you must do nothing which will upset the susceptibility of these people. You must not endeavour to save them from themselves.” That is precisely what we are doing today. I am sorry that it is necessary to introduce legislation of this kind in view of the relationship which exists between South Africa and India. Our lads were fighting with each other up North.

Were they fighting with each other?

They were fighting side by side up North. And then you have statements from members of Parliament that we are embarking on legislation that will offend the susceptibilities of the Indian people. The Government has seen fit to deal with this matter by way of legislation. The Transvaal and the Free State are not prepared to open their boundaries and allow the Indian people to come into these areas, and in view of that I think the Government ought to take some responsibility in the matter, in regard to housing, which the Indians ought to have in Natal. This is going to be a costly matter, and I hope the Government will be prepared to assist our local authorities in Durban and Natal generally in financing measures that will cost a considerable amount of money. I hope the Government is not going to be niggardly in regard to this matter. They say that this is a Natal matter. This is something which has to be treated as a national matter, and if the Government says that they are not going to allow the Indians outside Natal, they must accept a certain amount of responsibility.

It is a Union matter, but you want to confine it to Durban.

I believe the Government will help the local authorities. When this legislation was put upon the Statute Book, I looked forward to the Indians coming along and saying: “We will assist the Government; we will attempt to do away with this friction between the Europeans and Indians. We have bought houses in predominantly European areas; we will try to get our people out of those houses.” When the other parts of Durban are opened up, there will be no excuse for them to say they cannot get choice sites. I hope they will now say: “We will co-operate with you. We will move out of these European areas; now that we have sites allotted to us, we will sell our houses in the European areas to Europeans.” I, and the majority of the people in Durban, do not want any friction with the Indian community at all. I believe that it is possible by cooperation to get what you want. If you have one section of the community realising that if they do not play the game the Government will step in, that knowledge on their part will act as a deterrent. They will realise that the Government has the power to intervene. The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) yesterday read out a telegram which has been sent to the hon. the Minister of Mines. He said: “Here is your solution; here I have a solution for you.” I may say in passing that this telegram never emanated from the Indian community. I do not think the authors of that telegram are many thousands of miles away from the native representatives.

On a point of order, may I say that that is entirely untrue.

The members of the Indian community are much too clever to adopt an arrogant attitude at this stage. I feel perfectly certain that this telegram did not emanate from the Indian community. If the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) stated that he knows nothing about it he may be speaking only for himself. He cannot speak for the other two members of his party. However, if they repudiate it, we must accept that, of course. The hon. member read out a portion of this telegram which purports to come from the Indian community. He quoted this portion of the telegram—

And the hon. member for Winburg says: “There is an opportunity for the Dominion Party, will they bring all the Englishmen out of India? If they will do so the Indians state that they will voluntarily go to India. The hon. member has probably forgotten that we have a repatriation scheme under which we pay a considerable amount of money to Indians if they are prepared to go to India. I would like to tell the hon. member for Winburg, when he speaks to us of controlling people in India, that we do not like any interference with our country; we certainly would resent any interference from Britain, India or any other country. We can look after our own interests in South Africa, and the other parts of the British Empire can do the same. We can look after our own domestic affairs, and when he states that this is a solution, namely to bring the Britishers out of India, I am afraid he shows very little knowledge of India. Let me say in passing that we get a lot of criticism from India about England. Some of the best brains of England are in India, and Britain has had very little from India that she has not been prepared to pay for, and it is deplorable to think that questions of that nature are raised. I have mentioned before and I state again, that the majority of people behind the agitation against this Bill are people who have no love for South Africa and they have less for Britain. They are the people who are allied to the elements in India who are stirring up the Indians there. They have no affection for South Africa, and this little Bill that is pegging the position is a wonderful opportunity—just what we have been waiting for—to enable their compatriots in India to stir up strife in India and make things upleasant for the British Government. In conclusion, I would like to say that it is only since the second Broome Commission has reported that the Indian community in Natal has been prepared to admit that there has been any penetration. The hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) has said this penetration is just a trickle. It is so much of a trickle that it would have washed all the Europeans out of Durban if some step had not been taken. Mr. Speaker, if there is not penetration what harm is this little Bill going to do; if there is no penetration, why object to this pegging of the position; again if there is no penetration, what harm is there in preventing any in the European areas? I must say I am gratefully indebted to the Prime Minister for introducing this legislation, the thanks of the town of Durban are due to both sides of the House for supporting it, and I trust it will not be necessary, in future to make use of the safeguards provided in this measure, but that we will have that cooperation of the Indian community that we have never had before, and that they will come to the Parliamentary representatives of Natal and see that justice is meted out to them, and they on their part will attempt to play the game.

It was not my intention to intervene again in this debate, but I cannot allow the remarks of the hon. Leader of the Opposition to pass without some comment. He has accused the Dominion Party, to which I belong, of duplicity in this matter. He said that on the one hand we stand up for the Empire, but when the interests of Natal come to the fore we depart from our allegiance to the Empire and stand up for Natal. I deny the implication, Mr. Speaker; I have yet to learn that the solidarity of the Empire depends on the loyalty or otherwise of a few disloyal Indians in Durban. This accusation against the Dominion Party strikes me very much as a case of Satan rebuking sin. Let me recall the history of this question since 1924. We had a General Election in 1924, and one of the political cries of the Nationalists was: “Put us into power and we will drive the Indians into the sea.” That is what the Nationalists told the electors in 1924, and they got a lot of support by reason of that slogan. The Nationalists did come into power, and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, who has been making these accusations against the Dominion Party, became Minister of the Interior, and his department had to deal with this self-same subject. Now I want to state what happened under his regime. He introduced a Bill known as the Reservation of Areas Bill, which was designed to segregate Asiatics in this country. The City Council of Durban decided to support the Bill in its main principle, and sent a deputation, of which I was a member, to Cape Town. It is all on record, anybody can refer to the minutes of the City Council. I came down as one of the delegation, and I spoke in support of this measure. But the Bill was dropped in favour of a Round Table Conference. This idea was brought into the discussions of the Select Committee, and in the end the Leader of the Opposition, who has just been accusing us of duplicity, decided to drop the Bill and to arrange for this Round Table Conference, which in due course was held. Mr. Sastri came out here and hypnotised the Leader of the Opposition, who entered into the Cape Town Agreement, which the Indians today call their magna charta. The Leader of the Opposition raised the status of Indians and told them they were part and parcel of the population of South Africa.

Are they not?

They were not considered so until the Cape Town Agreement.

Was that under the influence of hypnotism?

I am not prepared to answer that question, I am merely telling you the facts. The Reservation of Areas Bill was designed to segregate the Indians and safeguard the position of Europeans in this country, instead of which our hon. friend entered into this agreement with Mr. Sastri, raised the status of Indians and left the Europeans as they were. Now this was called a gentleman’s agreement, and if I understand a gentleman’s agreement, both parties to it are supposed to play the game. I ask anybody if the Europeans or the Government have not played the game since that agreement was entered into? I say they have played the game up to the hilt. What have the Indians done? Nothing but encourage their people to take advantage of the position, and when the war came along and they saw the Government was in a difficult position owing to the war, they intensified their penetration. Hence the finding of the Second Broome Commission, and this Bill is the result of that. I am sorry the hon. Leader of the Opposition is not here to hear what I have to say about it, but I hope I have sufficiently answered his accusation. I do not want to prolong the agony, but I say by reason of his policy and the Cape Town Agreement, he has done more to aggravate the position than anyone else in South Africa. And let me tell him further, in 1932, six years after this gentleman’s agreement, the people of Natal were so exasperated at this penetration, not only in residential areas but in trade and industry, that they got up a petition which was signed by over 25,000 people, and they presented that petition to the Leader of the Opposition, in this House, a petition praying the Government to take steps to introduce legislation to stop this penetration. The Leader of the Opposition stood up and said that the Government accepted the petition and would see what could be done about it. Sir, the Leader of the Opposition and the Government did literally nothing, penetration has gone on, the Indians have penetrated into trade, and where our sons are going to find employment when they come back from the war, heaven only knows. Now the hon. gentleman has the audacity to stand up in this House and accuse the Dominion Party of not playing the game, and of duplicity. I say that he is the one who is responsible for the present position.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move the amendment standing in my name—

I ask the Minister whether this is perfectly clear. It appears to me that Sub-Section (2) makes it quite possible that some officers may take that as permissive rather than a compulsory clause. Would it not be clearer if the clause read “shall send supplementary returns.”

I do not think it is necessary. Instructions will be given, if it is necessary, through the Department of Defence under the regulations.

I had another proposal, which differs from the Minister’s in connection with the maintenance of secrecy, but I want to express my appreciation for the Minister’s amendment in that connection.

My amendment has that effect.

I shall withdraw my amendment in favour of the Minister’s amendment. I just want to express the hope that when this regulation is framed, effect will be given to this part.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I again want to draw the Minister’s attention to the case where ballot papers are sent to soldiers who may leave by ship before the ballot paper reaches them. Can provision be made in that respect?

I do not think it is necessary to make any provision for that contingency in the Bill itself. We can deal with that if necessary in the regulations.

It is not only a matter of regulation, it is an instruction to the officer in command.

The Secretary for Defence has the power to issue instructions.

I, too, am very pleased that the word “secretly” has been inserted. I just want to draw attention to something else which is of practical value at the ballot box. When one votes per declaration, one’s ballot paper is put into another big envelope, and a number of people have an idea that one can find out how anyone has voted. Here we are dealing with something which is new. The voting will take place at a place and before a person before whom voting has not previously taken place. The soldiers, generally speaking, are regarded as loyal. We are the disloyal people, and hon. members on the other side are the loyal people. Many soldiers are afraid that if they do not support the Government’s policy, they may suffer in consequence. I do not say that that will happen, but I think it would be a good thing if the Minister were to put up notices at the ballot box, giving the soldiers to understand clearly—because they are not all familiar with the law — that secrecy will be maintained. I think that is a reasonable request. The Minister also wants to maintain secrecy, and I hope he will consider this.

Instructions will only be given to the commanding officers to carry out the terms of the law. They will be instructed by the Secretary for Defence to ensure that voting is done in secret. It will be their duty to inform the men serving under them that they are entitled to vote in secret. I take it individual candidates contesting elections will also make that point clear in their speeches and election literature. There is good reason to feel certain that soldiers, as the result of instructions given to them personally, or from what they hear, or read in election literature, will realise this fact, that this legislation specifically lays down that the voting will be secret. I do not think the hon. gentleman need have any fear about that.

I have an amendment on the Order Paper.

I am sorry but the hon. member is too late. The Committee has already approved of an amendment in a subsequent line, moved by the Minister of the Interior, and the Committee can not revert back.

It has always been the practice for the Chairman to refer to the amendments of hon. members which appear on the Order Paper. May I put this amendment with the leave of the House?

You can do it at the report stage.

I understand the hon. member to refer to the amendments standing in his name on page 575 of the Votes and Proceedings. As far as the amendment on Clause 4 is concerned, I may say that as this amendment proposes to extend the provisions of the Bill to a class of voters not contemplated by the Bill as read a Second Time, I am unable to put it to the Committee without an instruction.

May I now go back to my amendment since you have referred back to Clause 4?

I have just explained the position.

Then I shall move my amendment at the report stage.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 9.

I should like to raise a point here which we have already raised at the second reading, namely that in this Clause the right is given to the Government to promulgate regulations in connection with various matters. I accept the Minister’s statement that he will abandon the provision that an extra £50 will be demanded by way of deposit in respect of any candidate. The Minister also says that he will give this side of the House an opportunity of examining the regulations. As far as it goes, we thank him for it. But it is a practice from which we must depart that we should accept a measure in broad outlines and then leave it to the Department to frame regulations which in many respects are of a far-reaching nature. The Minister’s plea was that if the regulations had to be incorporated in the Act in the form of an annexure, it would take up too much time. I should like to reply to that point. It is not the fault of the Opposition that there is no time. This is one of the most important measures of the Session, and the Government must have known long ago that it was going to come before the House with such a measure. It is therefore a peculiar argument. The Minister admits that it would have been better to incorporate the regulations in an annexure as was done in the Act of 1913 and as was done by the leader of the Opposition in 1926 in connection with the Act which provides for postal voting. At that time we did not hear pleas that there was no time. The House had an opportunity of considering the matter. Now the Minister comes forward with the peculiar argument that he agrees with the Opposition that it would have been better to incorporate the regulations in a schedule of the Act. Then the whole House would have been in a position to deliberate on it, but now the Minister says that there is no time to do it. That is a peculiar way of making laws. This is a peculiar, almost uncalled for excuse that if there is time we will make a suitable Act and deliberate on it, but when there is no time then we rush it through in a manner which is second best. I cannot associate myself with that. It is more and more becoming the practice to introduce important legislation towards the end of the Session. The Opposition is then asked to agree to go home at a certain time, and then legislation of this nature is introduced and has to be rushed through. This House is ultimately responsible to the people for the measures which are passed, and we cannot look after the interests of the people if we rush through a measure and simply leave it to a Department to frame regulations. We appreciate the fact that the Minister is allowing representatives of the Opposition to examine the regulations. But the Minister need not accept our suggestions. I therefore want to protest most strongly against this manner of passing legislation. It is said that it is not possible to revert to the old practice of publishing Bills even before the commencement of the Session, so that members will have an opportunity of absorbing them; but it is not fair to act in the way in which the Minister is now acting, namely to introduce such an important measure towards the end of the Session and then practically to force the Opposition to let it go through. These regulations ought to be fully discussed by this House. I want to give an example. It is almost fortuitous that the Minister’s department was friendly enough to give us the regulations after we had asked for them. If this matter in regard to the additional deposit of £50 by a candidate had not been raised by us in this House, I wonder whether it would ever have come to the notice of the Minister how unwise it would have been to require such a deposit to be made. Can the Minister realise how ridiculous it would have been if on a certain morning we opened the Government Gazette—personally I think it would have been ultra vires—and noticed that the Minister had amended the law of the country by way of regulation. I want to avail myself of this opportunity to say that I hope that we in South Africa will abandon this type of legislation. And then the Minister still tells us that there is little time at our disposal and that for that reason we must allow this Bill to go through and leave it to the department to frame regulations at a later date. No, these regulations should be embodied in a schedule to the Act.

It would seem that the Minister has become so spoilt by the Emergency Regulations and that he has had such a good time under those regulations, that he cannot resist the temptation to ask for power to do practically anything by way of regulation in connection with all legislation. I am afraid and nervous to give power to the Minister to frame regulations, as now proposed by him. I take it that the Minister will not deliberately frame regulations which will be to the disadvantage of the Opposition. But what I want to bring to his notice is that Cape Town and the Cape Peninsula do not constitute the whole country. A regulation will become known throughout the whole Cape Peninsula within 24 hours. But news takes a long time to reach the distant parts of the country. We had the incident there of a man who urged at a meeting that we should abandon the gold standard, and they then had to remind him of the fact that we had already abandoned the gold standard. Even the candidate who proposes to stand at an election may contravene the regulations because he does not know what the regulations really are. He does not do so deliberately, but the regulations are unknown to him. The Minister may promulgate regulations with the best intentions in the world, but he is not fully informed. People may contravene the regulations because they are not aware of the existence of the regulations. In the scattered parts of the country, such as those I represent, it often takes months for news to reach the people. The Minister may frame regulations and expect them to be known to the people within 24 hours. No, I think the Minister should have enough respect for the House to submit the regulations to us in connection with a serious matter such as this. We do not want anyone to sit in this House who does not really represent his voters as he ought to represent them. The regulations may be framed in such a way that members will be elected to this House who in the normal course of events would not have been chosen. I have not had an opportunity of inspecting the regulations to which the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) referred. But what he has quoted here seems to me to be very serious, and there may be many other serious things in the regulations, for the simple reason that the Minister really does not realise what the effect of those regulations will be on the platteland. For that reason we ask that he should set out the regulations in an annexure to the Bill, so that we can discuss them in the House and approve of them or amend them, and bring them to the notice of the country in that way.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 11,

I want to move the following amendment—

These are the same words which we contemplated in Clause 1 when we wanted to move the deletion. I move this amendment because I should like to have information from the Minister. When we had the Bill before us in 1940, the definition of “war service” and of the “Defence Force” differed from the definition proposed in this Bill. We did not then have these words. If the Minister looks at the definition in Act No. 13 of 1940, he will find that those words do not appear in the definition of “Defence Force”.

The Act of 1041?

Act No. 13 of 1940. These words seem to have been inserted as an afterthought. To me they seem to be superfluous. A person who is registered in the Union is a Union citizen; why then give this definition? We just want to indicate who the people are who can vote under this Act. If a Chinaman who comes from Timbuctoo or somewhere else, provided he is a British subject, stays in the Union for two years, he becomes a Union citizen, however paradoxical that may appear to any other country, and then he is able to vote under this Bill. Since these words were not inserted in 1940 why must they be inserted now, namely that persons who are in the service of the Allies may vote? I hope the Minister will explain this.

The purpose of this amendment is merely to ensure that if there are Union Nationals registered as voters and therefore entitled to vote, who are serving not with the South African forces, but with an Ally of South Africa, they will be able to vote if they are either in the Union at the time of the General Election, or at a place outside the Union where they may fall within the provisions of the 1941 or the 1943 Act. If the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) says that Sub-Section 1 of Section 11 amends the definition of “Defence Force” in the 1941 Act I would say this. The definition of “Defence Force” in the Bill now before the House includes registered voters who are serving with the Forces of an Ally. Now, we are trying to bring the 1941 Act which relates to soldiers outside the Union into line with the present Bill.

They are Union Nationals now.

The definition includes those who are in the service of an Ally in the Union. The section, of course, only refers to persons who are registered voters. Take Section 2 of the 1941 Act. It says: “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other Act contained, any person who is enrolled on the Voters’ List of any division of any province, and is serving with the Defence Force ”

He cannot get on the list unless he is a Union National.

No, he cannot get on the list unless he is a Union National. These words are put in to enable a person already registered at this point of time, who may be serving in the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserves, or with the Free French Forces, or with some other forces, to vote. That is the only purpose. But he must be a registered voter, of course—he must already be registered. If he is a registered voter by our ordinary law then we do not want to exclude him by this present system. I can assure the hon. member that there is nothing else intended by this clause.

It is wrongly stated, because it uses the word “service”.

It says: “Defence Force shall be deemed… . or service of an Ally of the Union.”

Well, that is not what it says. It does not refer to a Union National in the service of an Ally.

If the hon. member will read Section 2 of the 1941 Act he will see the words which I have just quoted there, from which it is clear that only those persons who are enrolled even though they may be in the service of an Ally, are entitled to vote.

Does it only apply to Union Nationals serving in an allied force?

Yes.

Does it not refer to a member of an allied force serving with the Union forces? That is what is not clear.

On a prima facie view my reaction is that the hon. member’s fears are not well founded, but even if there is some ambiguity there can surely be no danger of unauthorised persons voting because only persons who are registered and are on our voting lists, who are on our rolls, could be entitled to vote. And only persons who are Union Nationals can get on the lists. There is no question of a member of the Free French or of a Hollander or of a Belgian or any other allied nation becoming registered.

Cannot we have this clarified?

If there is ambiguity I am quite willing to do so.

Will you move an amendment?

I am quite prepared to look into it.

On the assurance that the Minister has now given us, that if there is ambiguity he will put the matter right at the report stage, I want to withdraw my amendment.

With leave of the Committee, the amendment was withdrawn.

In terms of this clause anyone who is on our Voters’ Roll or who fights in the Defence Force of the Union, or for the Allies in any part of the world, has the right to vote under this Bill. If a person is on the Roll, then I feel that such a person should have an opportunity of voting. But has the Minister thought of what the result of this clause is going to be? It seems to me that it is something that will cause a great deal of trouble. It may be that we give the persons the opportunity of voting, but it seems to me that there is not the least chance that those votes will all be here in time, and will the result not ultimately be that the Minister will have to postpone the result of the election still further? Supposing that a person on our Voters’ Roll fights in Russia, then that person will be entitled to vote. It seems to me that it will take months before such ballot papers can arrive here. A person perhaps serves in the British Air Force or the Russian Air Force, and how must we get these ballot papers here?

Then there will be no opportunity to let these persons vote.

What I am afraid of is this. If the law provides that they may vote, then they have the right to demand it. We know what happened at the by-elections. The Minister came forward with legislation because the by-elections showed that the laws which he adopted in the past were impracticable. He has proposed amendments also in connection with soldiers inside the Union, so that they may vote for parties and not for candidates. Now it seems to me that the danger is this. If this Bill is formulated in such a way that those people have the right to vote, then the Minister will again come forward later on with an amendment to provide that they can vote where there are practical obstacles in the way. We hear of the Blue Oath, and the consequence may be that hundreds of people will go to fight in other countries. If they must get reasonable time in which to vote then it may happen subsequently that the Minister will have to introduce legislation to leave the result of the election in abeyance for 6 months. There is also another consideration. If I pay a visit to England or Germany or study there, and I cannot return to this country because war has broken out, why cannot I then also vote if my name is on the Voters’ Roll, and why does the Minister now make provision for preference for certain people? If under normal circumstances I was in Germany or in England, and if as a result of the war I had to stay there, then I may not vote. I am on the Voters’ Roll, but I am deprived of my vote, but these people are given the right to cast their votes there. Then in Clause 11 I want to move that the word “can” be altered to “shall”.

I have already given notice of that amendment.

Very well, then I need not move it.

I move the amendment standing in my name. I move—

It is merely a verbal amendment. Now, just let me say this. There is no substance in the point raised by the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen). Voting by soldiers outside the Union is governed by Act 37 of 1941, which provides that soldiers who are registered as voters in the Union may vote outside the Union if arrangements can be made for them to do so. But it is specifically laid down in Clause 4 that no person shall be allowed to record his vote outside the Union except within a period of four days of polling day. So the suggestion that a man can demand a vote at any time does not exist. He can only vote if the facilities are provided, and there is a limit on the time within which he can record his vote. There is no difficulty about that. Nor is there any difficulty about the point raised by the hon. member for Moorreesburg in respect, of Union Nationals serving with an allied force. They have the right to vote only if they are registered voters. The point is that they shall be enabled to vote even if they are not members of the South African forces—if facilities can be granted to them to do so. I am prepared, however, to look into the point raised by the hon. member and to clarify it if it is necessary to do so.

Amendment, proposed by the Minister of the Interior, put and agreed to.

I would still like to move the following amendment which appears on the Order Paper—

The reason for this amendment is that I would like to have the soldiers’ voting simplified as much as possible. It is provided in this Bill that our soldiers may vote in three ways. Outside the Union they will receive ballot papers on which only the names of the parties will be printed. Then we find that in the Union the soldiers will vote by post. And then in the third place there are persons who are participating in the war, they will be a very small number for whom this sub-clause provides, namely those who have departed too late to vote outside the Union but who arrive in the Union too late to vote by post here. The number of these persons must inevitably be very small, for even though they arrive here a short while before the election they can still vote by post. So why do we go out of our way to incorporate a new principle in the electoral laws of the Union, namely that now for the first time a person in the Union will be able to vote on a ballot paper on which is the names of the parties and not the names of the candidates. It is an old principle that we have always followed in our country that the names of the candidates should appear on the ballot papers. We must retain this principle, and all the people who are in war service in the Union must vote by post. I want to say to the Minister that he is going to cause himself and others a great deal of trouble by this provision. Only a small number of persons is affected, and why cannot we leave them to the postal vote. Those who arrive here a day or two before the election will probably be too late. But why should we now introduce a totally new principle by issuing ballot papers here in the Union with the names of the parties on them, when we have to deal inevitably with only a small number of persons.

They may arrive here on the day of the election.

Then they cannot vote by post. But if the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) becomes sick and he cannot go to the polling booth, or if he is outside his constituency on that day, then he can also not vote by post. What is more, the soldier knows weeks before the time that he will have to go to the Union. There are perhaps a few persons who arrive by aeroplane. This also lasts a few days. The biggest number will come by boat and they know it weeks before the time, and they can vote by post. I think it is wrong to introduce a new principle for the small number of persons affected. As I have said, there will be three ways in which to vote in the Union, and we shall get the position that a person votes on a ballot paper on which the names of the candidates are, and beside him another person votes on a ballot paper on which the names of the parties appear and not the names of the candidates. It really appears to me that the Minister is going out of his way unneccessarily to provide for a small number of persons, and I want to appeal to the Minister to drop this clause and rather to make provision in his regulations as to how far he can meet those persons. I am not among those who do not want to meet them. But I do not want us to introduce a new principle into the Union for the sake of a small number of persons in respect of whom other arrangements can be made.

May I just say that I don’t think the Committee should accept this amendment. It is necessary, if we wish to assist the soldiers falling into this particular category, to have the provision in the Bill itself, and not in the regulation. If we deal with this matter by way of regulation, it will probably be held to be ultra vires, and I think on equitable grounds we should make provision which will not cause dissatisfaction.

I want to point out to the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus), that in Clause 5 it is laid down that for soldiers voting in the Union the commanding officer has to prepare a list. That list has to be sent to Pretoria, and then subsequently ballot papers will be sent for the Units. Men arriving from up North who have not been able to vote there will thus be given the opportunity of voting in the Union.

Surely a man coming from up North can go to his constituency and vote there.

No. A man may arrive in Cape Town and his constituency may be in Waterberg. Surely that man should be given the opportunity of recording his vote? I am glad that the Minister is not going to agree to the withdrawal of this section.

Amendments proposed by the Minister of the Interior put and agreed to, and amendment proposed by Mr. Erasmus put and negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

The remaining Clause and the Title having been agreed to,

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill with amendments.

Amendments to be considered on 22nd April.

When the Minister’s vote was under discussion yesterday, the debate dropped to a personal trend, but I leave it at that. I do not want to sink to the level to which the Minister sank yesterday in his speech. After the debate yesterday I asked people what they thought of the Minister’s action. It was surprising to hear how swiftly the gist of the Minister’s speech had become known outside. Even people who belong to his own party—I go further and say even members of his own party here in Parliament—whom I asked what they thought of a person who is a member of the Dutch Church who washes the dirty linen of the Church in the manner in which the Minister did here in public, replied that they could not approve of this. It is peculiar that while the Minister was delivering his speech here, the benches on the other side of the House became more and more vacant and only a few members remained to listen to the attack that the Minister made on the Church. The Minister so readily sees politics in everything. He smelt politics in connection with the schools, and where we had a matter here that should have been settled between the Church and the settlers, the Minister, who belongs to a political party, came and dragged the Church and the settlement across the floor of the House into politics, just as he did with the schools. No single educationist asked the Minister to express his opinion about single-medium schools, but the Minister dealt with the subject and dragged it into politics. I do not want to go into the merits of the case at Kakamas, but the Minister is aware that there are some settlers at Kakamas who felt that the land on which they live should belong to them, who wanted to gain possession of the land. But now a General Election is ahead and the Minister tries to incite the settlers against the Church for political purposes, to see if he cannot thereby catch a few votes. It is noteworthy that the Minister does not represent any constituency, and that he should be the man to do this sort of work. He belongs to Another Place, but as a Minister of the Crown he is entitled to express his opinion here, and he who represents no constituency in this House, is the person who must launch an attack on the Dutch Church. If the Minister thinks that the people there are so down-trodden by the Dutch Church, then he can put himself up for election there. Let him go and stand for Gordonia if he wants to be a champion of the downtrodden people of Kakamas. But the Minister will not go and stand there. He is just an inciter of the settlers. I have never listened to a more unreasonable attack than that of the Minister. The hon. member for Vryburg (Mr. du Plessis) moved that the Minister’s salary be reduced by £2,500; if it were possible to do so under the rules, I would propose that the Minister should pay £5,000 for the insults that he levelled at the Church. Does he not in any way realise what the Church means to the South African population and what the Church has already done for the Afrikaans-speaking section of our people and still does today? Now the Minister must stand up here, and he a member of the Church at that, and aim all these insults at the head of the Church.

What insults?

The Minister has virtually gone so far as to accuse the Church of theft.

No.

He spoke about books that disappeared and other books that were put in their place.

On a point of order. I said: “To put it gently, books got lost.”

Then what did the Minister mean by it—to put it gently. If he says that books disappeared and another set of books substituted, what does he mean by it? When the Minister spoke, the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) interjected: “Then you accuse the Church of theft,” and the Minister’s reply was: “Interpret it as you like.” If one understands Afrikaans and can think normally, what else can it mean except that there was theft? [Time limit]

Yesterday we listened to a two-hour tirade from the Minister of Lands against the Church, the Church which is not here to defend itself. Apart from everything else, the first question that any decent person would put is: Is this now the place for a discussion of this nature, is this the most suitable arena in which to make such accusations? In reply to an interjection the Minister said that he had not yet brought matters to the attention of the Church.

I reported.

Yes, in 1919. Then he reported something. But he has admitted simultaneously now that he brought nothing to the attention of the Church. He comes here for the first time and in the absence of the Church, which cannot defend itself, he makes the most gross charges. Is this the right place? Even if one-tenth of the charges which he bandied about recklessly are true, then any decent person would realise from a sense of piety that this is not the place to bring it on the boards. In the second place such a person would ask himself if this is the right way in which the Minister has done it. There was no reference to Kakamas. But simply apropos a remark about one of his settlements the Minister comes and uses that as a peg on which to hang these attacks upon the Church. Is that the right way, is it the royal way to act in that manner? Is not the royal way to appear as a witness before the commission of enquiry which the Minister is prepared to appoint? Then the Church would have been in a position to defend itself against the attack and to refute before the world the groundlessness of the attacks of the Minister on the Church. But the Minister chooses this place. He knows that the Church will be helpless, and the Minister employs the best forum he can have in the country to disseminate his charges to the world. We have had a speech of two hours here with much repetition and confused logic. The one minute the Minister was back in 1919 and the next minute he was dealing with the position as it is today. It was difficult for anyone to discriminate when the Minister was dealing with 1919 and when with the position existing at present. He painted a confused picture to the House and the country. I do not want to say anything about what happened in 1919 and the conditions that existed then. The Minister knew what the position was in 1919. In 1919 he was chairman of a commission and after he got to know all the things, what does he say now? That, to put the matter most gently, books had got lost. Then he comes and speaks about exploitation and slavery and other things. He knew all that in 1919 when he was chairman of the commission of enquiry. And what did they report?—

Read my Minority Report.

The Minister had two hours to talk and I have only ten minutes. I have here the Majority Report. I shall come to the Minority Report just now. The Minister may rest assured. He will yet come on the carpet. He is already beginning to become afraid. The commission reports—

The Minister himself signed that report. Below the report that I have quoted, stands: “A. M. Conroy, Chairman, P.K. Albertyn, A. F. Louw and G. A. Louw.” Then there is a memorandum by the Chairman, and in all fairness to the Minister I want to quote what stands there—

And then he makes certain remarks in respect of paragraphs 11, 14 and 18. But what I read just now was paragraph 5. I ask you in all reason how a man who knew all those things about which he now speaks, could sign such a report. How is it possible? He signed the report. He was either dishonest when he signed the report, or he had no right after 24 years to bring the matter before the House in the manner he has done. That is all I want to say on that for the moment. The Minister also said personal things about me. I do not think it necessary to reply to that. If the Minister thinks that he can annoy me to reaction and that thereby I will sink to the depths to which he is accustomed, then I can only say, to employ words of Wolf en Deken: ,,Verdenk my geensins van so ’n buitensporige nederigheid.” I want to give the House a correct picture of the position in respect of the Kakamas colony. I want to say here that the Labour Colony at Kakamas is a separate legal persona. It is not the Church. The Church is the trustee of certain trust funds, the Church administers the Trust, but is not the owner of the funds of Kakamas. All the accumulated profit, the buildings, the capital and the reserves and the improvements that have been brought about, do not belong to the Church but belong to the Kakamas Trust. The Church merely administers it. It is thus determined by regulations drafted by this House. In Clause 7 of the Constitution the following is stated—

It comes down to this that all the funds and all the profits must be administered by the Church for the benefit of Kakamas and Kakamas alone. No single penny may be spent in any other way. [Time limit.]

If one had a responsible Minister to deal with such a matter he would certainly not have approached the matter as the Minister has done. The Minister instituted an enquiry in 1919, but since then he has done nothing. But when he became Minister in 1939 and had all the data, he could have approached the Church in connection with the matter. That is what a man with a sense of responsibility would have done Did the present Minister do so? A Minister who displays goodwill and who wants to solve the question would have acted in that way. We presume that the Minister knew in 1939 when he got into power what he knows now, about all the unscrupulous speculation, robbery and theft and slavery, of which he accuses the Church. If the Minister had acted properly, then he would first of all have gone into the constitutional position under which the Labour Colony was established, Act, No. 10 of 1909. He would have read there that provision was made for the establishment of a trust. Clause 6 says—

What conditions did Parliament lay down? The Minister is supposed to have gone into that. If so he would have found that the Proclamation issued provided for the formation of a Trust, as the hon. member for Fauresmith has quoted. He quoted Clause 7, which reads as follows—

The Minister would then have gone further and looked at the regulations in connection with the matter and he would have found Regulation 198 of 1913. That regulation is virtually word for word the same as laid down by the constitution. But now he has got the idea that the Church is not carrying out the trust, and in 1919 he submitted a report as Chairman of a Commission which had to conduct an investigation there. The Minister had the idea that the Church is busy speculating there and oppressing the people and he then had a chance to conduct an enquiry to see if the Church was carrying out its trusteeship. If the Minister had such a feeling, and still has it now, then the proper course for him was to appoint a judicial commission, to appoint a judge of the Supreme Court, for if it is found that the Church is not carrying out its trust, the Minister can go to the court and prove to the court everything that the Church has done and all the illegalities, and on the strength thereof he could demand back the land from the Church. For then the Church did not carry out its trust. But that is not what the Minister does. No, he is no responsible Minister. One would have expected that from a responsible Minister, but this Minister acts differently. A responsible Minister would have appointed a judicial commission to investigate the position. That would have calmed feelings and the Judge would have reported, and if wrong things were reported the Minister could have come and said: “The Church has not honoured its trust, and I am going to deprive it of the trust.” Then he would have had the finding of a Judge of the Supreme Court. Then he would have been able to say that the Church could no longer do the work, and that it had not honoured its trust. But the Minister set to work inquite a different manner. Everything he has done he has done with only one motive—his whole life testifies to it—and that is to fish in troubled waters. He knows there is certain trouble in Kakamas. If he wants to be a father to those people, then he will try to put matters right, but the Minister wants to fish in troubled waters. He could tell the people what procedure should be followed. He can help them right. When I was a member for that constituency, I said that the road that they should follow was to get representation on the Kakamas Commission, and joint authority in the management and to develop in such a way ultimately that they could control the whole Kakamas Commission.

Did you plead for representation on the Labour Colony Commission?

Yes, and I still stand by it today, but that is not the way of the Minister, he is out to make trouble and to humiliate his Church. He never feels better satisfied than when he can tread the Dutch Reformed Church under his feet. Then he is in his glory. The Minister says that he is a loyal member of the Church. I have conducted a little investigation into that, but I would rather leave the personal circumstances.

I challenge you!

You cannot challenge anybody.

I do not want to speak now about 1919, but in 1940 and 1941 there were terrible floods. A catastrophe struck the settlement. The Hartebeest River rose above its banks and washed away the whole of Alheit. It was a terrible castastrophe. [Time limit.]

When my time expired on the previous occasion I was just busy with the point that of that money which was the income of the Trust, not a single penny was taken by the Church for itself. I want to deny strongly the inference of the Minister that the assets at Kakamas are assets belonging to the Church. The Minister’s allegation simply shows that he does not at all grasp the position. Those assets do not belong to the Church. There are loans from the Church to that body. How can the Church lend money to itself? It is a separate legal persona, and it is treated as such. But not only has the Church never received a penny of the money, but during the past 30 years the Church has, by way of voluntary contributions and gifts, given the Kakamas Commission more than £17,000. It has not received a penny, and apart from the work and labour it has accomplished there, it has given more than £17,000 by way of gifts and assistance to the Kakamas Commission. It has given this in the form of contributions to the Kakamas Commission. Does that look as if profits are being made by the Church? The Minister still has no realisation of the legal position in respect of Kakamas. He simply goes out from the standpoint that Kakamas and the Church is the same, and I say that any person who investigates the matter will realise that the Church and the Kakamas Commission are two separate legal personae. I want to say to the Minister further that any person who investigates the matter will see that a particularly valuable asset has been built up at Kakamas by the painstaking labour of the Church during the past 40 years. We can see that in the Report of the Commission which was appointed by the Government itself. I want to indicate it more or less. The Government gave the Church 53,360 morgen which was made over to the Kakamas Commission in trust. Then the Report goes on and mentions farms that were 73,276 morgen in extent, bought by the Church for Kakamas. It was bought by the Commission with money made availbale to them by the Church. In 1937 Rhenosterkop, a further 19,000 morgen, was purchased for the colony. I have already pointed out that apart from the 53,000 morgen obtained from the Government, the Church gave money for the purchase of land to the sum of £13,700. Then was constructed the southern furrow that cost £15,290. The northern furrow was constructed at a cost of £43,300. On the Paarde Eiland erven was spent £11,645; on the Drift Islands £4,918. A sum of £4,354 was spent on two bridges. A further amount of £1,562 was spent. On buildings, less depreciation, an amount of £20,143 was spent.

And all that was constructed with Church money.

It is money made available to the Commission by the Church, and a part of the asset was obtained through a contribution from the Government, for which the Church is very grateful. What is more, the Trust shop has stocks to the value of £52,000. These are stocks that do not belong to the Church, but they belong to the Kakamas Trust which is administered by the Kakamas Commission. That is what has been built up there, and I say that it was built up with the assistance of the pains taking labour of the Church. It does not belong to the Church. The Church gave loans, and I can tell the Minister there were times when things did not look as they are looking today. In 1919, when the Minister reported, he expressed doubt, in his memorandum whether the Church would be prepared to advance more money; yet the Church continued to advance contributions, and at some stages it amounted to £150,000. I have now mentioned the assets that there are at Kakamas, and I want to repeat that those assets do not belong to the Church. I wish I could imprint it on the brain of the Minister. I wish I could bring it to his understanding, for it is clear that he is persisting, I do not know whether it is due to ignorance or to ill-will, with all the things he said here, so as to make it appear that those assets belong to the Church. The Minister goes out from the standpoint that those assets belong to the Church, and then he deduces that the Church is busy building up those assets for itself, in the way he has tried to sketch here. I reject those allegations which the Minister made in toto on behalf of the Church with the contempt they deserve. The Synod will probably deal with this matter itself. I am speaking as an ordinary member of the Church and not on behalf of the Synod. I am speaking as a humble member of the Church and as one who has a sense of fairness and who dares not sit still when such attacks are made on a honourable body in its absence. Let me proceed. Here we have a tremendous asset that does not belong to the Church. All that the Church has done is to make the funds available for the development work. This, according to the Minister, is the great sin of the Church, that the capital was made available to the Kakamas Commission for constructing those great works and building up that asset. Does the Minister not know that this Church office also has in trust the money that it lends to Kakamas? Does he not know that the Church is obliged to seek safe investments for that money? The Church is not in the position of the Government which can throw money about, and which has no responsibility towards those people who made the money available to the Church in trust. The Church has limited funds, and it cannot impose taxes. It must ensure that those funds are invested to give a reasonable profit, and is there anyone who will allege that that rate of interest that is asked over a period of years is an unreasonable rate of interest? I also want to tell the Minister that the Reserve Fund was built up by the Kakamas Commission, and that that Reserve Fund was invested with the Church office, and on a later occasion I shall discuss that aspect of the matter. But on this occasion I only want to say that where the Church has advanced those funds to the Kakamas Commission it is fully entitled to interest on that money which it lent out. Then there is still Rhenosterkop. I do not want to dwell on that for long. The purchase price was £15,000. A sum of more than £19,000 has already been spent on that land. Buildings have already been erected at a cost of £1,100, a total of £36,000. How was it possible to do this? That money was obtained in the shape of a loan of £25,000 from the Church, and a loan of £10,000 from the Government, of which £5,000 was written off. There was a loan of £25,000 from the Church and a loan of £10,000 from the State. There was a writeoff in respect of the State, for which we are thankful, but the Church is not in a position to afford write-offs. The Church was not obliged to lend out that money, but it did so and it assisted the work there. If we read the report of the Commission of 1919, of which the Minister of Lands was the Chairman, then we see what important work the Church has done there. I now want to come to a few particular points which the Minister mentioned. In the first place he spoke about the 25 houses that were built at Rhenosterkop by the Department of Social Welfare to accommodate poor physically unfit old people. As I understood the Minister, he said here that the Department of Social Welfare paid a sum of £3,678 for those houses.

I quoted from the minutes of the Synod.

You said that 25 houses were built at £150, and your arithmetic was not far out. This also includes, according to the Minister’s statement, the sum of £3 per month paid to the old people. Then the Minister added that rental monies were paid to the Church to the sum of £40. I would now like to know from the Minister whether that £40 is per year or per month; is it paid to the Church by the Department of Social Welfare? That is how I understood his words.

My information is that they paid a rental of £140 for the plots.

Is that for one year?

I received the information by telegraph, and I have quoted it as I received it from the Department.

Now I would like to ask whether the rentals for the plots were something else than the £70 for administration costs?

No, it is not the same.

It is another thing?

£70 is paid for the administration costs. That is the information I have received, and that is how I presented it.

I would like to deal with that further.

At 5.40 p.m. the Chairman stated that, in accordance with the Sessional Orders adopted on the 28th January and 26th March, 1943, and Standing Order No. 26 (1), he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 22nd April.