I move—

1. (1) That as from Saturday, the 3rd April. Saturdays shall be included as sitting days, Government business to have precedence;
2. (2) that during the period Monday, 5th April, to Saturday, 17th April, the House shall meet at a Quarter past Ten o’clock a.m. and adjourn at Six o’clock p.m.; and
3. (3) that on and after Monday, 19th April, the House shall meet at Ten o’clock a.m. and adjourn at a Quarter to Six o’clock p.m.

This motion is introduced after the usual consultation with all sections of the House, and it is practically an agreed proposal to sit on Saturdays as well as from Saturday, the 3rd April, in order to dispose of Government work.

The whole of Saturday?

It is the intention to sit only in the forenoon on the first Saturday, that is on the 3rd April. Whether the House will also sit in the afternoons on the remaining Saturdays will depend on the work. We cannot discuss that now. The second and third parts of the motion are introduced in view of the blackout in Cape Town, and because of the time the sun sets, so that hon. members will be in a position to travel home in safety while the light is still good.

I second.

This side of the House has no desire unduly to prolong the Session. Without detracting from the efficient disposal of the work we are prepared to assist the Government to complete the work, but now I just want to ask the Right Hon. the Prime Minister to take the House into his confidence and to tell us what he has in mind in connection with the prorogation of Parliament. On a previous occasion he said that they hoped to conclude the Session before Good Friday.

That is still the intention.

Is it intended perhaps to finish on the 17th April, or is the Government preparing itself to sit a week longer?

That depends on the business.

Then I want to ask the Prime Minister to tell the House which legislation will still be disposed of. There is, for example, No. 9 on the Order Paper, the Insurance Bill. This is apparently a lengthy Bill which will take a fairly long time. I believe that the Minister of Justice still intends introducing other measures as well.

It is the intention to put the Insurance Bill through the House if possible. Then the Minister of Justice has another Bill in connection with magistrate’s courts, but that is not of a contentious nature. Then there is a Bill in connection with building societies. Apart from that, there are, of course, the financial measures.

Motion put and agreed to.

At the request of the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel) I should like to move the amendments which appear on the Order Paper in his name, viz.—

The effect of this is that we feel that in this Bill the Minister is really trying to throw the onus on the farmer of taking precautions so that sparks from engines will not burn his crops or veld. The Minister said that it was not the responsibility of anyone, but now the Minister is definitely attempting to make it the responsibility of the farmer. In other words, the position is that whereas the Minister and his predecessors adopted a reasonable attitude up to the present, in that they said that they would take reasonable precautions by making fire-breaks between the grazing or the crops of the farmer and the railway line, so as to ensure that no damage was done to the farmers’ crops or grazing, as a result of fires caused by sparks from the engine, the Minister now proceeds to put the onus on the farmer to make a fire-break in the future if he wants to derive advantage from the small amount which the Minister is making available by way of compensation. I am not at all sure that, if this section is accepted as it reads at the moment, the farmers will not be deprived of any rights he may have to claim compensation. I do not know whether the farmer will still have the right in the ordinary courts to claim compensation, if he does not make a fire-break. I think, therefore, that this amendment is very reasonable. We just want to take the sting out of the Bill, and I do not think that the Minister can have any objection to it, because he said that he was introducing the Bill simply and solely for the benefit of the farmers. He said that in the past the farmers were placed in an unfavourable position when they had to claim compensation, and that he now wants to meet them. But there the Minister is acting in conflict with that intention on his part. I therefore move—

At this stage I think it would be just as well if I repeated some of the explanations I gave when I introduced this Bill, because it is clear that hon. members do not understand what the position is. The hon. member who has just spoken referred to the placing by me of a greater onus upon the farmer than he has at present. Allow me to explain. The present position remains as it is; it is not interfered with in any way; no farmer need accept any onus at all beyond the onus he has today under the law. He need not do anything under the Bill unless he wants to, and he will be no worse off. He will still have the same remedies against the South African Railways, if it is alleged that they have set fire to any of his grass or crops. As that position, after years of practice, has been shown to be unsatisfactory, as the farmers in effect have never got adequate compensation, as most of the moneys have been spent on lawyers’ fees, I conceived this idea in co-operation with the farmer, trying to make his lot much easier. It is not competent for me to accept unlimited liability on behalf of the Railways.

We are not suggesting that.

It is illegal for me to pay out compensation to the farmers unless it is proved that the Railways were responsible for the damage, but it is legal for me, if the farmer will take some small measure of precaution himself, to insure and compensate him, if, in fact, he suffers any damage as a result of our negligence. Let me make this quite clear. The law stands as it is today There is no interference with it. Over and above that, I have come along in an attempt to make a generous gesture to the farmer, and said, apart altogether from the law, apart altogether from the fact whether or not the Railways have been negligent, I will pay compensation up to £250 if, in fact, the farmer suffers damage as a result of fire alongside the railway line, if he has insured himself by making a fire-break. If he cannot make the fire-break, I have offered him generous terms to make it for him if he cannot himself do so. I have offered to make it for 12s. 6d. per mile if he ploughs two furrows, and £1 per mile if he does not plough there. Any farmer can insure himself in this way up to £250 against any grass fire. It is quite impossible for me to pay any compensation unless the farmer himself is prepared to take over this small liability. If he does not want to do it, he need not. He can remain where he is; he need not do anything. I will continue to make the fire-breaks that we have made in our own protection. But I will not pay £250 under this Bill, unless these precautions have been taken by the farmer. If the farmer is not prepared to do anything, if he is simply asking me to assume liabilities, which he has no right to ask the Railways to assume, regardless of what he himself is prepared to do, I am sorry that I cannot accept liability. I hope the House understands the position. I am superimposing something on the existing law to enable the farmer to obtain compensation without recourse to law, and in 90 per cent. of the cases that will meet the position. I want to make an appeal to hon. members opposite, therefore, to let this Bill go through as it is. It is essentially an experiment. I find, and my people find it very difficult to discover what our liability may be under this Bill, but it is an experiment; it is a generous experiment, and I think in the light of that hon. members opposite should accept this Bill as it is, and let us see how it works for twelve months, or perhaps two years, and if the Bill does not achieve what I have in mind, that is to say, to compensate the farmer more easily within the limit set out in the Bill, without the necessity of recourse to law, I will be prepared to see what we can do further.

This matter has often been discussed in Parliament, and if the Minister would refer to the cases of fire that have occurred between Bloemfontein and Aliwal North, he will immediately realise the difficulty. The farmer’s difficulty is not that he does not want to take precautionary measures, but the trouble is that the spark arresters of the trains are not effective. We have discussed this matter over and over again. Fire-belts are made or clearances are made, but the grass is set alight beyond those fire-belts. A spark shoots out of the locomotive and flies a hundred yards away where it sets the grass alight. In one case not only the grass was burned down, and not only the fodder stacks, but also bags of mealies stacked in a heap were burnt, and orchards and plantations were burnt down. The farmer practically lost everything. How can we throw the onus on the farmer to protect the veld against the sparks that are emitted from the engine. To make a fire-belt is another difficulty. When the grass becomes dry towards the end of May then those fire belts are made. It creates inconvenience at the beginning, but in August the veld begins to grow again and the cattle concentrate on the burned area in order to get green grass. They graze on the green strip of grass, and then they do not want to eat the dry veld again. It happens as in the case of animals who had graze in the green lands, and thereafter refused to graze on the dry veld. It is a big injustice that the railways should expect the farmers to make these fire-belts, and the railways do not concentrate on the other difficulties and they do not ensure that effective spark arresters are fitted to the engines. The railways are protected by the law. If the Minister would take the trouble to go into the evidence taken in the cases that have occurred, he will find that under the law as it stands the judgment always goes against the farmer, notwithstanding the fact that the railways cause the fire. Where compensation was paid out, is was only a meagre sum that did not compensate the farmer for the losses sustained by him. A portion of the man’s farm is in effect allotted to the railways; he has all the inconveniences connected with it, and in addition he prepetually finds himself in danger of his property being burnt down. From May to September the farmers through whose farms the railway line runs are in danger of being burnt out by the miserable system of fire arresters that are not effective, and which allow sparks to shoot out from the engine and create damage. That is very unfair.

I would like to say that any hon. member opposite who criticises adversely this measure and who does not support it, is not a friend of the farmer.

We want to improve it.

In the past, if a farmer adjoining a railway line, did not make a firebreak of 100 ft. and any damage was caused by sparks from the engine, he was not entitled to compensation. Surely, if a farmer wants to protect his trees and crop, he should make that break. Today the Minister comes along with a most generous promise. He says that he will make the fire-break if the farmer cannot, subject to certain conditions of payment. I think this is a very generous measure, and my criticism is that the Government is far too generous. After all, the farmer can burn a fire-break for 3s. or 4s. a mile. That is my experience. I hope hon. members will be true friends to the farmers and accept this Bill as it stands. The Minister said that it was an experiment, and I am sure it will be satisfactory.

We want to improve it.

No, I ask the hon. member to be reasonable. This is a good Bill, and hon. members opposite ought to be very thankful that the Minister has introduced such a Bill. I know that the farmers throughout South Africa will welcome it. What has been the experience of the farmers in the past? They have had their crops damaged by fire; they have gone to the lawyers, and it has cost them far more in lawyers’ fees than the damage actually was. Here they need not go to the lawyers. The Minister is prepared to nay out compensation up to £250. I think the Minister is very generous, and I think hon. members opposite should accept this Bill in the interests of the farmers.

It seems to me that there is a lot of misunderstanding about this matter. The hon. member who has just spoken no doubt means well. I appreciate it, but he does not understand us correctly. It seems to me, after listening carefully to the Minister, that he intends to proceed with the making of fire-belts whether the Bill is passed or not. In other words, he is prepared to carry out his duty, namely to ensure that the damage caused by the railways shall be restricted to a minimum. That is precisely what we ask in this amendment. We ask him to proceed with the making of fire-belts, as he has done in the past. There I support him immediately.

But the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. J. C. de Wet) objects to fire-belts.

No, he asked why the farmers should make the fire-belts; he says that the railways ought to do it, because they set fire to the veld. He says that the farmers have to sacrifice land to assist the railways. We get a case like this, for instance: I have a piece of land through which the railway runs, and it goes through a hollow which is a fine site for constructing a dam. I dare not make that dam because then I will throw a volume of water against the railway line. The result is that the farm is worth a few hundred pounds less, and yields a few hundred pounds less as a result of the railways and the Minister. I am not complaining about it, no reasonable man would complain about such things, because there is the national interests for which one should sacrifice for the benefit of the community as a whole. But the Minister must not adopt the attitude that the people through whose land the railway runs, have nothing to lose. From April to September we are perpetually faced with the danger that the grass may be set alight. We also have the position, for instance, that the railways cut a small strip of land from the farmer’s land. That strip of veld means very little or nothing to him, because it is cut from his farm. Nevertheless, he is compelled to make a fire-belt there perhaps of three, four or five miles long.

No, it is not so.

The hon. member for Carolina (Mr. Fourie) says it is not so; what does he mean by that?

The farmer is not compelled to do it.

Then the Minister can accept the amendment of my hon. friend. The amendment asks that the Minister should make fire-belts and should not throw the onus on the farmer. Was the hon. member not in the House when the Minister explained the position? Not four minutes ago the Minister said that the farmers might make that small sacrifice in order to get the benefit of this law. I understand the Minister, but evidently the hon. member does not understand him. I say again, that if a small strip of land lies on the other side of the railway, then the man is compelled to make a fire-belt that means nothing to him, but which is to the benefit of the farmers who border on that strip of land. There is only one way in which the Minister can obviate that sort of trouble He must proceed as in the past to provide fire-belts, and then he must give the farmers the benefit of this legislation without expecting them to make the fire-belts themselves.

I am really surprised at the attitude of hon. members on the other side towards this matter. The one objects to the fire-belt. The hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. J. C. de Wet) said that no matter whether the fire-belt was made by him or by the Minister, the farmers suffered damage.

It can be cleared of grass if he does not want to make a fire-belt.

The hon. member wants the benefit of this legislation, but he himself wants to do nothing.

He said that the farmers had enough trouble with the railways that run through his veld.

We must be honest if we want to represent the interests of the farmers. I also live in the grass veld, and I want to thank the Minister for introducing this Bill. It is a great help to the farmers. In dozens of cases the farmers could make no case against the railways, because it was so difficult to prove that the railways were responsible. Now they can at least get £250 compensation without instituting an action, and it is free to any farmer to summons the railways in addition if he thinks the compensation is too little. I cannot see what reasons hon. members on the other side can have for their attitude. I appeal to them to support the Bill in the interests of their electors.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Labuschagne put and negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses and Title put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill with Amendments.

Amendments considered.

Amendments in Clause 1 (Afrikaans) put and agreed to and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

The object of this Bill is to suspend the compilation of jury lists. Under Clause 172 of Act No. 31 of 1917, as amended by Clause 28 of Act No. 46 of 1935, jury lists must be compiled every four years for every district. The first consideration is that the suspension of this will mean a saving of £5,000. Then we have many difficulties in connection with tyres and petrol, and we know further that paper and envelopes are practically unobtainable. The object of the suspension is that it will continue to a month and a year which His Excellency may determine, but which shall not be later than two years after the war. In the past the month was always January. It has been found that this is not the best month for it, and therefore His Excellency may determine another month.

Here we have another of those measures which the Government proposes to nullify the law of the land, in consequence of the war. In our view it is quite unnecessary to suspend the compilation of jury lists. The saving of £5,000 in this connection is really not of so much importance. But the Government has apparently taken up the attitude that the jury lists must not be compiled during the war. I want to say, however, that we think it is wrong to suspend the compilation of the jury lists for a number of years, and to operate on obsolete lists. We cannot support this Bill.

I just want to support what the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) said here. The compilation of the jury lists is an important matter in connection with our administration of justice. If we now postpone it then it means that we shall have to work with obsolete lists. And it is not the case that the Minister will postpone it just for a year and a month,—we have no objection to the jury lists being compiled in February, if January is a difficult month — but it is postponed until after the war. It will mean that we will have to work for all these years on obsolete jury lists—we do not know how long it will last, perhaps three, four or five years. I subscribe to what the hon. member for Winburg said. We cannot support this Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

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

House in Committee:

Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill without amendment.

Bill read a third time.

When moving the adjournment of the debate on this motion, I stated that I hoped to have an opportunity of discussing the provisions of the Bill with representatives from all sides of the House. During the interim, I have had an opportunity of discussing the matter and, sir, I think that I am correct in interpreting the feeling expressed during those discussions, when I say that there was a general concensus of opinion that the services of M.P.’s on public bodies of importance should not necessarily be excluded in all circumstances. It was felt that there might be many occasions on which the services of an M.P. would be most useful for a particular body or a committee by reason of his particular experience with regard to the matters to be discussed and decided upon by such a committee. It was felt that it would not be in the public interests so to legislate as to render it impossible for an M.P. to serve on any public body or committee, which might be considered as constituting an office of profit under the Crown, except such as are mentioned in this Bill. The opinion was expressed that there should be a provision enabling a member of Parliament to serve on a committee or council, or a similar body, provided he received no payment in excess of his out-of-pocket expenses in the course of such service. I think I am correct in interpreting the feelings of the majority who took part in these discussions, when I say that it was felt that such a provision should apply in respect of all boards, committees and similar bodies.

What do you mean by expenses?

I will come to that in a moment, if the hon. member will allow me. I am grateful for the assistance given me by hon. members. I have since reconsidered the matter and the Government has had an opportunity of dealing with the matter, and I now wish to inform the House that I propose asking the House to pass the second reading of the Bill and not to accept the motion moved by the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys) asking for the Bill to be referred to a Select Committee. If the second reading of the Bill is taken, then in Committee I propose to ask the Committee to accept Clause 1 as it stands, viz. to agree to the original suggestion of singling out those particular bodies and institutions set out in sec. 1 of the Bill, and then to add a new clause, which I understand it will be competent to do. That new clause will read in some such terms as these: “Any person who, after the commencement of this Act, holds an office of profit under the Crown, by virtue of an appointment as a member of any council, committee, board or similar body, and in respect of his services on such council, committee, board of similar body receives no payment in excess of the expenses actually and reasonably incurred by him in the course of such service, shall notwithstanding any provision in any law authorising or requiring payment or remuneration to members of such councils, committees, boards, or similar bodies, not be deemed to be holding an office of profit under the Crown in terms of the Act.” If such an amendment were to be accepted by the Committee, then in effect what this Bill would provide, would be this: It would first of all indemnify members of Parliament in respect of past actions. Secondly, it would enable members of Parliament to accept membership of the Council of Public Health, of the South African Medical Council, the South African Pharmacy Board, the National Nutritional Council, or the Social and Economic Planning Council, provided such member received no payment in respect of his services on the council or board in excess of an allowance of £3 3s. per day when rendering such services. That allowance of £3 3s. per day would be permissible in respect of his services on those bodies. In respect of any other body, committee or board, the member would be permitted to serve, provided he received only his reasonable out-of-pocket expenses. In understand there have been occasions when members of Parliament have been asked to serve on a body such as a wage board for a particular wage investigation. Some have been prepared to do so and not to claim the statutory fees payable for such services, but merely to receive out-of-pocket expenses. But if such members were to do so in similar circumstances in the future, without legislation, there might be a doubt as to whether, even though the member waives any remuneration under any particular office, he will still be holding an office of profit under the Crown, because such an office does carry a profit which he may receive. This Bill is designed to remove any ambiguities and there is no doubt that members in future will be able to serve on any bodies, membership of which might technically constitute an office of profit under the Crown, provided they receive only out-of-pocket expenses. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet) has asked me what reasonable expenses are. The wording I suggested was “in excess of the expenses reasonably incurred by him in the course of such service.” The amount to be reimbursed will be in respect of actual expenses incurred. But that must be qualified by the word “reasonably,” because it would be against the spirit of any such provision in the law if an M.P. were able to submit an account running into extravagant figures. It would be the actual, reasonable out-of-pocket expenses which would have to be assessed by the department concerned.

Most of these departments make an allowance of a couple of guineas a day.

It is that allowance which the member will not be permitted to receive. He will be permitted to receive his travelling expenses and out-of-pocket expenses, but no allowance over and above those particular expenses. The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) may ask me: “Why then, if this provision is inserted, should one still single out these bodies?” That is arguable, I will admit.

Is that an exhaustive list?

It is not an exhaustive list. But here we have established the principle that we must come to Parliament in order to single out these bodies. Neither this Government or any other Government can by administrative action say: “You may serve on this, that or the other body at so much per day and it will not constitute an office of profit under the Crown.” It will be necessary in the future for this Government, if it wishes to place a board within this particular category, to come to Parliament. Parliament will then decide whether it is advisable. I think that is a sound principle, and for that reason I think we should leave Clause 1 (1) as it stands.

Do you find it impossible to have a general definition of “office of profit”?

I can assure the hon. member that that exercised not only my own mind but the minds of the heads of my department and the law advisers, and also others who tried to assist in this matter. But it is extremely difficult, and the suggestion I am now putting forward is the result of the pooled mental resources of all those who applied their minds to it.

Well, it is very poor.

It may not appear to be a brilliant solution, but I am afraid that is all I can offer to the House. But I do so feeling that this is a fair way of dealing with the matter. This Bill does safeguard the principle that unfair patronage should not be used by the Government of the day, and it does at the same time preserve to members of Parliament their right to take part in the deliberations of committees and bodies of public importance.

What happens when these boards sit for 300 days in the year. That would be improper, would it not?

It would be, but we have a safeguard. It may well be that if we did not have a provision whereby such a body had to be specifically included, the Government might appoint a committee that would sit for 300 days in the year. At all events, I think that in all the circumstances this is the most fair and equitable way of dealing with the matter, and I ask that this House should take the second reading of the Bill.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Geldenhuys put and negatived.

Original motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on the Bill on 29th March.

Before the adjournment of the debate on this Bill on the 17th instant, I asked the hon. the Minister why in his opinion Clause 3 of the Bill should be retained. He told us in moving the second reading that a difficulty had arisen in Durban, and that it was deemed desirable to deal with that position in this Bill, but he informed us that it was found that the matter could be dealt with under the ordinary common law. I want to repeat what I said, viz. that we know that administratively housing schemes can be set afoot for various sections of the community, but there is a vast difference — at least in the eyes of non-Europeans — between doing this administratively and taking special statutory steps of this nature. The reason for the objection is the fear that it may be the thin end of the wedge, and that it may lead to a division of property rights, which is an entirely different matter from a racial, occupational separation. It is feared that the next step after making this special provision, may be the division of property rights. I do not suggest that such is the intention of the Minister, but the question arises whether the existence of this kind of legislation may not lead to something of that kind. That is what in fact happened in the case of the Native population. First under the Native Urban Areas Act you simply had separate residential areas, but their property rights were retained. The next step was that these rights were taken away and they were confined to this special provision which had been made. I do put it to the Minister that, as the reason for this clause has apparently fallen away, it is desirable to drop this clause altogether. The next point I want to make is that it seems that the necessity for compulsory powers in respect of local authorities, to compel them to discharge their responsibilities has not fully been met in this Bill. In the Public Health Act there is a particular clause providing that when there is a danger to public health, the Minister can make use of his power of compulsion, but I think the Minister should have wider powers to compel local authorities to provide housing facilities for the population in the area under their jurisdiction, if in his opinion the housing in such area is inadequate. But once this principle is accepted, and I gathered from an interruption by the Minister that that is his intention, then the principle has also to be adopted that the ultimate financial responsibility for housing has to rest with the Central Government. It may not be practicable to impose such a responsibility on local authorities if they have to find the larger share of the expenditure to carry out housing schemes. This raises the whole matter of the responsibility of the Central Government for National housing schemes. As the Minister has told us already, he is considering the position. In connection with these powers of compulsion, to compel local authorities to discharge their responsibilities in respect of housing, I also want to make this point: It is useless to take these powers, unless you are going to make use of them. In the Native Urban Areas Act the Government has taken powers to compel local authorities to provide housing for Natives, and yet these powers seem never to have been used in practice. I can mention any number of local authorities where the housing conditions are deplorable.

These powers have never been made use of.

I don’t think a single local authority has been compelled under the Act to make such provision. It seems to me worse than useless to take powers if you are not going to use them, and therefore you have to link up these powers of compulsion with the financial question. Now in connection with this housing problem I want to bring the following position to the attention of the Minister. For a number of years now the Central Government has made provision for the subsidisation of building schemes carried out by local authorities, in the form of sub-economic loans. That was a step in the right direction and considerable amounts have been spent on the housing of the poorer classes. Yet, quite apart from the fact that nothing is done to compel local authorities to apply for loans or to take up such loans, the fact has to be faced that for a very large section of the population which was intended to benefit from these sub-economic schemes, even under the financial arrangements which are being made under such schemes, the rent is still too high because of the low unskilled wage standard. Here in Cape Town, taking only the coloured population, leaving the Natives out for the moment, the Medical Officer of Health expressed the opinion that 30 per cent. of the coloured population is not in a position to afford the rents which are charged under sub-economic housing schemes. Therefore, whilst I do not suggest that these sub-economic schemes should be discontinued, it is necessary to frame other schemes to make provision for the housing of the very poor. I do not want to refer to the comparatively small amount which is placed every year on the Loan Estimates for the housing of the aged poor. That is a comparatively small amount. But I say that the fact has to be faced that under the sub-economic schemes as they are today, it is not possible to erect houses at a rent which those poorer people can pay. That was stressed in the report of the interdepartmental committee on the conditions of Natives in urban areas. Suggestions are made in that report to examine whether it is not possible to produce a cheaper type of house. The type of house which is being constructed now is presumably what the housing authorities consider to be the minimum required for the protection of health, and rather than building a cheaper type of house, heavier subsidisation of rent is necessary. Before concluding, I want to raise one or two points in connection with the administration of housing, as this Bill affords me an opportunity to do so. The first point is that I hope that the Minister and his department and the Central Housing Board will set their faces against the construction of two-roomed houses. There are a number of schemes for native housing in various parts of the country, providing for the housing of native families in two-roomed houses. No family of a man, his wife and a number of children, even if there are only one or two children can be expected to live in decent circumstances in a two-roomed house, and I want to suggest that the construction of two-roomed houses should not longer be a feature of any housing scheme. Another matter I want to raise is the quality of flooring of houses built under sub-economic schemes. The Building Controller tells us that timber is unobtainable, and therefore the substitute used is a kind of cement flooring; I know it is a composition, it is not pure cement, but in the Western Province with its cold and damp climate, and particularly where you have the position that many people living in those houses cannot afford a bed and have to sleep on the floor—particularly in the case of non-Europeans—I think these cement floors are quite unsuitable. I want to suggest that if it is altogether impossible to provide timber flooring, that it might be better simply to lay earth floors temporarily, until timber is available. In one scheme, at Cradock, that was done, and I think these earth floors are better suited than these cement composite floors.

Earth floors are not very healthy.

I think they are more healthy than these cement floors. The last point I want to deal with, is the following: The Housing Act which we are dealing with now, makes provision for advances to local authorities, and also to individual persons. We have been told by the Central Housing Board that they cannot advance loans to individuals out of sub-economic funds. I have been told by representatives of more than one local authority that there is an urgent need for Native housing, that they have approached the Central Housing Board and applied for loans to use to advance loans to individual Natives for the building of houses, but that these loans are not granted. In Bloemfontein we have had the example that individuals were allowed to build their own house and it was done much cheaper, and in many cases more satisfactorily. I can find nothing in the Act preventing such loans from being granted, and I cannot understand why it is the policy of the Central Housing Board to refuse sub-economic loans to local authorities who desire to make loans to individuals. After all, the local authorities would be responsible to the Central Government, and the individuals would be responsible to the local authorities. What theoretical objection could there be against such a system? It worked very well where-ever it was applied, and if the local authorities are placed in a position to grant such loans, they will be able to catch up much more rapidly with the urgent need of housing, particularly in the case of natives, in the areas under their jurisdiction. There are local authorities which, however great the schemes may be which they want to tackle, will take many years to catch up with the urgent needs of housing in their area. I would like to know from the Minister why the Central Housing Board does not approve of schemes of that kind.

It is not often that I rise in this House to say anything complimentary to the Minister of the Interior, but in this case I must say that it is very gratifying to find that he has introduced this Bill and that he has incorporated Clause 3, which purports to enable local authorities to set aside housing schemes for specific classes of the population.

There is no such provision here.

That is how I read this clause, that areas can be set aside for certain classes of persons and that these areas cannot be alienated to other classes. It is unfortunate that such legislation was not carried out fifty years ago, in which case we would not have had this alarming position in Durban and in the Transvaal. I regret that the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) does not agree with my reading of the clause. As I read it, in all future housing schemes such a condition can be incorporated, but I would like to appeal to the Minister to make this condition applicable to housing schemes of the past. There are many housing schemes which have been carried out in years gone by for various sections of the community, and I do not see why this clause cannot be made retrospective. In any housing scheme, such a provision should be made. I think the Minister should consider this aspect of the matter. I understood the hon. member for Fordsburg to say, when the Bill came before the House for the first time, that in his opinion housing schemes should be started for the less-privileged classes of the population. I agree with what he has said, but there is an old saying: “Charity begins at home”, and I think the Minister should consider the housing problem that members of Parliament are concerned with when they come to Cape Town. There is no question about it that members are experiencing great difficulty in obtaining accommodation. It is getting worse as the years go by, and I hope that the Minister will consider assisting members to find accommodation before the next Session starts.

I think it is generally admitted today that there is a tremendous shortage of houses and accommodation, and I think that the Government and the Minister can no longer close their eyes to this fact. It is said that we are in the war, that we have been in the war for three and a half years, and that the situation which has arisen is a result of the war. Now I want to put this question to the Minister: The war may last another three and a half years, and what is the position then going to be? For every house that is offered to let in some of the big cities, there are hundreds of applications. We find that people who go to the cities for employment are faced with the difficulty that they cannot get accommodation. The result is that some of those people have to live together and are herded together, people who should not be living together. We find that we have reached such a deplorable position today, that the accommodation distress in the Western Province has become so bad that Europeans and non-Europeans have to live together in one and the same house. This is no longer an exception, for we find it in many cases. I would therefore like to know from the Minister what the intention of the Government is. Are they going to do something to bring about a change and try to make up this shortage? We come to the officials. These people are transferred from one place to another, and then they find that they cannot get accommodation. I do not know whether the Government actually realises what the shortage of houses is. I want to make a very serious appeal to the Minister to ensure that something in connection with this matter shall be done. I do not want to keep the House long, but there is another matter in connection with this Bill in respect of which we want to appeal to the Minister to make some provision. We feel that where he comes with such a Bill, he should not let the opportunity pass of making clear provision in this Bill for separate residential areas for Europeans and non-Europeans. We want to say to the Minister that he knows that so far as Cape Town is concerned, it is not purely a party matter. He knows that the municipal congress decided by an overwhelming majority a few years ago in favour of separate residential areas for Europeans and non-Europeans, and now I want to ask the Minister: Why does he not incorporate that in this Bill? I want to ask him if he really thinks that even the more civilised and decent coloured people have any reason to resist separate residential areas. I consider that the coloured who is not ashamed to be a coloured, will have no objection against this. But a coloured who does not want to admit that he is coloured, who is ashamed of being a coloured, will perhaps have an objection. It is in the interests of the Europeans, and also in the interests of the non-Europeans, that there should be segregation as regard residential areas. We feel that if the Europeans live together with, or next to the non-Europeans, and sometimes in the same house, it cannot otherwise but have the result that the feeling of a colour-bar between the European and non-European will be weakened. Clause 3 of the Bill does not go far enough. It is not compulsory on the Minister to make this difference. We do not want the matter to be simply left in his hands. We want the Act to make clear provision for separate residential areas for Europeans, Asiatics and coloureds. I want to appeal to the Minister. I really cannot see what objection any member on the other side can have to such a provision.

I think that housing is certainly one of the most important things in forming the character of the family. Therefore, when a measure is brought before this House to improve the housing conditions in our country, then we cannot but be thankful for it, and we want to welcome it and to support cordially everything in this Bill which can contribute to an improvement in the existing conditions. We feel, however, that there is a shortcoming in this legislation about which we are feeling very anxious, and it is such a pity that the Minister does not go a little further in connection with Clause 3, as my colleague here has already pointed out, viz. the introduction of compulsory residential areas for Europeans and non-Europeans. That principle of separate residential areas for the Europeans and non-Europeans has already been approved by the Government, viz. that they put that principle into practice in respect of their new housing schemes. Houses are being built exclusively for Europeans and other houses exclusively for non-Europeans. And in so far as that principle has already been adopted by the Government in that respect, I will agree that the House is grateful for it. Nevertheless, that shortcoming in the Act continues to exist as regards the existing mixed residential areas. It is not removed by this Bill, because a legal provision has not been introduced to remedy this shortcoming. No provision has been inserted to eliminate those mal-conditions. It is not necessary to have to defend this principle in a country such as South Africa where we have mixed residential areas and where we have a mixed community. I say it has already been accepted in principle by the Government. But it is certainly necessary for us to insist strongly once again on that necessary provision in respect of the residential areas which already exist, for it avails us nothing to arrange for the new residential areas in respect of separate residential areas, so long as those mal-conditions remain in existing residential areas. It is against the old condition that we want to lodge the strongest protest. Now the question is whether it is possible, whether is is practicable. I can only give one reply to that: Yes, it is possible, it is practical, and it can be put into effect if it is tackled in the right manner. It is not my duty to say here how the matter should be tackled. I have my own ideas, and therefore I say it is practicable. I have expressed my ideas on a previous occasion and they have met with approval. All sections of the community will benefit by it. There is a section who are opposed to it, but it will be to the best interests not only for the Europeans but, as my colleague has said, it will also be in the interests of the non-Europeans, of the people some of whom do not want it today. Why do they not want it? I say that in many cases it is because a wrong interpretation is deliberately given to the non-Europeans. In my own constituency it is said that the people who are in favour of separate residential areas for Europeans and non-Europeans expect the non-Europeans to be accommodated in camps up there under the mountain. Far from it. In my scheme I even found it possible that housing facilities could be created for the non-Europeans in the town, within the municipal area, but it must be separate and apart. I have mentioned the fact before that in certain areas, and also in my own area, committees of non-Europeans exist, who concentrate on collecting funds to buy property in important and big towns. It is possible that that matter will be taken in the same direction, and that it will create the same conditions as those which we know already exist in Natal, with the result that the Europeans in such areas will have to depart in due course from those areas and seek residential areas elsewhere. We want to avoid those conditions here, in the interests of all sections. I want to say to the Government here that I am very sorry that the Minister of the Interior will not take this important step: he will not take this step because he thinks that the non-Europeans may thereby lose confidence in the Government. If the Government does not want to do it for that reason, then I want to say with the greatest emphasis that the Government is neglecting its duty in order to retain the vote of the non-Europeans. I cannot believe that the Government would show such a disservice to the population of South Africa, European as well as non-European. This matter must be simply grappled with and carried out. I say this in the first place, because it is in the interests of both sections, and because we shall thereby remove the ill-feeling and friction between Europeans and non-Europeans to a great extent. It is the duty of any responsible Government, where it already subscribes to the principle in part, to put it fully into effect; it is the duty of the Government to grapple with and to carry out the matter in respect of this Bill which we have before the House at the moment. I hope, therefore, that the Government will go further into this Bill, and will insert the provision which will enable it to eliminate the existing mal-conditions.

I am grateful to the House for the careful manner in which it has put forward a number of suggestions, dealing not only with the actual provision of this Bill, but with the housing policy of South Africa in general. Some hon. members who have spoken strayed very far away from the subject matter of the Bill. Some made statements in regard to the Government’s housing policy which, although they are not germane to the Bill itself, do require an answer, and I propose to give an answer this morning. But before coming to the general observations which were made, and more particularly those which were made by the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman), I want to touch on the criticisms of the Bill itself. These seem to fall into two classes, namely, those which contend that Clause 3 of the Bill should be dropped, and those which contend that Clause 3 does not go far enough. The other line of criticism is that the powers sought to be taken under Clause 7 of the Bill are not stringent enough. The hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) has referred to Clause 3, and he has suggested that by including such a provision, against which in itself there can be no objection on the merits, one may by implication be opening the door to legislation dealing with compulsory residential segregation. That is his criticism as I understand it. The hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Acutt) has supported the hon. member for Fordsburg in suggesting that this clause does not go far enough. Well, this clause has been inserted to meet a particular need. It is well known that, in the past, local authorities have embarked on schemes for Europeans, Coloureds, Natives and Indians. They have embarked on sub-economic housing schemes for the particular benefit of a particular section of the community. There is nothing in the ordinary Common Law to prevent a local authority from inserting in each individual Title Deed of such a township a provision that occupation may be given only to a particular class or group, and there does not seem to be any argument against a local authority taking such action on the merits. In fact, most local authorities have taken advantage of the Common Law and have had such conditions registered in the Title Deeds, but in Durban it appears that that action was not taken in certain cases, and, as a result of representations made by the Durban City Council, it was decided to insert this clause in the Bill, and to make provision not only for the past but for the future. Clause 3 will enable a local authority to earmark any township built in the past for the particular race for which it was intended. If the City Council of Durban has in the past built a sub-economic scheme for Europeans, it can lay down that that shall be reserved for Europeans in the future. The powers under Clause 3 will not enable the local authority to change the character of that township.

There is no compulsion on the local authority.

The local authority cannot change the character of a township. It cannot say that a township laid out for coloured people shall now be for Europeans. In terms of Clause 3 it may only give effect to its intentions at the time. That is what the local authorities wish, that is what they have asked for. Clause 3 changes the Common Law for the future, in that it enables local authority which inadvertently has not taken advantage of the Common Law in the past, to exercise those rights in the future.

Is the principle of separate housing accepted by the Government?

The principle of separate schemes, of separate townships, of separate housing schemes, is one which has been in operation for years past. The facts speak for themselves. The Government, just as its predecessor, has always encouraged local authorities to provide for the individual needs, the individual housing needs of all sections of the population. It has encouraged the establishment of townships for Europeans, townships for Coloureds, townships for Natives, and townships for Indians. It maintains the policy which has been followed for the past twelve to fourteen years, and that is that it does not undertake to put into operation a policy of compulsory residential segregation.

What a pity.

There we differ. I give that to my hon. friend over there. The Government feels that by methods of goodwill, by means of goodwill and co-operation with the coloured community, and with the co-operation of the local authorities, we can achieve a wise and reasonable adjustment of living conditions which will be mutually beneficial to all.

It will take you a hundred years to do it.

My friend is like Rip van Winkle, he is living in the past. Like the hon. member for Fordsburg he has not paid attention to facts and figures about housing. He does not know what has been done. If he would take the trouble to pay a visit — and I would be prepared to accompany him to the Q Township near Cape Town — he would see established a modern township for coloured people which is a credit to any place. He can go to Bokmakierie where he will find these communities living together happily, although they are not forced to do so. I am more and more convinced that if we apply this sound and wise policy throughout the country in respect of all our non-European races, we shall find a solution, and we are getting towards a solution already along a voluntary and non-compulsory course.

In the meantime numerous eyesores are carried on.

No, in the meantime very effectively numerous eyesores are being blotted out. I shall come to the question of what has been done in a moment, but it would seem to me that this provision which has been inserted in the Bill is a necessary one in order to give local authorities the opportunity to give effect to their intentions. It goes far enough. It does not embody the principle of compulsory residential segregation, but it does embody a provision for separate residential areas on a voluntary basis. Then I come to Clause 7. It is objected that that does not give the Administrator or the Department of Public Health sufficiently wide powers. The powers conferred under Clause 7 are those powers which by virtue of the Public Health Act can be exercised in regard to purely health activities. Similar powers were taken under the Slums Act, and it seems to me that there again it is a wise course to follow the precedent of the Public Health Act, and to adopt the machinery laid down in that Act. Hon. members have said that those provisions have never been exercised. That is not correct.

Under the Urban Areas Act.

I am referring to the powers under the Public Health Act which are taken over here for the purpose of housing. We have provision here under which, if the Chief Health Officer of the Union, that is the Secretary for Public Health, submits a report that the health conditions in a particular area are jeopardised by reason of the housing conditions there, the Administrator must step in. He must compel the local authority to act, and if he does not act then the Minister of Health can step in. This is a new principle in regard to housing—this principle of bringing pressure to bear on the local authorities.

Only in regard to health.

We have the Slums Act and we have this provision in regard to health, and I would imagine that it is axiomatic that if one has slum conditions in any area, such a condition of affairs would be detrimental to the state of health in that area, and such a state of affairs would enable the Secretary for Public Health to report adversely on those conditions.

But you cannot act where there is acute shortage of housing.

Where there is acute shortage of housing there I admit, if one deals with that problem by itself in a water tight compartment, one cannot act. But my hon. friend’s argument was that an acute shortage of housing leads to overcrowding. And the position would be this. Where people are overcrowded the chief health officer would say such a state of affairs requires more houses, because it leads to bad conditions of health. So you get the same result.

It will never be applied.

Quite obviously if there is a shortage of housing then it ipso facto is detrimental to public health, because shortage of housing inevitably means overcrowding in other areas. I think we should give this experiment a chance. I have tried to indicate, in what I said in introducing this measure, the intentions of the Public Health Department in regard to a national housing policy, and I should like to come back to that again at a later stage. I think the Housing Board, acting in conjunction with the Secretary for Public Health, can, and will be in the position after the Housing Survey, which it is proposed to hold, to put its finger on the black spots in the Union and to bring pressure to bear on local authorities to act.

To overcome the shortage?

Now I want to deal with the hon. member for Fordsburg. He said that this question of housing was one of the most urgent questions in the country. We all agree with that. It is common cause. I thought I had made that clear in my opening remarks. We start from those premises. But he went on to say that in introducing this Bill I had spoken about the Government making plans, I had talked about planning and surveys, but that I had omitted to say what the Government proposed to do and what it had done in the course of the past three and a half years since it had been in office. And then the hon. member for Fordsburg in his verbal extravagance, carried away by his verbal extravangances, in a fantasy of forensic indignation, said that no slums had been removed, no new houses have been erected, no loans have been granted! And then realising, no doubt, that he was on the eve of a general election and hoping to make a little party capital out of his verbal extravagance, he said that this Government would be known as the “Slums Government”—instead of removing slums it had created slums. Thus spoke the hon. member for Fordsburg! Well, I ask the House, and I would ask the hon. member for Fordsburg, to bear in mind the facts of the case. I do not know whether the hon. member for Fordsburg has taken the trouble to read the reports of the Housing Board of recent years, I do not know whether he has taken the trouble to ascertain the facts from the Public Health Department.

Where is the last report—the last date is 1940.

My hon. friend again is living in the past, because I have here the draft report for 1942 which I propose to lay on the Table very shortly, and therefore my hon. friend must either have lost his copy or he must never have known that there was a report available for 1941.

The only one which the Clerk of the Papers has is the 1940 one.

Now, what is the position in regard to housing? I accept what my hon. friend says, that we must start with the poorest section of the community. We must begin with those whose needs are greatest. That is the policy which has been carried out by the present Government. Now, the sub-economic housing scheme did not come into operation for nearly ten years after the passing of the Housing Act. The initial commitment under the sub-economic Housing Scheme was made in 1930 when £500,000 was committed. Hon. members will know that under the Sub-economic Housing Scheme the Housing Board advances money to local authorities at ¾ per cent. interest. It is a condition of that loan that while the Government loses 1¼ per cent. the local authority must also lose 1¼ per cent. in order to enable the rents to be sufficiently low to be payable by the persons who will be the tenants. In 1930 at the beginning of the scheme the sum of £500,000 was committed. Soon after a further £500,000 was committed, and in 1935 the total amount of the commitments was brought up to £5,000,000. Then another £5,000,000 was added and then £3,000,000. That was before the present Government came into power. Then the present Government increased this sum. In 1939 £750,000, in 1941 another £750,000, and in 1942 £1,500,000 were added, bringing the total commitments up to £7,000,000. It will be seen that since November, 1939, the commitments in regard to sub-economic housing have been increased by £4,000,000. This money has all been allocated, and further large schemes are now coming into consideration, so that further money will soon be required for which application will be made in due course. In 1941 it was found that £400,000 had been allocated to certain large local authorities — to large local authority areas, where the local authorities were not proceeding with their schemes as rapidly as the Public Health Department had hoped, and it was decided to divert that £400,000 away from these local authorities to a large number of these platteland towns, with the result that the needs of these platteland towns at that time were dealt with. The sum was sufficient to meet all the demands of these smaller local authorities at that time. Now, I have given the figure in regard to the commitments. Let us take the actual position of the houses built. The hon. member for Fordsburg says that no slums have been pulled down, but that slums have been created, and he says that no houses have been built and that the Government has done nothing.

Nothing to be proud of.

If my hon. friend will wait I shall deal with that. Let me take the position of sub-economic housing as at the 30th June, 1935. At that time one finds that the total number of houses completed was 1,060, under construction 121; approved but not commenced 379; making a total of 1,560. That proceeded by small stages until we come to the 30th June, 1939. I have taken the middle of the year immediately preceding the change of Government. On the 30th June, 1939, the total sub-economic loan applications approved by the Housing Board amounted to £5,719,596. There were 8,520 houses completed and others either under construction or approved of, making a total of 16,437. At the 30th June, 1939, therefore, the number of sub-economic houses approved of, completed and under construction, or about to be commenced was 16,437, of which 8,520 had already been completed. At the 30th June, 1942, three years later, during the war period the total number of sub-economic houses approved of, completed and under construction, had risen to 32,343, of which 15,260 had been completed. In other words, in the three war years from 1939 tot 1942 nearly as many houses were completed as during the nine years previous to 1939.

How many European houses?

The number of European Houses has grown by something like 700 to 800. In other words, we have during that period built as many houses — during the period of three years — as were built during the whole period from 1930 to 1939.

What is the total number of European houses built during the three years?

I shall get that figure for my hon. friend, but I give the facts as they are. The hon. member says that this Government has done nothing to eliminate slums. I give him the facts. They show that during the three years this Government has been in office there have been as many houses constructed under the Sub-Economic Scheme as during the previous nine years. He cannot contend, surely, that houses are built for any other purposes but to remove slums? If my hon. friend is contending that houses should not be built for non-Europeans, then I am afraid we must agree to differ on that. If my hon. friend wants to improve conditions for Europeans, then on his own showing he should provide proper houses for non-Europeans in other areas, and that is what is being done under the scheme on a proper basis.

I am concerned with European houses.

My hon. friend made a statement, and I have given him an answer. And the facts show that, so far from letting the matter slide, the Housing Board and the Public Health Department have been keeping the local authorities up to the mark and have ensured that sub-economic housing has not come to a standstill, but that a marked advance has been made.

For Europeans it has come to a standstill.

My hon. friend may repeat his parrot cry as much as he likes; the figures do not support his allegation, and show that for Europeans, just as for non-Europeans, vast progress has been made.

Where were the worst slums?

In many cases the worst slums were where Europeans, Coloureds and Natives were living cheek by jowl, and provision has been made for non-Europeans in order to extricate these various classes from one particular area and enable them to live in separate areas under an approved scheme. Port Elizabeth is an example, a striking example, of what has been done in that regard. The T.T. Lands scheme at Cape Town is another striking example of what can be done along these voluntary lines. Throughout these three years economic housing has also proceeded apace, and the scheme for the building of houses for the aged poor has been carried on and several hundred houses have been built under that scheme. I said, in introducing the Bill, that the Government now proposed to undertake a national survey of housing. My hon. friend says why has this not been done in the past. The hon. member says why were these things not done before, why not eight years ago. Well, I never heard the hon. member for Fordsburg making these passionate pleas four or five years ago when we had no war expenditure, when we had overwhelming surpluses — why was it not necessary to have a survey in those days? I think it would have been better if the hon. member had used his great eloquence in those days.

When he was a member of the Government then in power.

In those days when the Treasury had overflowing coffers.

In those days I had great hopes of the present Minister.

But now, in spite of all the difficulties of shortage of building construction, faced with the difficulties of finance, this Government is able to show that it has not only laid down a housing policy but it has proceeded at an accelerated pace. Yet the hon. member comes here and says we have done nothing. I am not satisfied with what has been done, but I do say that the position is immeasurably better than it was three or four years ago. But I am not satisfied to sit down and say this will be sufficient. That is why I am going to have a National Housing Survey and other changes are being considered. I say it is carping criticism which we have been listening to, it is unfair criticism, it is unjustifiable criticism, to say, when the Government comes forward with these constructive proposals, that we have done nothing, and to ask why we have not done certain things before. If anyone had suggested these things three and a half years ago, when no one knew what the future of the country was going to be, we would have been laughed out of court, but what the Public Health Department did was to go quietly about its business not to come forward with all kinds of vast schemes which would have been laughed out of court — the Public Health Department simply carried on—but now, when public opinion is ripe for changes, it is taking advantage of the awakening of public opinion, and it is going to see that it will not lose the opportunity of so reshaping the housing policy and planning the housing policy of the country that we shall be able to deal with all and every local authority which is prepared to do its duty. And we shall also be able to deal with those local authorities which do not do their duty.

That does not count. You cannot shift the responsibility on to a municipality.

The hon. member may be an expert in some directions. But I am prepared to follow the advice of the experts who have been guiding the Public Health Department, and I think it is the concensus of enlightened opinion that you cannot take away, you should not take away, from local authorities, a measure of responsibility in regard to this matter. That responsibility has been accepted by local authorities since the inception of the Housing Act. I agree that there are some local authorities, some less financially stable local authorities, which are unable to pay their way under the Housing Act, and it may well be that the State will have to step in and finance them at a higher scale than at present.

Did the Minister get any representations from the Municipal Congress on that? Did they not ask you that it should be taken over by the State?

I am not aware at the moment whether that is so or not. It may be so. Of course, we have received many representations from the Municipal Congress. I do not know whether the hon. member would agree with all the representations that are made. It is quite clear, however, that the larger local authorities have a degree of responsibility and will face up to it, but the State will no doubt have to step in in regard to the smaller local authorities. I think I have said enough to show that this criticism from the hon. member for Fordsburg is not only quite unjustifiable but is a belated attempt to make party capital just before the General Election. The public will welcome these proposals, these very far-reaching proposals, and will accept them in the spirit in which they are made. They know these things we are doing are bona fide, they are not merely the verbal extravagances which have fallen from the hon. member.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on the Bill on 29th March.

I move—

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

In the short time at my disposal before business was suspended, I was not able to give an explanation of the terms of this Bill. I shall try to cure that deficiency now. The main purpose of the introduction of this Bill is to provide for the postponement of the biennial registration which, in terms of the law, is due to take place in April of this year. The opportunity has also been taken in this Bill, while the Electoral Act is being amended, to deal with one or two other matters which I shall describe shortly. Section 2 of the Electoral Act of 1918 provides that a biennial registration of voters shall commence in the month of April in each alternate year, and in terms of the relevant section, such a registration is due to take place next April. Now for the purposes of such biennial registration of voters, bearing in mind the fact that we have well over a million registered voters in the Union at the present time, thousands of canvassers, temporary clerks and other government employees have to be employed. It has been found under the present conditions, under the stress and strain of war conditions, the drain on manpower either in the military sense or the industrial sense, in the civil service itself, the very large additional temporary staff which would be required for this purpose, cannot be obtained. Quite apart from the human element, quite apart from the inability to obtain temporary officials to perform this task of registration throughout the length and breadth of the country, there are other difficulties. The canvassing in the rural areas in normal times involves the use of motor transport. Hon. members are aware of the present shortage of petrol and the shortage of tyres. These two factors in themselves are formidable obstacles to the holding of the registration this year. There is another factor which should be borne in mind, namely, that the amount of paper used in connection with the biennial registration involves the use of literally millions of sheets of paper, and, as hon. members are aware, there is a very urgent necessity for the conservation of paper stocks in the country at the present time. In these circumstances the Government, after having given the matter the fullest consideration, has come to the conclusion that there is no alternative but to suspend the biennial registration which is due to take place in April 1943. Clause 2 of the Bill deals with this specific object. Clause 2 (1) provides that the biennial registration due to take place in April 1943 shall not take place. Clause 3 of the Bill makes provision for possible emergencies in the future. It provides that should similar circumstances prevail in 1945, when the succeeding biennial registration is due to take place, then it may also be suspended by the Governor General. He may suspend such registration if the circumstances justify that course of action. Now, Sir, in the ordinary course of events, if a biennial registration were to take place in 1943, then there would be no supplementary registration during 1943. In the years intervening between the successive biennial registrations, supplementary registrations take place in January, May and September. Clause 2 (a) of the Bill therefore provides for meeting this hiatus. Were there to be no statutory provision, there would be no supplementary registration this year. Clause 2 (b) of the Bill, therefore, provides that supplementary lists of voters shall be framed as soon as possible after the last day of May 1943. Then Clause 4 of the Bill is necessary in order to apply the provisions of the Electoral Act, relating to supplementary registrations, to the supplementary lists to be framed under Clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill. Clause 2 of the Bill provides for supplementary registration in 1943; Clause 3 of the Bill provides for supplementary registration in 1945 if there is to be a suspension of the biennial registration in 1945.

The rule still exists as it used to be?

The effect of Clause 2 (a) of the Bill and Clause 3 of the Bill will be that in 1943 and possibly in 1945 the supplementary registrations will be held in the ordinary course; that is to say, if in these years the biennial registrations are to be postponed. In 1943 the biennial registration is to be postponed. Then Clause 5 is also consequential upon the decision to postpone the biennial registration in 1943. Voters’ lists framed at a biennial registration come into force on the 1st January of the following year. If there were a biennial registration in 1943, the 1943 list would come into force on the first January 1944 and continue in force for two years, until displaced by the biennial list framed in 1945 which in its turn would come into force on the 1st January 1946. The biennial list is displaced by a later biennial list; or rather, until it is displaced, it continues to be valid. But there is nothing in the law to the effect that a list is invalid at the end of two years. It is a moot point whether such a biennial list does in fact expire after two years. It may be a sound legal inference under the existing law to hold that a biennial list does die after the period of two years. But in order to remove all doubt Section 5 provides that the list framed at the supplementary registration to be held this year, together with the biennial registration of 1941, will continue to be of force and effect. Those are the clauses of this Bill dealing with the postponement of the biennial registration in 1943 and with the consequences following upon such postponement or suspension. But it has been necessary aso to include in the Bill the provisions of Sections 11 and 12. The provisions of Sections 11 and 12 do not relate to Electoral Act matters proper, but to the subject matter of another statute which relates indirectly to the Electoral Act. The issue of liquor licences in terms of the Liquor Act of 1928 is governed by statistics relating to the number of voters registered in the area of the local authority. This Bill suspends the 1943 biennial registration. Provision must be made for the issue of liquor licences at the courts held in December, 1943. There will be the usual annual liquor licencing courts held throughout the country in December, 1943, and provision is now made that the supplementary registrations in May and September of this year may be taken into account for the purpose of computing quotas in terms of the Liquor Act. There can be no doubt, I think, sir, that these provisions of Sections 10 and 11 are in accordance with the spirit governing the quota provisions of the Liquor Act of 1928. Section 6 regularises the position in regard to the exhibition of the supplementary lists under the existing law. The existing Act provides, in Clause 21, that as soon as possible, but not later than seven days after the completion of any supplementary list, the registering officer shall frame lists in accordance with such supplementary registration. It has been found in practice, however, that with the large supplementary registration now taking place as the result of compulsory registration, it has become physically impossible for the registering officers to frame these lists within seven days of the completion of the registration, so, in order to bring the law into conformity with the practice, Section 6 has been inserted in the Bill. I come then, sir, to Sections 7, 8, 9 and 10. They introduce a new principle in connection with voting by post. Hon. members are aware that the voting by post procedure consists of two parts. The first part is the application for the ballot paper, and the second is the actual voting by the voter who is absent from the constituency on the polling day. The machinery hitherto laid down provides that any person who has reason to believe that he will be absent from a given constituency on polling day, may apply to vote by post. He may fill in an application form under oath, and that application must be witnessed by what is termed a “competent witness”. A competent witness has been defined; it includes the returining officer, special justices for the peace, police officers above the rank of sergeant, and the officers in charge of police stations. Hon. members will recollect that the original definition also included the ordinary justices of the peace, and all commissioners of oaths. In one of the earlier amendments of the Electoral Act commissioners of oaths were eliminated from that defintion, and in 1940 ordinary justices of the peace were also eliminated following upon the report of a Select Committee of this House. Well, Sir, the experience of a large number of by-elections in the interim has shown—I concede this freely to my friends opposite—that the elimination of justices of the peace has rendered voting by post very difficult indeed, in some cases made it almost impracticable.

We said so.

I concede that to my hon. friends freely; they warned me that would be so. I took my stand in those days upon the unanimous report of the Select Committee, but I have here today to confess the error of my ways.

That is a good beginning.

I think that was a decision which, in the light of experience, was a wrong decision.

The sinner repents.

As my hon. friend says, there is more rejoicing over the reform of one sinner, political or otherwise, than over many other things.

Are you making a new start?

Well, Sir, I am always ready with my hon. friends opposite to consider new starts, though not necessarily New Orders.

That is where you make a mistake.

So I am going back to the previons decision. I propose to restore in these sections ordinary justices of the peace, and also commissioners of oaths. But I am taking a step further than that, this zeal for reformation has induced me to go a step further. On going into this matter very carefully, it does appear, and I think my hon. friends opposite will agree, that so far as the application for ballot forms is concerned, there is no reason whatever why it should be witnessed by a competent witness, why you should make it difficult for anyone to submit such an application. We have, in the ordinary course of national life, documents to be witnessed, and very important documents, and they are not bound to be witnessed by justices of the peace or commissioners of oaths, they may be witnessed by ordinary citizens. So it is provided in this Bill that the application form for a ballot paper may be witnessed by any adult Union National, and it is not necessary to require the services of a competent witness for that purpose When it comes to the actual procedure of voting, then I think we should retain certain of the safeguards which were available in the past. I find, when I look at the procedure for voting by post in Australia, that they have a list of competent witnesses, a most extensive list embodying all sorts of officials, a very wide range, and then finally a clause providing that any registered voter may be such a competent witness. There they go very far indeed.

This is not Australia.

I think even my hon. friend the member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) would hardly urge me to go as far as the Australian model.

What can you do in Australia; vote at every booth?

Well, sir, I am not advocating the well-known slogan of the past at elections: “Vote early and vote often”! But I do want to try to make voting easier for the citizens of this country, and so it is now provided that in addition to the existing competent witness, ordinary justices of the peace and commissioners of oaths may officiate in that capacity, and it is permissible for them to act as competent witnesses not merely within the wards for which they are appointed, but anywhere within the Union. I think hon. members will agree that that is taking a realistic view of the position. It was surely never the intention of the Legislature to make voting more difficult for persons entitled to vote. Parliament, by providing for compulsory registration, has sought to enable every eligible voter to cast a vote. This procedure contained in this Bill is going to make it easier for persons who will not be in their constituencies on polling day, to cast their votes. It is in that spirit that the law is being amended, and I feel I can confidently commend this Bill to all sides of the House. These amendments are going to give relief to those who are called upon to vote at elections for members of all sides of the House; there is no particular advantage to be derived from these provisions by any one particular party. The advantage to be gained from this more flexible procedure is one which will appeal to members on all sides of the House. I have no doubt whatever that the House will welcome this, and will accord the Bill a second reading. I move, sir.

Owing to the difficulties which the Minister raised in connection with the shortage of paper, and other difficulties, we can appreciate the majority of the measures which are proposed, and for that reason we shall not oppose the second reading of the Bill in principle, with this proviso that we should like to move a number of amendments in Committee which we hope will be favourably considered by the Minister. This Bill is short but it nevertheless contains far-reaching alterations. The big and outstanding alteration is the postponement of the biennial registration. The Bill even goes so far as to give the Governor General power to postpone the biennial registration in 1945 too. In other words, if that were done, we would have this position in 1945 and thereafter that we shall still be working on the basis of the registration on 1941. That is something which seems to be of a far-reaching nature. One would therefore just like to express the hope that in 1945 the circumstances will be such that it will not be necessary to repeat this step. Before I refer to the far-reaching alterations, I want to express my disappointment that the Minister did not take us into his confidence in connection with the May registration. What we would like to know is whether the registration will be applicable to the General Election. This is a matter of great importance and we shall be glad if he will tell us that. The other matter on which I think the Minister should inform the House and the country is whether the rumours are correct that the Government has decided to hold the election for the House of Assembly and the Provincial Council in the two big provinces on the same day. This is a matter which is of such importance to the country that this is a suitable opportunity, if the Government has already taken such a decision, to convey it to the country, and at the same time to say what will happen in the two smaller provinces, the Free State and Natal. Then I want to say something in connection with the consolidation of our Electoral Acts. We have this peculiar position in South Africa that hardly a year passes but the Government of the day introduces an alteration to the Electoral Act. This is a hardy annual, with the result that if we want to be fully informed on the Electoral Acts, we have to go through 25 Acts, and this is the 26th. These Acts call for consoldiation. The Minister has at his disposal an official who is perhaps the only official of his kind in South Africa in so far as knowledge of the Electoral Acts is concerned. One does not find such a man every day, and since the Minister has this official in his Department, I want to ask him whether he will not make an effort to have the Electoral Acts consolidated. It is not always that one has such an official at one’s disposal. He knows more perhaps about the Electoral Acts than anyone else. I hope that the Minister will take this into serious consideration. We cannot continue in this way, that every Government should come forward with an amendment to the Electoral Act every year until eventually we shall get into a labyrinth which we cannot get out of. I think that there is still another factor in our national life, another measure, in connection with which 26 Acts exist, the one amending the other. With regard to the most far-reaching provision of this Bill, namely the cancellation of the biennial registration which would have taken place in April next, in this respect the Government is taking away a right of the people. At the biennial registration the people get an opportunity of registering afresh. Everyone is then put on the registration list again. That is one advantage. In the urban areas especially there is a continual shifting of the people on a large scale. People shift from one place to the other, and through the biennial registration they can be put on the Voters’ Roll at the right place. The biennial registration also enables one to object before the objection court against names which appear on the biennial list, and one can also have names put on which do not appear on the Voters’ Roll. These are big advantages. Now the Government wants to abolish the biennial registration in respect of 1943 and apparently 1945—although I strongly doubt whether it will be the present Government which will have to bring about the alteration in 1945. But in doing this the Minister is taking away the right of the people to be registered de novo by means of the biennial registration and to put people on the list who were not previonsly on the list. Since the Minister is now taking away this right from the people, he and his Department should make provision so that objection can at least be made against persons who were put on the lists at the by-registration. Since the general registration in 1941, we have had by-registrations in January, 1942, in May, 1942, in September, 1942, and in January, 1943, and in May next we will have the fifth by-registration. I assume that the May registration will be applicable to the General Election in August or September. Now I want to suggest for the Minister’s consideration that he should lay down at the Committee stage that the court of objection which will sit in connection with the by-registration in May, will also be able to take into review the other four by-registrations. I think it is only fair that since this right is taken away at the general registration, it should be given at the by-registration in connection with the five by-registrations which we shall then have had. These are points which I hope the Minister will favourably consider. Then there is another inconsistency which I had hoped he would also be prepared to remove from the Act, and that is that persons in South Africa are compelled to register at the biennial registration, but strangely enough there is no compulsion at the by-registration. It seems to me to be an inconsistency. There should either be no compulsion whatsoever, or it should also apply in respect of by-registration. I do not say in which direction the Minister should remove this inconsistency, but it is an inconsistency which should not be there. If one were to say that people must register at the biennial registration, it must also be made applicable to the by-registration. Otherwise no one should be compelled. So much with regard to the biennial registration. I do not want to go into it at greater length, but I just want to say that it is a far-reaching step and that the Government, since it is depriving the people of this right, should take steps to remedy this injustice as far as possible. The other portion of the Bill sets out to facilitate the postal vote. In the first place it is proposed that the “Union citizen” will be able to sign instead of the magistrate, the police official, etc., when a person applies to vote per post. I do think, however, that that is framed in terms which are somewhat too general, because I should not like to see a European getting a coloured person to sign on his behalf, and I shall be glad if at the Committee stage the Minister will insert the word “European”.

He is being converted.

Yes, since the Minister is now becoming converted, he will probably realise that our argument in this respect is a sound one. I do not want to object to the alteration in the Act in so far as postal voting in concerned, because it is very difficult to be sent from pillar to post in order to get hold of a magistrate or another official in order to sign, but in my opinion the provision should be limited to Europeans. Then it will be an improvement. With regard to another improvement, the Minister has already admitted that he has been converted to our point of view, and that is that justices of the peace will also be regarded as qualified persons before whom a man may vote per post. We had a night sitting in regard to this, and I want to congratulate the Minister on his conversion. Then just a word or two in connection with the shortage of paper. We all realise that there is a shortage of paper. I am afraid therefore that there will not be sufficient forms available for the postal voting. We know what sometimes happened in the past. There is a magistrate at Vryburg or Soutpansberg, or at any far distant place, and when application is made it may happen that he has no forms available. He then telegraphs for forms and it may take very long before these forms are again available. Then it is too late. I should like the Minister to consider in Committee the advisability of allowing this, that when a person makes application to be registered for a postal vote, it need not necessarily be on the printed form, but that he will be able to type or write out the application on any piece of paper, provided it is properly signed, and provided the contents more or less agree with the contents of the prescribed form. This may save the Government hunderds of thousands of forms, and facilitate matters for the public, otherwise it may frequently happen at the registration in May and in connection with the postal vote, that there are no forms available. It seems to me to be a solution to a great difficulty. It cannot, of course, be allowed with equal facility in the case of non-European voters, because they have to give particulars and make statements which the Europeans need not make. That is in accordance with the Act. A European need only be twenty-one years of age, but a non-European must give particulars, his full name, his age, and residence. The Act requires a great deal from the non-European voter, and that provision in the Act must, of course, be complied with before he can be registered; otherwise one would be altering the law of the country. As I have already said, the same will apply in connection with postal voting as in connection with registration at the by-registration. There may also be a shortage of forms in connection with the applications to vote per post. At the last moment a man who happens to be in Soutpansberg, may want to vote. He has to vote at Pretoria. The magistrate has no forms left and by the time the form arrives it is too late. In that case too, the person concerned should perhaps be allowed to write out or to type his application on an ordinary piece of paper as long as it is properly signed before a European Union citizen.

Is that the application form?

Yes, I do not think that we could safely go any further. I want to conclude by repeating what I said at the beginning, namely that it is a far-reaching measure to suspend the biennial registration, and it can only be justified in extremely unusual circumstances. The Minister has outlined the circumstances, and we shall therefore not object to the second reading, but I hope that the Minister will meet us on those points which I have mentioned.

I feel that the Minister in this Bill has started on a backward step in connection with this very vexed question of postal votes. We know very well that the next Election is going to be rather an extraordinary Election, and because of the fact that in a previous amendment of the Electoral Act the Government, I think, very unwisely, and I said so at the time—insisted that the wives of European volunteers must also be registered in the constituency in which their husband resided at the time of their joining the Army. Because of that we are undoubtedly going to be faced during the forthcoming election with a number of postal votes far in excess of anything we have previously had to cope with. Despite the fact that there does not exist any official evidence to justify me in saying so, I happen to know, and most individuals who have had anything to do with election organisation do know, that very grave things occur, and that in many instances literally hundreds of postal votes were actually registered by people other than the voters concerned. And so in 1939 the Government, when it was prepared to consider the question of compulsory registration, appointed a Select Committee. That Select Committee was composed of Mr. Blackwell, Chairman; Mr. Burnside, Mr. Erasmus, Mr. Haywood, Mr. Johnson, Capt. Joubert, Mr. Liebenberg, Mr. Marwick, Mr. Oost, Mr. J. G. N. Strauss. And among other things this Select Committee went very exhaustively into the question of postal voting, and I think I am justified in reading to the House, to refresh their memory—since then we have had a General Election, and there are a large number of new members—I am justified in reading precisely what the Select Committee did say on this matter of postal voting—

Incidentally the Select Committee might have been a little more explicit because postal voting was not only introduced to provide facilities for voters who were absent. The law provides postal facilities for voters—and this is where the possibility of underhand things arises—the Act also provides for individuals to indulge in a postal vote who have reason to believe that they will be absent. That is the crux of the whole situation. Individuals who have reason to believe that they will be absent on polling day can apply to be allowed to vote by post. I shall come back to that later on. I shall deal with that when I come to the possibilities of malpractice because there is not so much danger of malpractice where the voter is absent or has gone from his constituency, but the danger arises from the fact of a voter saying: “To the best of my knowledge I shall be absent.” There is nobody who can prove that he had no reason for thinking that he would be absent. Then the report goes on—

That is two General Elections ago—

36,000 odd applications to vote by post—a very considerable percentage of the number of people who did vote, and if there is efficient party organisation—as I can assure you there will be at the next election—there is every probability of that number being quadrupled—

That is perfectly true. On this question of postal votes, the whole position must be considered in the background of party organisation—

The Select Committee is very moderate in saying “suspicion of abuse”. I think that quite a large number of members of this Select Committee could give of their own knowledge many more cases of abuse which never came before the court—

Yes, we discussed for a long time whether we should not abolish the system altogether—

And now we come to the crux of the matter, so far as the present Bill is concerned—

May I just say as a side line—this particular report appeared about a week before I happened to be appointed as a Justice of the Peace, and one of the first things I did in this Committee was to move that we eliminate Justices of the Peace insofar as postal voting was concerned—

I want to emphasise this, because that was what induced me to move that Justices of the Peace be deleted—

The position was that the United Party had a very large staff of Justices of the Peace who spent ten hours per day in their party offices for no other purpose than to witness the signatures of absent voters, and when the Labour Party looked for Justices of the Peace we could not find them because they were always in the United Party offices.

Why didn’t they employ you?

I was appointed as Justice of the Peace afterwards, but I moved that they should be deleted as competent witnesses—

There is no allegation in connection with that. It is a thing which any party organiser knows to be the truth, that undue influence is exercised, and where a man is a Justice of the Peace he is a fool if he does not see where a voter marks his cross. If he is a party Justice of the Peace, he is concerned in assisting his party and he is a fool if he does not see where a man marks his vote.

Have you done it?

No, I was not a Justice of the Peace, but I have seen it done—

That is not the worst of the possibilities of malpractice. It is merely a matter of postponing or destroying the vote itself. One would not raise so many objections, but the possibility of bribery is inherent in this whole system—

Incidentally, not all the possibilities of malpractice came before the Select Committee—

This statement was agreed to by all members of the Select Committee—

Exactly! And how much more will this be so if, as the Minister proposes, to extend this privilege to Commissioners of Oaths who literally abound in thousands in the Union. Almost every lawyer, or solictor and a great many other people are Commissioners of Oaths.

Including every member of Parliament.

Yes, but they will not be members of Parliament when the election is fought. How can they have a check? I should imagine that the number of Justices of the Peace runs into many hundreds. If this signature of every Justice of the Peace is to be checked, the counting will take days. And if this is to be extended to Commissioners of Oaths who must run into a hundred thousand, what possible check will you have then? Yes, you must have a hundred thousand Commissioners of Oaths. Commissioners of Oaths have been appointed ad lib. There are many occupations where a man is ipso facto a Commissioner of Oaths—

This recommendation was accepted and now the Minister is going to abolish that and is issuing an invitation to malpractice—

And then the Committee dealt with the abolition of police as presiding officers, and said this—

That recommendation was not agreed to, and in the amending Bill a police officer in charge of a police post was considered to be a competent witness. Now, let me try to explain how malpractice may arise. I do not want to claim that I am an expert in organisation but it so happens that in a well organised election it may possibly be that 300 or 400 people in a given constituency are completely untraceable, it may happen that in a given constituency you may find 200 people who are not in the Union at all, but whose names are still on the Rolls. Even under the Act as it now stands it is very difficult to deal with that kind of malpractice, but under the Bill which the Minister now proposes, the door is thrown wide for malpractice. But let us take a given constituency where the election organisation is so strong that it is known that 200 voters in the constituency are in Rhodesia, Delagoa Bay, England or Timbuctoo. What is to prevent an abscure Commissioner of Oaths being engaged by a political party and John Brown or Jack Jones coming along to make application for papers? Any individual can make application for a voting paper. It is inviting malpractice. Here you have a particular name on the Roll. It may be John Brown living in such and such a street. And it is known to the party organisation that John Brown is in Rhodesia. So an application for a ballot paper is made in the name of John Brown by anyone, and it is signed by Jack Robinson who is supposed to live at a particular address. Any old person will do, so long as you put the address down. If you make application for a vote, the Minister says an oath must not be taken. An application is made for a postal ballot form in his name by John Brown and it is signed by Jack Robinson whose real name may be Duncan Burnside. He puts up a fictitious name. That is sent to the Returning Officer. And the postal voting form is sent back to the address laid down, usually the party office. And the self same Jack Robinson is masquerading as John Brown and signs his name once again before some obscure Commissioner of Oaths. This man may not be a Commissioner of Oaths at all, but the returning officers have not got the time to enquire into the question of who is a Commissioner of Oaths and who not. If you are going to make it a condition that everyone’s name is to be enquired into, then the count of the ballot will take two or three weeks or more. Then there is the other case where a Commissioner of Oaths is employed to go round certain areas—and the Minister or his Department can give information in regard to persecutions which have taken place—and that Commissioner of Oaths can persuade men to make a statement that they will be absent from their constituency on election day. And all the man has to say is that to the best of his knowledge he will be absent on election day! It is very difficult for the law to prove otherwise. If on election day he actually is present all he has to say is that to the best of his knowledge he was going to be absent. In those circumstances, if a man says that to the best of his knowledge he will be absent he is entitled to register a postal vote while he is staying in the constituency, and he registers that vote against all the canons of democracy as enshrined in the Electoral Act. In other words, he registers it before a Commissioner of Oaths employed for the purpose, and it is here that the chance of buying votes enters into the business. Because it is only when individuals are paid for registering their votes that they do register their votes in these circumstances. I am afraid it is rather a technical matter and I am satisfied that the members of the Nationalist Party are not keenly interested in what I have to say, because one of the reasons which convinces me that these provisions are bad, is the alacrity with which they are accepted by the members of the Opposition. Oh, yes, the Minister may laugh but it is so. I understand that certain representations have been made on these lines and that the Minister has given in to some of the suggestions from the Opposition.

No.

Well, hon. members opposite are not particularly interested, they agree that these things should be done which in itself is good reason why I think the Minister’s suggestions should not be accepted. One final thing, and I hope the House will eliminate this clause when it comes to the Committee. We are asking for dozens and dozens of petitions after this General Election by passing legislation of this description. We are leaving the floodgates open for the possibility of malpractices. I have personal reasons to know just how exacting the Electoral Act is—I have grave personal reasons for knowing just what are the rights and wrongs of election petitions — reasons which my own pocket continually reminds me of, and I can say this, that not only are you leaving the floodgates open but you are going to make it possible for many things to be done which should not be done, you are making it a certainty that in many elections the successful candidate, possibly for reasons beyond his control, will have to face an election petition after he has been elected. The idea of an Electoral Act is to commit everyone to vote and to vote in the easiest possible way. But if the Government in their wisdom have so framed the present Electoral Roll that many women voters have already removed five, six, eight or ten times, since their name last went on to the Roll, that is something which the Government itself will have to face. I do not see that they are going to solve the difficulty by opening the floodgates to malpractices. Malpractice is very often the cause of an individual in an election who knows that the other side are doing it deliberately, doing the same thing—he knows that unless he wants to keep his end up he has to do the same thing as the other side does. I have seen it in a number of elections, and I feel that if the Government wants to ease the position insofar as the present electors are concerned, some other method can still be adopted. It could still be arranged through the supplementary Rolls to be framed with these women who are now absent from their original constituencies, who have been absent for three or three and a half years—they can still register where they are now staying. But the Minister attempts to deal with this business by going back on all our progressive legislation, legislation which has progressively tightened up these provisions in regard to absent voters. Well, that is not the way to solve the problem. And if we are to have an election in which malpractice is kept down to the minimum we shall not achieve that end by the Bill now before the House. I therefore suggest to members that we should not agree to modifying the postal voting provisions in regard to absent voters in the way suggested in this Bill.

A matter which I want to bring to the notice of the Minister and in connection with which I hope the Minister will make a statement, is in connection with the position of independent candidates at the forthcoming Election. I do not know whether it falls under this, but I hope that the Minister will make a statement on this occasion. The hon. member for Delarey (Mr. Labuschagne) asked some time ago what the position of soldiers was in the event of independent candidates seeking election. The Minister knows that the new Electoral Act which was passed, provides that soldiers cannot vote for a person but only for a party. An independent candidate will not be a member of the party, and the question was put to the Minister whether it would be made possible for soldiers to vote for an independent candidate. The Minister’s reply was that the Government was giving its attention to this matter. The only question which I want to put therefore is what the Government intends doing in that connection.

I think that the speech of the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside) deserves the attention of the House, and because I nearly became the victim of the present system, I feel compelled to associate myself with what he said. I cannot see the necessity for making the voting so easy only in order to have a great number of votes. I do not know whether the House realises that in the existing circumstances it is possible to allow every voter in a constituency to vote before the day of the Election. It is possible, although it is of course unlikely. But because of the very fact that the possibility of this malpractice exists, we must be very careful. If there is one thing against which we must guard at an election, it is voting before a so-called Justice of the Peace. During the past fifteen years Justices of the Peace have been appointed for political reasons. Allow me to relate one of the most remarkable cases which, I suppose, has ever taken place in South Africa. Shortly before the Election in 1938 six Justices of the Peace were specially appointed all of a sudden for the Krugersdorp constituency, neatly divided as follows: three for the United Party and three for the Nationalist Party, and in no circumstances could the Labour Party succeed in having a single Labourite appointed. As it happened, these six Justices of the Peace were used to obtain votes in the hospitals and in the houses of people whom everyone thought would not be in the constituency on the day of the Election. The result was that of the three hundred postal votes, I got only seven, and all the others were divided between the other two parties, and out of these people, numbering nearly three hundred, who stated that they thought that they would not be in the constituency on the day of the Election, only three were outside the constituency on that day. What do you infer from this? That nearly 99 per cent. of them made an untruthful statement. Only three of them were actually out of the constituency.

How did you discover that?

I saw it on the day when the counting took place.

You may not disclose what you saw there. You signed an oath of secrecy.

Why should I not disclose it?

Because you took an oath before you went in.

The hon. member must not try to get away with that. It is possible under the present system of postal voting to take the vote of every voter before the day of the election, and I say that there is conclusive evidence to show that this system is abused. If this experiment showed what might happen, do hon. members not think that the people who succeeded at that time, will commit these malpractices on an even greater scale in the future?

You are quite right.

I say, therefore, that we should only facilitate the voting procedure, if we know that it can take place within the four walls of justice. But we cannot make it easier if by so doing we open the door wider to malpractices. Because it may happen then that numbers of members may get into the House who do not interpret the views of the people. I was nearly the victim of this system. The hon. member for Umbilo spoke of hundreds of Justices of the Peace. Who has ever seen a man in business with a white collar and bow-tie who is not a Commissioner of Oaths? If it is made so easy, we are going to open the door wider to malpractices and it may happen then that we shall get a number of members in this House who do not interpret the views of the people. We should either abolish the postal vote or tighten up the system properly. The postal voting system was introduced for good reasons, namely to give an opportunity of voting through the post to good citizens who happen to be absent from their constituencies on that day, and who are entitled to vote. But then the system must be water-tight or otherwise the malpractices will increase. If we want to retain the system, then such an individual should vote in a manner which will not permit of malpractices. He must not vote before a specially appointed political Justice of the Peace, but before the magistrate, and he must also make a statement as to why he cannot be in his constituency. But it is wrong simply to enable everyone to vote before the day of the election.

How can the people in the platteland always get to a magistrate?

How many people in the platteland are absent from their constituencies on the day when the voting takes place? And if the political agent can travel miles and miles to infuence the man to vote through the post, then he could also bring the man to the magistrate. But what happens under this system? Agent A and the so-called Justice of the Peace B, and agent C, the whole lot, descend on the man and all of them watch him while he votes. This system invites malpractices. I hope therefore that the Minister will be careful, because what I am saying here is emphasised by the recommendations which were made by the Committee of all parties after a thorough investigation had been instituted, and, together with the hon. member for Umbilo, I am surprised that hon. members of the Opposition are accepting this quite calmly and readily, even adding a few words of blessing. I expected members of the Opposition to rise and say that they would not permit the door to be further opened to malpractices. Under the Electoral Act there are many opportunities for malpractices, and we dare not open die door any further. When in 1926 provision was made for the first time to vote per post, it was never dreamt that it would be a system which would make it possible for every man to vote before the day of the election. The original idea was that if a man was lawfully absent from his constituency, he could vote through the post at whatever place he happened to be. We are all agreed on that, but it was never intended to give the right to every voter in a constituency to avail himself of this provision. It will never yield good results to allow voting before Justices of the Peace, because in general these are policial appointments. I want to express the hope that all hon. members will do everything in their power at the Committee stage to tighten up this measure in such a way that it will close the door to malpractices.

I associate myself with what the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) has said. That was also my experience. In the last Election people who never intended leaving the constituency applied for permission to vote through the post. Persons who had a hold on certain people urged them to vote through the post, and then they were afraid to vote according to their convictions, because they felt that these persons knew how they voted. A lot of fraud occurs. I know of several cases. Even people who were lying sick applied to vote through the post, while they never could leave the district. This kind of thing happens and I hope that the Minister will make provision to put an end to it. A man ought only to be allowed to vote through the post if he will be legally absent from the district on the day of the Election. I see that the Minister now proposes in this Bill not to hold the biennial registration in 1943, and in Clause 3 he makes the further provision that the Governor-General may also postpone the biennial registration in 1945. This will mean that the biennial registration after that will only take place in 1947. The last biennial registration we have had was in 1941 and the following one will take place only in 1947. We will then be sitting with a Voters’ Roll that is six years old. In the meantime people have moved to and fro through the whole country. Now it is said that in the meantime people will register where they are living. This is not necessarily the case. A man can refuse to have himself registered at another place and he remains registered in his own constituency, despite the fact that for six years already he has not been living there. This is a very unsatisfactory position, and the greatest fraud can take place. Provision must in any case be made that at supplementary registrations—if the biennial registration falls away—objection can be made at the court of revision against people who are on the list, so that persons who are still on the list, although they no longer have any right to be, can be removed from the list. According to the Act at a supplementary registration objection can only be made against people who have been newly-registered and not against people who are on the old main list. I hope that in view of the circumstances the Minister will take it into consideration and make provision for it.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) is not in his pace, and I will deal with his points later. May I deal, first of all, with the criticism of the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside), supported as he was by the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg). The contention of those two hon. members is that it will be very dangerous indeed to revert to the old system of allowing Justices of the Peace, ordinary Justices of the Peace, and Commissioners of Oaths, to act as presiding officers in the case of absent voters. It has been said that this will open the door to corruption, that these Justices of the Peace and Commissioners of Oaths will be used by party political agents, they will see how the voting takes place, and that it is an invitation to corruption. Well, sir, there is a good deal to be said on both sides. I admit that that is an arguable question, whether or not we should allow Justices of the Peace to act in that capacity. There is an argument on both sides. In 1940 I was prepared to subscribe to the view expressed by the Select Committee that we should eliminate Justices of the Peace. But there is no doubt whatever that the experience in the last two and a half years has shown that by so doing postal voting has been rendered not only difficult, but in some cases impossible, and I could not help feeling that the argument of the hon. member for Krugersdorp this afternoon was in itself almost a condemnation of adult European suffrage in this country. If it is correct that European voters in this country are so frail and ignorant that they are going to be intimidated, browbeaten or influenced by any Justice of the Peace who comes along, then those persons should not have a vote at all. It is an argument for revising our whole electoral system and giving the franchise to voters only on a qualification basis.

You even went in disguise to intimidate them.

My hon. friend delves back into my colourful past! Perhaps it is not necessary for my hon. friend to disguise himself. However that may be, there is no doubt that experience has shown that the elimination of Justices of the Peace from this procedure of voting by post has made voting in that way more difficult.

That was not true in the Hottentots-Holland election. I quoted you the figures to show it.

The Hottentots-Holland and other elections have shown that it is becoming increasingly difficult for persons who wish to record their votes by post to do so, because a competent witness is not easily available. In discussions with departmental officials and others, I have tried to get to the root of this matter, I have tried to find out what is the evil, the mischief against which the legislature should aim; and surely the mischief is that a person who is not entitled to vote should vote. That is all we want to prevent, we wish to prevent impersonation. Surely the object of all this red tape and involved procedure is not meant to prevent people from voting, or it ought not to be meant to prevent voting. Rules and regulations ought not to be made to make things more difficult for people, they ought to be made more easy where what they do is legal and a good thing. Supposing there are persons in a given constituency who vote by post while they are not out of the constituency on the day of an election, is there anything morally wrong about that? It is not the law at the present time, but what is there morally wrong in allowing a person to vote in such a manner, if in practice it is a good thing to allow people to vote! There may be many persons who know that on the election day they may not be out of the constituency, but their work may be of such a nature that it is physically impossible for them to vote on that day. In such cases why should they be deprived of the vote, what is there morally wrong in voting by post in advance? It seems to me that we have in the past made too much of a fetish of procedure, and in this welter of regulations we have missed the wood for the trees, we have forgotten the mischief we ought to aim at, and we have ringed round a perfectly legal, moral and proper procedure a barricade of great difficulty. Now, sir, I think that if we admit we ought to make it easy for registered voters to get to the poll and record their votes, then we should be prepared to give this experiment a trial. I admit that if persons who are not entitled to vote, unregistered persons, attempt to use this procedure, it is a wrong thing, but these malpractices can take place under the existing procedure.

Not so easily.

If persons are so minded they can find ways and means of getting round most laws in regard to electoral procedure, but surely one must not necessarily assume the worst in man on every conceivable occasion.

It is not man; it is the party organisers.

My hon. friend will probably say it depends upon which party organisers. I sympathise with my hon. friend in his appointment as a J.P. just on the eve of a change in the law. I think he is drawing too gloomy a picture, and I think the House should give this experiment an opportunity of being put into practice. The hon. member for Brits (Mr. Grobler) has asked me what will be the position of Independent candidates at the election. As hon. members know, soldiers in the North outside the Union, will vote for parties and not individuals. I may inform the House that it is my intention, during the present Session, to introduce a Bill which will provide for the same procedure in respect of soldiers within the Union. They will vote not for individual candidates but for parties.

Why?

I will take the opportunity, in introducing that Bill, to give the reasons for it. I give that information this afternoon, as I think it is a matter of interest to all sides. Provision is being made under the regulations in the relevent Bill for voting for Independents. The ballot papers will contain the names of every party, every political party contesting the election, and if there are Independents contesting the election, then there will be a special item with reference to Independents.

What kind of an item; you will have Independents of different political persuasions.

Well, it is not the intention to have a long ballot paper with Independents of every political persuasion; there will be one subdivision in respect of Independents on the ballot paper.

You cannot do it.

That matter will have to be adjusted when the time comes. Now I come to the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus), who has asked me a number of questions in regard to the Bill and the General Election. He has asked me whether the May supplementary registration will be operative at the General Election. The position is that the May registration in terms of the law will come into operation six weeks after the end of May, actually in the middle of July, and I therefore leave it to my hon. friend’s well-known powers of deduction to work out whether that will be within sufficient time to be operative at the next General Election.

When is the election?

The election will take place, I understand, four weeks after the official Government notice providing for nomination! The hon. member has asked me whether the General Parliamentary Election and the Provincial Council Elections will be held on the same day. No final decision has been taken by the Government in regard to this matter, but I think I should inform the House that the Government is a present considering the advisability of holding the two elections on the same day in the Transvaal and the Cape. For practical reasons it does not seem possible to act in a similar way in the Orange Free State and Natal. Hon. members are aware that in the Orange Free State there are 25 Provincial constituencies, and only 14 Parliamentary constituencies, while in Natal there are 25 Provincial Council and 16 Parliamentary constituencies. Obviously, where the Parliamentary and Provincial constituencies do not coincide, there are almost insuperable difficulties in the way of having the two elections on the same day.

Will a long time elapse in those two provinces between the two elections?

That matter has not been decided. The hon. member has also suggested that there should be a consolidation of the Electoral Laws. I agree with him entirely. I admit that it is very difficult indeed for the laymen, members of Parliament and others who have to take part in elections, to find the relative provisions with ease. I agree that it is unfortunate that necessity has compelled amendments from time to time by way of amending Bills, and not by way of consolidation, and I certainly feel that while it would be inappropriate during this Session to contemplate anything by way of consolidating legislation, the time has come when the Department of the Interior, through its electoral branch, could consider consolidation. I will give him this assurance, Sir, that if I should be reappointed to the new Coalition Cabinet after the General Election, that will probably be one of the first things to which I shall have to apply my mind! The hon. member has made useful suggestions in regard to forms; he has pointed out that a considerable amount of paper might be saved if instead of insisting on printed forms for application for ballot papers, and in respect of the registration of voters, the applicants respectively could write out their applications, in conformity with the printed form, upon an ordinary piece of paper. I shall go into that matter in order to find out whether that can be done administratively and without amendment of the law. If an amendment of the law is necessary, then it might conveniently be done in this Bill at a later stage. It is not the policy of the Government to allow persons who are interned, to record their votes.

Intern the whole lot before the election.

I think I have covered all the points raised by hon. members. I understand the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Van Zyl) to raise the point about persons who vote by post and who are never outside the constituency, and the hon. member for Moorreesburg also raised the point about the possible postponement of the biennial registration in 1945. This latter provision has been included purely for the reason of extreme caution. The Government has no reason to think that it will be necessary to put these provisions into operation in 1945, but it seems to me there can be no harm in leaving them in at the present time. I think it is most unlikely that the registration will be postponed once again. But circumstances may be such as to compel the Government of the day to do so, although it does not bind the Government to do so. It merely renders legislation, when that time comes, unnecessary. In these circumstances. I hope the hon. member will not press the point; it is merely a precautionary measure, and not a definite decision that there will be a postponement in 1945.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on the Bill on 30th March.

I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to the question of internments. I see here under the item “Internment Camps” that there is an increase £133,700. The hon. the Minister has told us in the past that it is the policy of the Government to put people in the camp not to punish them but only to restrict the movements of those people, and he also said, when he explained the internment policy of the Government to the House, that he agrees that in the case of Union nationals the treatment of the affairs of the internees must be handled with the greatest possible speed. Well, when we see that the Minister comes here and asks for an increase of over £100,000, then the question arises what is now at the back of the mind of the Government. Does the Government now again want to act in a reckless manner and again intern people on a large scale? Take for example the items “Rations and Fuel”, “Clothing for Internees”, “Allowances to Families and Dependants of Internees”. In that respect alone we find an increase of £86,000. Let us take only the one item “Allowance to Families and Dependents of Internees”. There we have an increase of £14,600. If the Minister means by this that he is now going to adopt the policy of meeting the dependants of all internees by giving them an allowance, we will heartily welcome it. But when we see how big the increase is in respect of “Rental of Accommodation” and “Ration and Fuel and Clothing”, then we cannot help coming to the conclusion that it is not the intention of the Government to grant an increase in the allowance to the families and dependants of internees, but that the idea which is at the back of the mind of the Government, is that in the near future, who knows perhaps shortly before the Election to intern people on a larger scale. We want to plead with the Minister today, that as he in the past has told us that it is not his policy to intern people to punish them, but only to restrict their movements, he will put a number of these people on farm parole. He says that it is not the intention to punish the people but only to restrict their movements. Now I want to take him at his word. There are today about 360 Afrikaners in the Koffiefontein Camp. I will be glad if the hon. Minister will give me his attention. There are numbers of Afrikaners behind the wire and I want to give the Minister the assurance that if not all of them, then at least two-thirds of those people are there as a result of false charges. Two-thirds of these people are very much less dangerous to the safety of the State than members in this House.

The Minister himself.

These people do not deserve to be there and if it is really the Minister’s policy merely to restrict the movements of these people and not to punish them, why is it then a matter of impossibility for anyone to persuade the Department, or the Minister to let those people out on farm parole? I have personally made representations to the Minister and his Department to let people out on farm parole, against whom there is no real evidence of guilt. People who in our contention are sitting there as a result of false charges, people against whom no charges of sabotage have been made, people who in some cases have been there for a year or more. We want to ask the Minister to allow these people out on farm parole, where we personally will stand good for the behaviour of those people. Despite the fact that we want to stand good for those people the Minister is not yet prepared to agree to it. The whole trouble is this: There is a Commissioner of Appeal to whom these people must refer their cases. That Commissioner of Appeal cannot manage all the cases. The Minister himself has admitted that the work is too much for that person. I do not know the person, but the Minister says that the Commissioner cannot possibly manage all this work. I now want to suggest that the Minister should abolish this post of Commissioner of Appeal and instead appoint a commission of lawyers, who from time to time will have fixed sessions, and where a representative of the internee, whether it is a member of Parliament, a lawyer or anyone else, can defend him. I want to ask the Minister that the person who is appointed by the internee to plead his case should have the right to plead the case of the internee before this body of persons. I want to ask the Minister to give the internee an opportunity to find out what the actual charge against him is. What is the position today? Today you go to the Minister or the Chief Control Officer and you plead with him. You have certain information which you submit to him and the Chief Control Officer has certain other information in his possession. They do not play open cards with you. You are not told what the charge is. A sort of arbitrary charge is given to you. Usually it amounts to this, that there is no charge whatever against these people. Many of these people have been interned innocently and we would like to urge upon the Minister to give them a chance to regain their freedom by means of such a commission as I have recommended here, a commission that will be able to manage the work which the Commissioner of Appeal cannot do today. The matter still rests in the hands of the Minister as it has also been in the past. There are certain cases where the people concerned remain in the internment camps for a year or longer. They have lodged an appeal and to this day they have not yet heard a single word whether their appeal has been granted. They remain in the camp for two or three months before they find out what the charge is against them. I have a case here before me where a man remained in the camp for two months before he received the reasons for his internment. He then immediately lodged an appeal. Ten months have passed and today he has not yet had a reply from the Commissioner of Appeal. It is unchristianlike; it is unreasonable and unfair to treat your fellow people in such a way. Therefore we make representations to the Minister to establish machinery so that the work can be facilitated, so that the appeal can be concluded within a reasonable time. And then we want to ask the Minister that an opportunity should be given to these people to have their case pleaded by lawyers or other persons whom they may appoint. [Time limit.]

I rise to give information rather than to ask questions. I just want to say a word or two in regard to the subject raised by the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen), and the two matters he raised. He gave a figure there in regard to Jewish immigration into South Africa and he also raised the question of the number of Jewish students at the Witwatersrand University. Now one must be careful in using figures of this kind because they may be very misleading. With regard to the last few years to December 31st, 1942, there is a question and an answer printed in Hansard—the answer is that given by the Minister. Those figures when they are analysed are rather misleading, because they give the four years from January 1939 to December, 1942. It is really four years. But what I want to point out is this, that in that period is included one year when owing to exceptional circumstances there were a large number of immigrants who came to this country because of events in Germany, and those circumstances did not arise so much in the following three years. Apparently the hon. member’s bogey of an enormous amount of immigration is completely disposed of when the real figures are looked into. The hon. member will see that while he has a figure there of 1,557—the figure for the year 1939-’40 was 1,458. In 1939 there were 1,300, including 1,132 from Germany. Then for the next two years 1941 and 1942 there was only a number of 99 in two years. The hon. member will find in the Yearbook for 1941 the numbers for 1939-’40. It is true that they are not classified as Jewish but taking the countries of origin, Austria, Czechslovakia, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Rumania, Russia, Poland and Palestine, one can say that these people probably were Jewish. Now, as I have said for these two years the total figure was 99. Consequently there has been no stream of immigrants at all; there has not even been a trickle. These 99 who arrived in 1941 and 1942 include the aged parents of persons who have been in South Africa for many years and children who have come here to join their families, so there has been practically no immigration at all, and yet the hon. member quotes the total figure of 1,557 which includes this abnormal amount of people who came from Germany as a result of conditions prevailing there. If all the figures are taken into consideration they present a totally different picture. Then I want to say this, I am not mentioning this as an apology—on the contrary. I think the only way is to treat every immigrant on his merits. Our Immigration Law lays down certain standards and that is the only way to deal with the matter of this kind, particularly in a free and democratic country—so long as these people comply with the standards laid down by the Immigration Law I think hon. members should be satisfied. Now, the same thing applies to Jews at the University. I should like to know how the hon. member got these figures. I wanted for my own information to find out how many Jewish students have entered the University here this year and I was informed that they kept no records of a man’s religion when he joined. There is nothing to indicate what race a man belongs to, so it is impossible for the University to give us the information. That was the answer I got, but the hon. member for Victoria West gave some figures. I don’t know whether he went on names or made personal investigations. Perhaps he would tell me—it would be very useful to me. I have merely risen to point out that figures like this may be very misleading, unless all the circumstances are taken into account.

I think I should take the opportunity now of dealing with some of the points raised yesterday afternoon and this afternoon in the course of the debate. Let me deal first with the question of internments. A number of hon. members have made appeals to me with regard to Union National internees and they have asked for a measure of clemency to be given to them. There has also been criticism of the appeal procedure provided by the Government—it has been said that that procedure is lengthy and has led to long delay. There have also been allegations from time to time that innocent persons are in the internment camp at Koffiefontein and have been placed there without a hearing, and that the elementary principles of justice have been violated. Let me briefly remind the House of the procedure followed before a Union National is interned. Such a decision is not lightly taken. It is not a decision taken merely by one person, or rather it is not a decision which concerns only one person. Before a Union National is interned there has first to be an investigation by the police and a recommendation by the local Deputy Commissioner of Police. That recommendation is referred to the Control Officer of the District in which the Union National lives. The control officer is a magistrate—a magistrate of experience always. He also makes a recommendation. Thereafter the papers are referred to the Commissioner of Police who in turn makes his recommendation and only after that do the papers go to the office of the Control Officer. He goes through them most carefully and only after that is a final decision taken. It will be seen that a decision to intern is not taken lightly or without careful consideration of all the relevant facts. I might remind hon. members that during the time I have been responsible for the administration of internments, there have been many cases where recommendations have been made to intern Union Nationals which have not been accepted. In many cases it has been felt inadvisable to take action. In other cases persons have been placed under a measure of control, and in other cases, again, a warning has been given.

Recommendations by whom?

Recommendations by control officers and by the police. The police in the exercise of their duty make recommendations from time to time but those recommendations are not automatically acted upon. If I had interned all the persons I have been asked to, either officially or unofficially, the numbers at Koffiefontein would have been materially swollen.

Would there be many members left on this side of the House?

I am afraid one or two would have been missed if I had agreed to the recommendations made in certain cases. I mean “missed” in the physical sense, not necessarily in the other sense, although I think I must say that it would have caused me a pang or two if my hon. friend the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) had in the earlier days acted in concert with a number of these people who have had to be interned. May I add that I have unfortunately—should I say unfortunately—never been told any stories about him about secret meetings … .

Which were never held.

Well, perhaps I should say fortunately. At any rate the hon. member has shown that he realised the error of his earlier ways by having discarded his former compatriots.

Of course, you are quite wrong—the whole thing was a fabrication.

I am not talking about secret meetings now, I am talking about the Ossewa-Brandwag.

They belong to the past.

Well, that is the position at present. For quite a while the number of Union internees remained almost static. Hon. members will recollect that early last year it was necessary for the Government to take severe action when a wave of sabotage broke out on the Witwatersrand. A secret organisation, the Stormjaers, was discovered and swift action was necessary in the interest of the State. Had the Government acted differently, it would have failed in its duty.

It failed anyhow.

A number of persons were interned under the Emergency Regulations and a number were retained for questioning, and in many cases criminal prosecutions followed, but not in all cases. In certain cases persons have been released and nothing further has been done in the matter, but in other cases it was necessary to intern. As a result of the uncovering of that plot there was a large influx into the internment camp, and I find on referring to the figures that during 1942 there were 335 Union Nationals interned, consisting of 314 Union Nationals by birth, and nine Union Nationals by birth from South-West Africa, and the others by naturalisation. Three hundred and thirty-five were interned during the year and the primary cause of those internments was the discovery of this Stormjaer organisation, and this increase is probably entirely accounted for by members of the Stormjaers organisation.

Is a man interned because he is a member of the organisation?

It was necessary in the interest of the security of the State. During the year, however, it has been possible to reconsider a number of the cases of persons who were interned, both during 1942 and before. Hon. members know that we appointed an Appeal Advisory Commissioner to deal with any appeals from these people who were interned. We appointed a thoroughly experienced official, a former Attorney-General of the Transvaal. The task of that official was rendered very difficult by this large increase in the number of internees, and representations were made to me some months ago regarding alleged delays. There were delays in dealing with the appeals, but unavoidable delays. It was physically impossible, I felt, for the Appeal Advisory Commissioner to deal with the matters more speedily. As a result I appointed an assistant to the Commissioner, a former magistrate of experience, and the result has been to expedite the handling of these matters. But there are still a number of appeals outstanding.

They are nearly all outstanding.

Some of these are already before the Commissioner, others have as yet not been referred to him, but are ready for reference to him by the Controller. There are ninety-one Union Nationalis who have declined to exercise the right of appeal.

What are these 91?

These are made up as follows: Union Nationals by birth 63, and 10 from Southl West Africa.

That makes 73.

The total number of appeals lodged is 505.

Will you tell us this: In what way may an internee be represented if his appeal is dealt with?

I shall deal with that later on; it is clear that there are still a substantial number of appeals not disposed of.

Why not?

I have had discussions with the Chief Control Officer and with the Commissioner about the matter and we shall have further discussions to see in what way we can expedite the disposal of these matters. May I say that in actual fact there has hitherto been shown to be no prejudice to the internees whose appeals have been held up.

How can that be?

A certain number have been released during the last year but these releases were not made because the Commissioner felt that there had been unjust internment, but because it was felt that, while internment originally was justified, circumstances had so changed as to warrant these people being allowed out on parole; and there has grown up a system of release under supervision—not an unconditional release, but a release on probation. It was felt, however, that while acts of sabotage continued, while there still was intimidation of witnesses, while persons who had made sworn statements, withdrew these statements because they were intimidated, it would be dangerous and undesirable and against public policy to release members of the Stormjaer organisation.

Are you afraid of them?

It would certainly be impracticable to release members of that organisation who have committed acts of sabotage, or were concerned with explosives, but there are a number of persons interned who were found to be members of this secret organisation—who were interned to prevent them from committing acts of sabotage or doing any harm to the safety of the State. There were a number of former members of the Police Force and members of the Prison Service.

Do you intern a Stormjaer because he is a Stormjaer?

Stormjaers were interned as the result of a list containing a number of names. That was early in 1942. But those people were not simply interned because their names were on that list. Only those were interned in respect of whom there was corroborative evidence of their being Stormjaers, in respect of whom there was evidence of their having taken part in, and attended these meetings, and having taken their dramatic oath—of their having taken part in meetings which threatened the security of the State.

Do you intern them merely because of that? Merely because they are on the list?

I have already said that we did not do that. The list provided a starting point for further investigation, and where the names on the list were corroborated by other evidence, then in the interests of the State it was found desirable to intern. That policy was a policy which I am perfectly certain every unbiased citizen of this country will support. Further, where these acts of sabotage and attempts to undermine the Government’s war effort, to paralyse industry, to interfere with power stations, took place—I say that if the Government had failed to put out of harm’s way people who had sworn to do these things, the Government would have failed in its duty. It may be correct that many of these people have since seen the error of their ways. I am quite prepared to do what has been done in a certain measure during the course of the last few months, that is to consider special cases where there is no actual evidence of sabotage, with a view to releasing on probation. It has been done in certain cases, and I am quite prepared to consider an extension of that action. A number of hon. members have raised this point, including the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. H. van der Merwe) who has pointed out that quite a number of young men have been misled. There is no doubt that changed circumstances have helped to point out to these young men the error of their ways, the circumstances at the beginning of 1942 being very different to those at the beginning of 1943. It is clear from documents and other evidence that the Stormjaers organisation hoped at that stage to step in and bring about a coup-d’état, first by paralysing vital war industries, and then by stepping in and taking over control. That position must have given high hope to many young men who were misled.

Who misled them?

Well, sir, my hon. friend realised that it was not a good thing to be a General in the Ossewa-Brandwag, in good time. My hon. friend, the member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) realised that, but he will remember there was a time when his leader said to the Government: “Hands off the Ossewa-Brandwag; if you touch it you will see what we will do.”

My leader had nothing to do with the Stormjaers.

I am perfectly sure of that. I accept that entirely.

We knew nothing about it.

I know the hon. member for Winburg well enough to know he would not have anything to do with it. But the unfortunate part was that the Ossewa-Brandwag had a lot to do with the Stormjaers movement. Here I have a document issued by the headquarters of the Ossewa-Brandwag in Johannesburg—I shall quote from paragraph 3 (d) of the document which reads as follows—[Translation]

What is the date of that document?

That document is about two and a half years old.

By whom issued?

Issued by the office of the Ossewa-Brandwag.

I protest. The Minister should not read quotations and refuse to give us the name of the writer.

That is a general instruction given to members of the Ossewa-Brandwag. I do not wish to be led astray.

Did you include all these people who were interned as being responsible for that document?

It is very easy to read a document. Give us the name.

The name is Spies.

Whose are the names on the document? I would like to know.

I can give my hon. friend further information, but I tell him now that that document, a copy of which I have quoted from now, was found in the possession of officials of the Ossewa-Brandwag, and it was found at headquarters in Johannesburg. I do not want to mention the names now. Well, sir, that is the position. There is no doubt that if the Government had not acted timeously last year the country might have found itself in very difficult circumstances indeed. I am prepared to consider the question of speeding up these appeals, and in appropriate cases of dealing with persons who may have learned the error of their ways, by allowing them out on probation.

[Inaudible.]

I do not think it would be necessary to appoint additional appeal advisory commissioners, but it may be necessary to secure the temporary services of senior members of the Bar, or perhaps other persons with similar legal experience in order to assist the Commissioner. That is a matter which, however, I will go into in conjunction with the Appeals Advisory Commissioner and the Chief Control Officer. Then, sir, certain hon. members have raised specific internment questions. The hon. member for Bethal (Mr. C. J. van den Berg) mentioned the name of one person, a former member of the Police Force. He said this man had come from his district, and that he was absolutely innocent. Admittedly he had been a Commandant of the Ossewa-Brandwag, but he was completely innocent of any subversive activity, and had been unjustly interned. Well, sir, that person who was a member of the Police Force, has been given the reasons for his internment, and I think the House will agree that those reasons show a prima facie case for his internment. He will have an opportunity of contesting those reasons if he so wishes. He has been supplied with the grounds for his internment. I refer to Prinsloo’s case. The hon. member knows that the internee is given a written summary of the reasons for internment, and he has an opportunity of dealing with the allegations against him. The hon. member obviously suggested that this man had been interned quite unnecessarily and without good reason. But these were the reasons which have been given to him in writing—

1. (1) According to information at the disposal of the authorities, the internee, after the establishment of the “Stormjaer” movement, attended various “parades” and “military” camps, where numbers of men were drilled, in contravention of Section Ten (Prohibition of Unauthorised Drilling) of Proclamation No. 20 of 1941, published on 4th February, 1941. Furthermore, at certain of the “parades” and “camps” he personally took charge of the drilling, and certain of these “parades” and “camps” were even held on his own farm.
2. (2) In addition to ordinary drill, it is alleged that at these “parades” and camps military lectures were also given, inter alia in connection with the use of the Bren gun and handgrenades.
3. (3) According to information in possession of the authorities, the internee delivered addresses at these “parades” and camps when he expressed himself as follows—
   “Britain is doomed and the Ossewa-Brandwag relies on the Stormjaers to carry out, promptly, all orders which may be given to them. The Stormjaers fulfil a dangerous rôle but the object is to strengthen and unite the Afrikaners in order to enable them to receive their Republic from the Germans. In the meantime the Stormjaers must undermine the Government in every possible manner and further the interests of Germany as far as possible, in particular by not joining the Army, and, if necessary, by forcibly overthrowing the present Government and establishing a Republic.”
4. (4) There is also proof that the internee left a certain amount of cartridges in the possession of somebody else, where it was eventually discovered and taken into possession by the Police.
5. (5) The internee is accordingly regarded as a danger to the State and it was considered essential to detain him in an internment camp during the present emergency.

Now that is the man who, I was told yesterday, was an innocent person who has been unnecessarily interned and against whom there is no evidence whatever. These are the charges against this man; he has been given them in writing, and he will be given an opportunity of answering them.

[Inaudible.]

The internee has not had an opportunity of cross-examining the persons who make these charges, but he has an opportunity now of making any comment on these charges, which show a prima facie case for internment. The same with the case raised by the hon. member for Potgietersrust (Rev. S. W. Naudé). He has mentioned the names of persons who were interned because it was alleged against them that they had taken part in the robbery of a dynamite conveyance near Potgietersrust and stolen dynamite from that conveyance at a time when sabotage was taking place. They have been informed of these reasons, and they will have an opportunity of controverting them. Now I come to the position in the camps themselves. There have been suggestions that the conditions in the camps were unsatisfactory. The hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop) suggested that internees were not provided with proper blankets.

Not enough, I said.

Well, I am informed by the Director of Internment Camps that that is not so, that adequate provision of blankets was made during the last winter, and that there is a sufficient stock for all needs. That is the position. It has been suggested that life in internment camps is very soul-destroying and heartrending. Admittedly, it is not pleasant to be confined in an internment camp, no one would enjoy that experience, and certainly the Government would never wish to send any Union National to an internment camp unless there were the soundest reasons for so doing. Now may I just quote one or two things which have been said by internees themselves to show that, while internment is not a pleasant matter, the Government, at any rate, is treating these Union Nationals fairly and decently in their enforced confinement. It is quite clear that, apart from efforts made by members of the Ossewa-Brandwag to cause disturbances in camp, the life there seems to flow along quite peacefully. This is what one of the internees has said—[Translation]

Who wrote that?

One of the internees. Here is another—[Translation]

You ought to let him out. You are not punishing him enough.

This has been said by quite a number of internees.

If they write anything else it is censored; it is cut out.

They do not need to write this. Of course, there are a great many who make complaints, I say that frankly, of course that is so. There are a great many ex parte statements by certain internees which show that these exaggerated reports which have been made are either deliberate distortions or gross exaggerations.

To whom were these statements made?

To persons with whom they were in correspondence.

You are now quoting from private letters. Is not that a mean thing to do?

I am quoting extracts which give the general tenor of what is being said.

What right have you to quote private letters; it is a mean thing to do.

The hon. gentleman wants to know the person who wrote the letter, but if I were to give the name I think it would be improper. I merely give the tenor of letters which have been written in camp, and which have been found in the censorship. I am sorry my hon. friends seem to be disturbed about this. No doubt they would be much happier if I quoted internees as saying they were being treated in a scandalous manner.

We are disturbed about your sense of honour. You have no right to quote from private letters, you have no sense of honour.

It is your lack of decency we protest against.

I leave that to the House to judge.

It is very bad taste to say the least of it. It is bad taste, you cannot get away from it. One might expect it from some members of your party, but not from you.

I think my hon. friend is unfair. I do not propose to pursue his remarks, except to say that they are unjustified and unfair. I have given away nothing of a personal nature.

You have abused your right to censor letters.

Well, I leave it at that.

I am glad you admit it.

I do not admit it.

It is questionable tactics.

I am sorry if I have offended that fine feeling which the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) has always exhibited in this House, particularly towards members of this House whom he wishes to attack. I am sorry if I have offended his susceptibilities, and so I shall leave him alone.

Now we know where the Freedom Radio got those personal things; they got them out of the Censor.

The next point made by the hon. member was with regard to change of name. The hon. member for Beaufort West, with his very highly developed sense of fitness and decency referred yesterday to changes of name, and to an hon. member of this House who had changed his name.

I did not, I never referred to any hon. member. Mr. Chairman, on a point of explanation, I never mentioned any hon. member.

Well, I accept that.

Why do you make statements you cannot substantiate?

I was probably recollecting a previous occasion when the hon. member dealt with the subject. The hon. member has referred to a few cases of changes of name. The principles which are applied when applications for change of names are made are simply these. Such applications are not allowed if the object of the change of name is to disguise the origin of the applicant. That is the general principle which is acted upon, and generally accepted.

Good Lord; tell us another.

Each case has to be dealt within the light of its own particular circumstances.

Levy into O’Leary, is not that disguising?

These are the general principles acted on. But I am prepared to send for the files in that particular case and to recall the actual reasons which led to the application being granted. I am prepared to do that. But I say that names quoted at random from notices in the Gazette may prima facie appear to be strange. But I can assure the hon. member that in every one of these cases the Department is most careful to ensure that the principles underlying the Act are adhered to. The procedure is to refer to the police and to the local magistrate. The applicant is interviewed by the local magistrate who puts in a very full report in regard to the circumstances, and the Department, while not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate, is guided very strongly by such recommendations.

Another set of reasons is put in the Gazette

The hon. member for Beaufort West has also referred to the question of refugees, and he has stated that not all the refugees at present in the country are genuine refugees. He has suggested that the Government has been lax in carrying out the terms of the Immigration Act in regard to these people They fall into two classes. The vast bulk of refugees are those who have come out under an approved scheme; they are wives of military, naval or air force personnel from the Middle East and the Far East. These persons, women and children, have come out under the supervision of the British Military Mission, and their welfare is being looked after by the Department of Social Welfare in conjunction with the British Military Mission. So far as it has been possible to send these people to amenable surroundings, that has been done. The vast bulk of the refugees have come out under these approved schemes, and a large number have gone back to England. They have constantly asked for permission to return to England. It was not considered safe at first, but now a large number has gone back. There are individual cases which have come here not under an approved scheme and are therefore subject to the provisions of the Immigration Act, and they have been dealt with as such. My hon. friend, when he points to the acute shortage of hotel and housing accommodation at the Cape, wrongly attributes that position to the refugees. There are undoubtedly a number of aliens at the Cape Peninsula at the present time, and undoubtedly they are making it difficult in certain cases to obtain accommodation at a time such as this, when members of Parliament and public servants come down to the Cape. But the bulk of these, so far as I am aware, are persons who have come here as visitors from the Belgian Congo and territories to the North. It has been the policy of the Government to assist such persons to come to South Africa. They would, in the normal course of events, have gone overseas for a vacation of five or six months, to France, Holland or other places on the Continent. Europe has been cut off from them, and so facilities have been give to them to come to South Africa and enjoy the benefits of our coast. It is vitally necessary for those who live in tropical countries to have leave at the coast, and I think by allowing them to come here we are doing good for South Africa, making new contacts, making friends with persons in the North.

Which Government pays expenses?

We do not pay a penny. These are individuals and they pay their own expenses, they are ordinary tourist visitors.

And the refugees?

If they are British refugees the British Government pays expenses. The Government concerned pays the expenses of refugees who come here under approved schemes.

Do we pay for any?

They are paid for by the Governments concerned. In certain cases the Government has given preliminary facilities to individual refugees?

What about Greek refugees?

They pay for themselves. I hope my hon. Friends have not become so unfriendly that they are going to refuse a haven to these people who have been driven out of their own countries.

If they were Germans they would be welcome.

I hope, Sir, the milk of human kindness has not curdled in hon. members opposite, and I hope they are not going to criticise the Government for carrying out a purely humanitarian act, and an act which, apart from being humanitarian, is calculated to make closer contacts and relationships with our neighbours in the North, and make for a better understanding with our neighbours on the Continent of Africa. These people are getting to know South Africa. At one time South Africa was entirely unknown to them, and it was thought South Africa had all sorts of sinister intentions in regard to these countries in the North. These visitors come here, they see South Africa, they realise the importance of this southern end of the Continent, and I think that all these contacts and relationships will make for good in the future. I come finally to the question of the Indian position in the Transvaal and Natal. The hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) has once again made a somewhat exaggerated attack on the Government in respect of its Indian policy. He has suggested that the interim legislation of 1939 has not been carried out in the letter and the spirit. Well, sir, it was implicit in the 1939 interim legislation as affecting the Transvaal that the Minister of the Interior should be given discretion to issue permits either for occupation by Asiatics or for trading licences. In carrying out that legislation, the Department of the Interior has been guided by certain principles. It has consistently refused to issue permits where, by such issue, penetration into predominantly European areas would take place. While the hon. member has quoted the number of permits granted over a period of three and a half years, he has not quoted the number of permits refused. During the period 1939 to 1943, approximately three and a half years during which the Act has been administered, the number of permits issued in respect of hawkers, pedlars and occupation licences was 2,103, and in these cases there was no question of penetration. During that period also, 618 licences have been refused, and, but for the refusal of those licences, in the majority of cases there would have been penetration. The hon. member omitted to point that out when he quoted his figures yesterday. He has also alleged that there are contraventions of the law by Indians who are trading without licences and who are purchasing land in the Transvaal. Well, sir, that may be so, but if the law is being contravened, then it is for those who know the facts to lay charges with the police authorities in order to enable them to act.

I have laid charges.

The hon. member has laid certain charges with me, and I will tell him what I have done. I have asked the Commissioner for Immigration to obtain the assistance of a senior professional officer of the Department of Justice who will be able to go into these cases. In many cases intricate points of law are involved, but if the law has been contravened the law must be upheld, and steps are being taken to ensure that that is done. That is so far as the Transvaal is concerned. The hon. member has also referred to Natal, and has said that the Government has placed no restrictions on purchases or occupation in Natal. He has also said that I am not prepared to act in this matter. In that, sir, he has been supported by the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Acutt) who has entered into an alliance with the hon. member for Fordsburg. It is rather interesting to bear in mind, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member for Fordsburg gives as one of his reasons for his attitude in the matter that it will be one of the ways of breaking away from the British Commonwealth of Nations, in which case he says it would be easier to deal with the Indian problem. Then the member for Stamford Hill rushes in to thank the hon. member for Fordsburg. Well, sir, I have always thought the hon. member for Stamford Hill was rather an Imperialist, and would shudder at the thought of cutting the painter. I am interested to note this new alliance, but I hope in the hon. member’s new zeal for cutting the painter he will not attribute to me wrong motives. He said I had not allowed the City Council of Durban to do anything or the Province of Natal to do anything. Sir, I have no control over the City Council or the Provincial authority, and I have put no obstacles in the way of the Province or the City in doing what they like in this matter, I have not interfered in any way. What I have done is to attempt, having regard to the whole situation, to see whether we cannot deal with this problem in Natal along voluntary lines, on sound statesmanship lines, bearing in mind our relationship with the outside world. The hon. member has said I refuse to legislate because the Government is afraid of hurting another member of the British Commonwealth. This Government is not anxious to offend the susceptibilities of India. It is not anxious to offend the susceptibilities of that nation which is playing so vital a part in the war’s effort.

Ghandi does not mind hurting their susceptibilities.

And when I wrote some six or eight months ago, or was it a year ago, to a body which had written to the Department of the Interior about taking immediate legislative action, it is correct that I said that any attempt at that stage to take legislative action to solve the question would have been inopportune and advisable. I should have hoped that the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Acutt) would have agreed with that. There we were in the trough of war. Would it have been a statesmanlike action at a time like that, when we could not foresee what the future would be, to introduce legislation which might hurt the susceptibilities of India? I should have thought that the hon. member for Stamford Hill would have supported the Government in that. But I would ask the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) whether he has forgotten the past. He has accused me of using these words: “Inappropriate and inopportune.” This Government has been asked to deal with this matter in the course of a war, a war such as never occurred before, a war in which the whole future of humanity is at stake. I want to ask the hon. member to remember that this problem is not a new one. I seem to recollect that in 1928, nearly fifteen years ago—a long time ago—there was a body at Umkomaas writing to the Government of the day asking for immediate legislation being passed to protect townships on the South Coast of Natal from Indian encroachment. The Minister of the Interior was asked to do so. Now, the Minister of the Interior of that time was the present Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Malan), and he wrote back and said that while his anxiety to preserve the township of Umkomaas was shared by the Government it was felt that legislation at that moment was “most inopportune.” Well, Sir, if legislation was most “inopportune” in 1928, if the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) thought it was most inopportune in 1928, I would have thought that the hon. member for Fordsburg could have agreed that legislation which might have been considered inopportune in 1928 would be considered even more so in 1940 or 1941.

The old argument again.

But is it correct to say that the Government has not given attention to the matter? The most patient efforts have been made by the Government to secure the collaboration of the City Council of Durban and of the Indian community of Natal. Attempts were made by the Lawrence Commission to deal with the matter. These attempts broke down.

It was a waste of time.

Everything possible was done to meet the difficulty. This question of penetration in Natal is not only a question of penetration into predominantly European areas, it is also a question of providing proper housing for the whole community. The hon. member seems to forget that.

No, we have always urged that.

The hon. member also quoted from a statement made at the end of the year in which it was said that the Government would not consider legislation. The hon. member did not quote the full statement which I made. When I was asked to give the Lawrence Committee statutory powers I said the Government seriously have to consider the matter at the end of 1942, but, in coming to a decision, it would have to be guided by two factors—the measure of co-operation in the interim between the City Council of Durban and the Indians in regard to housing matters, and secondly, whether or not penetration took place by the Indians in the meantime in predominantly European areas. Shortly after that the City Council of Durban said that they refused to revive the Lawrence Committee and they refused to go into the housing matters. At a later stage, however, at a conference in Pretoria in November, 1942, it was made apparent that at any rate a prima facie case had been made out to investigate new and recent acts of penetration into European areas. It was alleged that penetration had been taking place at a rapidly increasing rate. The Government felt that this was a crisp issue, it was a testing point, and the Government therefore re-appointed Mr. Justice Broome to go into the matter.

You could get all the information you wanted from the Deeds Registry.

Now it has been said that the Government is shirking the issue.

When will the report be submitted?

Hon. members who have kept in touch with the matter will know that it will not be a long task to carry out an investigation, and, so far from being a long task, let me tell hon. members that the report was posted yesterday and I expect to have it on Monday. That being so, all the facts are now ready for the Government to take a decision. I cannot discuss legislation on this Vote and therefore I must ask hon. members to be patient.

What are you going to do under the 1939 Act?

That matter cannot be dealt with in a water-tight compartment. The Government will have to deal with the matter in the Transvaal and in Natal as well, and in considering what action is to be taken the Government will have to take into account representations made by the European community just as it will have to take into account representations made by the Indian community, and those representations will have to be carefully considered. The whole position has to be mapped out. The Broome Commission’s Report will be in the hands of the Government on Monday and the Government will then have an opportunity of going into the matter. I think I have now covered all the matters raised so far with the exception perhaps of one matter, and that was the matter raised by the hon. member for Durban, North (Rev. Miles-Cadman). He referred me to certain questions in regard to marriage officers. Well, now, he wanted to know whether a marriage officer was bound by an affidavit placed before him. He wanted to know what the position was if a bridegroom came to him and submitted an affidavit. I think the hon. member must have in mind a case which occurred recently in which the military authorities did not want a marriage officer to perform a marriage because they had reason to think that the prospective bridegroom was already married. The officer performed the marriage. The position is simply this, that the marriage officer cannot be bound by the affidavit before him. He must take reasonable precautions to ensure that statements made in affidavits are correct.

The clerical marriage officer has no opportunity of doing any such thing. He is confronted with a special licence which has been granted by a magistrate upon affidavits made before him, not made before the clergyman. The latter has no means whatever of testing the value of such affidavits.

If the marriage officer is a clergyman and not the magistrate, and is presented with the requisite licence, that is his authority for performing the marriage. No negligence can be attributed to the marriage officer in the circumstances.

Thank you, that is what I wanted to know.

I rise to make a serious objection on behalf of this side of the House against the action of a responsible Minister …

Responsible?

He is supposed to be responsible. The Minister comes here and reads out letters which have passed through the hands of the sensor, and he reads out extracts which have been made from the letters. The other day I asked the Prime Minister whether the people who are appointed to the staff of the censor took an oath of secrecy, and the Prime Minister said that this was the case. But here we have the position that letters are written by internees, letters to their families, and the Minister comes and reads out parts of these letters in the House. Is this not a scandalous thing? What is the object of the censorship of letters? That nothing must be written that is improper or which gives away any secret, and the Minister comes and uses the letters and reads out portions from them in this House. If this can happen then the Minister one of these days can come here and read out letters of mine, or of other members in this House. What right has the Minister to do this? He has no right to read out letters from people who are in gaol of who are interned. I would like to ask the Prime Minister what he thinks of the matter. Does he think that it should be allowed? Is it right that private letters should be read out in this way. I think that the hon. member behind me here is right. Anyone who acts in this way is quite irresponsible. What becomes now of the secrecy of the letters? If the poor internees must also yet experience this thing, that letters that they write to their loved ones are read out here by the Minister, then I say that it is going too far, that it is an improper thing and that it is something which borders on indecency. I hope that it will be the last time that the Minister will abuse his position and read out letters in this way. I want to ask him whether the persons who censor the letters of internees must also take an oath of secrecy, just like other sensors. If so, what right did the censor have to give the information to the Minister to read out here? It does not matter what is written in the letters. He writes that he is eating well and that he is getting fat. Now I want to say that such things are often written by persons to their loved ones, because the loved ones outside are perhaps anxious, and to set them at ease the internees write that they are eating well and are getting fat. These things are quite valueless. But the point is that the Minister reads out private letters here from internees. I hope that this is the last time that we will experience such a thing in the House. I also want to say something about the Minister’s remarks about the complaints against people who have been interned. I have here various letters, but unfortunately the Chief Control Officer has informed me what the charges are against certain persons, but he has written a letter to say that the information is strictly confidential. I may not reveal it without his consent. I am therefore not permitted to mention the names of people, but I believe that I may have the liberty, without mentioning names, to give a few facts here. Here is an internee against whom the charge is that he is a member of the Stormjaers. His name was found on one of the lists and it is said that an ex-policeman has given evidence that he has been registered as a member. The internee does not know the policeman and never was a member of the Stormjaers, but his name was found on the list. Our information is that lists were compiled of persons whom they thought would perhaps join as members. The man has now been interned and he says that he never was a member and has never heard of the policeman. There is no charge of misbehaviour against the person, but only that he is a member of the Stormjaers and he denies that he knows anything about the movement. The man is there today still. There is another case. I cannot give particulars because I am bound by a strict order of secrecy.

Will you give me the names?

Yes, I will do so. But here is another case. The reason why this man has been interned is his pro-German opinions which he has expressed in the presence of others, that he is of German descent and that he is provided for by them. Have you ever heard such nonsense. The Prime Minister is of German descent. This is surely not a charge on which to intern someone and it is surely nonsense to say that he is provided for by the Germans. Then he is supposed to have said that the Afrikaner would not have to wait long for their freedom, because the Germans would make a landing within six months. Such nonsense! That is the whole charge. People have been punished in courts for undermining statements. Very well, if a man makes an undermining statement, punish him in the court. I know for example that someone was charged for saying that Rommel would take them at the back of the neck and throw them out. Such people have been punished.

Will you give me the name?

I mention these few cases. My wings have been clipped, but I will hand the documents to the Minister. A person is interned and he really never gets a chance to defend himself. I have asked the Minister whether a person has any chance to be represented when his appeal is dealt with. The Minister said that he would reply. He never came to the point.

I said that he can give the reasons for his appeal in writing.

Must I understand that a person can hand in his defence in writing?

Or the written evidence of others as well.

He is accused for example of being a member of the Stormjaers, and he says definitely that he knows nothing about it. He never gets the chance to appear personally, or to let someone else appear on his behalf. [Time limit.]

It is rather surprising that the hon. members for Beaufort West and Winburg should protest so loudly against what they choose to term a breach of privilege alleged to have been committed by the hon. Minister in disclosing details which have come to his notice as the result of censorship exercised on the correspondence from internees to people outside the camps. It is interesting particularly to hear the hon. member for Winburg protest against so-called disclosures. One has in mind an incident which occurred some time ago and which caused quite a flutter in the political dovecot of the Nationalist Party in the Free State, as a result of the disclosure of certain Freemasons’ letters. It was alleged that the hon. member for Winburg had quite a lot to do with this incident and one wonders if he is perhaps conveniently trying to forget it. If he is, it may be as well for us to remind him.

You’re talking nonsense now.

I know what I am talking about, and I think the hon. member also knows what I am talking about. He apparently reaped considerable political advantage as a result of the disclosures relating to the alleged Freemasons’ letters, but for which he might not be here in this House today. The Minister, with his customary courtesy, has apologised, but he might very well have spared himself the trouble. These hon. members protest against an outrage against their tender susceptibilities, but this outrage is more simulated than real and they have, in fact, nothing to complain about, as the hon. member for Winburg in particular should know that he is the very last man to raise his voice in this respect. It is, however, not against the disclosure as such, that the hon. members are concerned. If the letter had contained complaints of alleged ill-treatment, then these hon. members would have been only too well-pleased if the hon. Minister had disclosed such complaints, but because the letter in question testifies to the good treatment meted out to the internees, these hon. members are very loud in their protests, because it does not suit their purpose. We know that the hon. member for Winburg had a special motion on the Order Paper, complaining about the treatment of internees and he is naturally disappointed that the Minister is able to refute these allegations by unsolicited testimony given by the internees themselves. It is quite apparent, therefore, that it is only because the disclosures do not suit our friends that they complain. There is a point I would like to discuss with the hon. Minister and that is the position prevailing under a century-old law which is still on the Statute book in the Cape Province. I refer to the Lord’s Day Observance Ordinance of 1838. Visitors to the Cape, who perhaps happen to go to an hotel or restaurant on Sunday to be supplied with a meal, are thereby instigating the proprietor of such hotel or restaurant to commit a breach of this Ordinance. The law may have suited conditions a hundred years ago, but it is certainly very much out-of-date. Under its provisions the onus is cast upon the restaurant or hotelkeeper to prove that the person supplied with a meal or refreshments is a bona fide traveller and this has been interpreted by the courts to mean that he must have travelled some considerable distance before reaching the hotel or restaurant. That naturally prevents residents in the Cape from going to have a meal out on Sunday as they would thereby be contravening the law. Admittedly, the provisions of this Ordinance are honoured more in the breach than in the observance thereof, but prosecutions have taken place, and as the position is anomalous, it is felt that the Minister should be asked to take the necessary steps to have this law repealed. The Asiatic question has been referred to under this Vote. In view of its importance it is rather surprising that it was not raised by a leading member of the Opposition, but that it was left to the humble back-benchers to broach the subject. As the hon. the Leader of the Opposition himself always said when he was the responsible Minister, this question should not be made a political issue and could only be settled by wholehearted and united co-operation of all concerned. It is obvious that unless there is the fullest measure of co-operation, we shall never be able to solve what is undobutedly one of the major problems in this country. We have in our midst, a population of about 250,000 Asiatics. Just over 40 years ago, the Asiatic population was only about 122,000, less than half of what it is today. If one considers that during the first 25 years of the present century, most of the Asiatic women were not living in this country, then one can realise how rapid the increase in this population has been during the past 20 years. It is no use blinking the fact. The Indians are here and we have to face the position of their presence as a permanent part of our population. The Minister has referred to the Act of 1939, under which the present position has been pegged, but there is one aspect I would like him very seriously to consider, and that is the position created by Malays who marry Indians in the Transvaal. In the original Land Act of the Republic, Malay was included in the definition of an Asiatic, but in 1924 an amendment exempted a Malay from the restrictions imposed upon Asiatics. As a result of the removal of this restriction, Malays are entitled to acquire property in the Transvaal and are otherwise free from the disabilities attached to Asiatics. Where, therefore, an Indian contracts a marriage with a Malay woman, the offspring are not regarded as Indians, but as Malays, for the reason that the union is not recognised in our law, seeing that the parties are usually not married by a proper marriage officer. The offspring of such a union can in turn marry Indians and their offspring would then be almost pure Indians, but the small admixture of Malan blood protects the party, who is able to avoid all restrictions applying to Asiatics, though for all intents and purposes such party is nothing but an Asiatic, living with the Indians and in every respect behaving as one of them. One has a case in mind where such a person, being the offspring of a union between an Indian and a Malay woman, is regarded as a Malay and so able to defeat the object of the Act of 1939 which attempted to peg the position. It is realised that the Minister has by no means an easy task, but it is hoped that he will be able to tackle the whole problem and place it on a satisfactory footing, so that all concerned may know exactly where they stand. As I said before, these people are here and we must get together to find a fair and satisfactory solution of the problems involved.

I cannot neglect before the vote is adopted to register protest and to associate myself with those on this side of the House who have already protested against the treatment of internees. I want to go further and make an appeal to the Minister to amend his whole internment policy. I can quite understand that the Minister must take certain precautionary measures, but what I cannot understand is that the Minister can get up in the House, as he has done, and say that no person is interned without reason, that the magistrate is first consulted, that police officials are consulted before a person is interned, and that the movements of the person are also watched before steps are taken. Now I want to ask: What about those people who come out of a magistrate’s court and who have been acquitted by a magistrate, and who then are interned in front of the door of the magistrate’s court and sent to an internment camp. How does he reconcile that? I want to tell the Minister that we feel that if there is someone who has a rival, or who has had difficulty with one or other person, and who wants to dispose of him, then he makes a plan to get him in an internment camp. I do not want to accuse the Minister too much. In any case I do not want to hold him responsible for those things, provided he refuses when such a case is brought before him, to take notice of such talk. I must say that when I have gone to the Minister with special cases, the Minister has been accommodating and has assisted me in such cases and released people. But there are many other cases, also in my constituency. The Minister has perhaps had reason to intern many people from his point of view, but today conditions have changed. People are arrested perhaps merely because they have refused to make a certain statement. Why does the Minister now refuse to release such people from the camp. In many cases they are boys.

I am prepared to go into specific cases.

I am very grateful to hear that. I would like the Minister to do so in all the cases, and not only in that case where the information is submitted to him 100 per cent. He must see in how far today he must regard the position in a different light than he did last year. He has said now that in 1942 there was a secret organisation which threatened to seize the Government by a coup d’etat. I do not believe it, but let us accept it. The whole organisation has now at any rate been broken up. Can he not now take a different view of the matter? Then there are people who have been placed in the camps purely on suspicion. Has the time not now come for the Minister to regard the matter in a new light?

It has not been broken up altogether.

The Minister says now that that secret organisation has not yet been broken up altogether, but will he benefit by detaining these people? I want to give the Minister the assurance that numerous people who are sitting there did not intend to do harm by joining the Stormjaers. They did not intend to commit a rebellion. The idea was to discipline themselves in the event of a people’s front being formed. I do not want to condone it. The Minister knows that I have always pleaded in the House for law and order; I have done so from the beginning. In the most critical days when many people who today are also pleading for law and order, did not do so, I did so, and I do it today still; but I want to ask the Minister and I will give him the assurance that if he wants to calm the Afrikaner people, if he wants rest and peace in his administration, then he must be lenient. If you do a man a good turn today and you release him from the camp, that man will reward you tenfold by assisting you in the future in maintaining law and order. That man is going to appreciate magnanimity which the Minister has shown and he will do everything in his power to assist the Minister in maintaining law and order. I want to assure the Minister that we are convinced that people are sitting there on false statements. Recently there was a case of a teacher who was interned simply because he clashed with his principal, and he made a report about an offence which that principal committed and he was interned before the Commission could deal with it. That is the position today and the Minister of the Interior is being used today to permit these injustices. I know of a man who was a first class businessman. When it suited certain people to remove him, he was interned so that his competitor across the street could get the business which was previously done by him. I want to admit that these things are to a certain extent unavoidable, but they are matters in which the Minister can allow himself to be led by the House of Assembly. We want to appeal to him that he should act in such a way that he is not unnecessarily hard on certain people. Then I also want to ask the Minister whether he will not consider the question of the votes of those people in the internment camps. He has said that many people are placed in the camps in order to restrict their movements.

He said all.

That step was taken in the interest of the country as a security measure.

The Minister now wants to take the votes away from the people who must be sacrificed for the safety of the country. I say that if there is a man who is guilty, then bring him before the courts of the country, who will condemn him properly, but if a man is not guilty, it is an injustice to tamper with that man’s vote. If the Minister wants to extend this principle, he can intern sufficient people in every constituency and in this way guarantee the Government all the seats in the country. Those people who are today sitting at Koffiefontein may have an advantageous result on the election as regards the Government. I want to make an appeal to the Minister not to take away the votes of those people just to win elections. I do not want to say anything further about this matter. I merely want to make this appeal to the Minister in all courtesy: Be lenient; if you act leniently, then you will make friends, but if you simply continue in this way, you are busy oppressing and suppressing people and you are busy bringing about trouble on your shoulders.

It is very clear to me that we are experiencing the same period which we experienced in the old Cape Province in the Anglo-Boer War. Then we found that under martial law, if your friends had an eye on you, that they went and made a report against you, that you were then, without a hearing, pushed into a concentration camp. We know about the bitterness that was caused by that reckless internment without a hearing. The Minister of the Interior is still a very young man. He will still have to have a lot of experience, but I want to tell him this: He is busy today interning people without a hearing; they do not get a chance to defend themselves and I want to warn the Minister that these acts of the Government will be the cause of vengeance, not only in the hearts of those internees but also in the hearts of thousands of others of their relatives and their descendants. He must know that he will not always sit on those benches, and if there is a change of government tomorrow or next day, then he must expect that he will probably experience the same treatment as those people are experiencing today without a hearing, and I want to ask him now as one who has experience of all these things—he has told us that the position was such last year that he had to take precautionary measures—I do not know whether this is so, but let us accept this now; then I ask him what justification there is today for applying those strict measures this year.

Sabotage is still continuing.

I would be very glad if the Minister will mention one case of sabotage which is still occurring.

The Minister is referring to their coloured troops.

If things of this nature are happening, then it is not on the part of those people, but it comes from the Government’s coloured troops.

That is untrue.

The hon. member says it is untrue. How can he say that? The Prime Minister himself has admitted that his coloured troops have disgraced him. Let me tell my hon. friend what conditions there exsit today. I say that if anyone makes himself guilty of sabotage, he must be arrested, brought before the courts, and if he is guilty, he must be punished, but do not detain people in camps for months and months without a hearing. Many of those people are subsequently released again. That in itself is proof that they were Interned innocently. I have in mind here—I have never seen the man—the case of the principal of Heidelberg, Mr. Eyssen. He was interned for a long time and eventually he was released on certain conditions. He was not allowed to go back to Heidelberg. I, who was in open rebellion in 1914, and who was sentenced and eventually released by the Prime Minister, was released on certain conditions. I was not allowed to leave my farm. I did not then go and abuse my release. I say that if there are saboteurs, they must be caught, but in the name of heaven, bring them before a court, and if they are guilty let the court, impose a heavy punishment. But to go and arrest people innocent people, of whom there are many—the hon. the Minister’s actions prove that he has caught many innocent people, because he has subsequently released them—I say to lock those people up in a camp without a hearing is the greatest crime the Minister can commit. No Government has the right to deprive any individual in a democratic country of his freedom without giving him a chance of defending himself. I say that the Minister is busy here making himself guility of the greatest injustice which he can commit under the democratic system.

Mr. Chairman, I speak in English, although I know the hon. Minister understands Afrikaans, in order to be sure that the Minister understands what I say. Seldom has anything happened in this House which has left a nastier taste in the mouth than the action of the hon. Minister of the Interior in reading extracts in this House from purely private and personal letters, written by persons who are at present in the internment camps. The Minister, who is of English birth, knows that one thing that the average Britisher prides himself on is that certain things are not done, and if there is one thing that is just not done, it is to read extracts from private letters, and that is what the Minister has done here today. It is not cricket, if we may use another term, which is very well known among men of his race, the British race; it is not done. I would like to know what that hon. member over there would say if, for instance, the German radio were to read out extracts from personal letters written by prisoners of war to their friends and relatives in South Africa. What a howl of indignation we should have from the hon. member and his Press.

They have done that.

Then you condemn it?

By that mere interjection the Minister of Finance condemns it, and I condemn it too. For the hon. Minister to come here and read extracts from private letters is wrong. That is not the object of censorship, the object of censorship of letters from prisoners of war or internees is to enable the Government to get certain information in case there is subversive propaganda, or attempts to escape, or anything of that sort. The function of the censorship is not to allow members of the Government or Ministers of the Crown to come to this House and read extracts from those private letters. The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) has said very rightly if that is what is happening to letters from internees, what assurance have we for instance, that letters of members on this side of the House which are being censored—that extracts from those letters are not being bandied about amongst members on the other side, amongst members of the Government? Mr. Chairman, I begin to wonder now—something seems to be becoming rather clear—we remember at one time there was a so-called Freedom Radio, and that Freedom Radio made a point from time to time of broadcasting matters of a very personal nature, nothing serious, but yet matters of a personal nature regarding hon. members on this side of the House. I have been wondering how they got hold of these very personal things, and I begin to wonder whether that information was not passed on to the so-called Freedom Radio by the Government censors.

Yes, now we know.

I think that may be the explanation, when the Minister can come here and read extracts from private letters. Mr. Chairman, I put it to you, what would be the feelings of an internee who had been released and who found himself in the gallery of this House and had to sit and listen to extracts from a private letter written by himself. I repeat, that leaves a nasty taste in the mouth. The hon. Minister is a member of the legal profession, and in order to describe certain things, members of the legal profession say “it stinks”.

I never heard that legal expression.

I have heard it. The Minister has left the Bar for some time and it may be he has forgotten about it. That term is used, and I say the same term can be applied to the Minister’s action today in reading extracts from a purely personal and private letter from one of the internees. Mr. Speaker, I hope this sort of thing is not going to happen again. We members on this side of the House have no assurance that the same sort of thing will not happen to our letters which are being censored. I now begin to understand why it is that a most extraordinary thing has happened again and again in my own case. My letters that are censored are those which I address to my wife. A letter goes from this Parliament, from this post office, it is in a Parliamentary envelope with the imprint House of Assembly, Volksraad, very clearly written on the flap, and addressed to my wife. These letters to my wife are being censored.

My letters are censored too.

Not other letters, but letters to my wife; these are censored. Mr. Chairman, what we have here is nothing but snooping, to try to find out something personal about members on this side of the House. What is being done there is on a par with what the Minister has done today in quoting from these purely private letters from internees.

I think it is necessary that I should just make two points clear to the House. The censorship of letters in internment camps is not the responsibility of the ordinary censor, it has nothing to do with the ordinary censorship of this country. Letters which are written by internees are dealt with by officials there, and it is obvious that I, as Minister, should know from time to time what is happening there, and what is the feeling of the internees in order to deal with the administration of the camps in a proper way. It is quite obvious we should know. The hon. gentleman, without any knowledge of the facts, has now suggested that this work is being done by the ordinary censorship, and from that he draws certain inferences which are entirely wrong.

I said the cases were on a par.

Let me tell the hon. gentleman this. It may well be that some of his letters have been censored—some of my own family letters have been censored, and some of my friends have had letters censored.

Why are all my letters to my wife censored, and not others?

It may well be that the hon. member finds himself in that category; the same thing has happened to members on this side, and the same thing has happened to my own family. So far as the propriety of my conduct this afternoon is concerned, I may say that I have as little confidence in the judgment of the hon. member for Beaufort West in this matter as I have confidence in his facts regarding my birth. He has referred to me as of English birth. Well, Sir, I should be proud if I happened to be an Englishman, but as it happens I am a South African of both English and Dutch birth, and I am extremely proud of that fact.

If you are proud, why do you pretend to be a coolie?

Well, Sir, there are times when I have to make an attempt, however hard it may be, to get down to the level of the intelligence of the hon. member for Humansdorp!

Mr. Chairman, we have heard from the hon. Minister this afternoon that the Broome report will be in his hands on Monday. That being the case, I think he should set the minds of the people in Natal at rest. I understand this will be a very short report, and if it will be in the hands of the Government on Monday, there can be no harm in the Minister saying that further Indian penetration has taken place, and that the Government will be prepared to introduce legislation this year. It is time that the House realised the seriousness of this question in Natal before the people of Durban and Natal take the matter into their own hands as they will if the Government is not prepared to assist them in this matter. They have been played about with quite long-enough and they will not stand very much more of it. If the Government is not prepared to introduce legislation this Session to help these people, I say the least we can expect is a statement that some measures will be taken to peg the position there. There have been so many commissions of enquiry appointed that the whole thing is becoming a farce, and the tragedy of it is that the Government, by their inaction, are deliberately stirring up racialism in Natal and setting one section of the community against the other. There are today in Durban thousands of people who are well disposed towards the Indians, for whom they have the greatest respect. They have a feeling of affection for them, and by this method of penetration taking place, much of that kind feeling and sympathy is being alienated from these people. This feeling of affection for them that did exist is being driven from the Europeans by their houses being depreciated, and by their being compelled to go further afield to avoid living next door to the Indian community. I say that the Government, being aware of these matters, should have done something to prevent that racialism from existing today. Let me read a telegram that arrived a few minutes ago—

I would like to remind members of this House of the position in Natal, and I would ask them why don’t they allow the Indians to come into other parts of the Union. If Natal is a part of the Union, why should a large section of its population be deprived of the right of entering and residing in other parts of the Union? That is the real solution of the problem, Mr. Chairman, if hon. members are prepared to face up to that position. My colleague, the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Acutt) has been twitted about being allied to the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman). It seems to me if a member of the Nationalist Party happens to support us even by mistake or accident, that may be for the good of a particular province, and there is no reason to believe that such support must be bad, in this case coming from the Nationalist Party. I would like to remind some hon. members, when they were members of the previous Government, that they consistently adopted the policy of the Opposition for very many years. The Nationalist Party were afraid to tackle this problem of Indian penetration on sound lines. It is no use the present Government, or the Minister at this juncture turning round and saying that the Leader of the hon. member for Fordsburg, the present hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) ought to have dealt with the question. Why is not the present Minister man enough to tackle it? Why criticise the late Minister of the Interior, the hon. member for Piquetberg? We know that Government was at fault, and it is for the present Government and the present Minister of the Interior to show that they are prepared to face up to the position that the old Nationalist Party funked. Why don’t they do it? It is not a bit of use the Minister of the Interior saying that we should consider the British Government and the Indian Government. The people who are chiefly responsible for the penetration in Durban are the moneyed people, who are no friends either of the British Government or the Indian Government. In regard to this question of Indian penetration, the one Government is as bad as the other, and there is nothing to choose between the old Nationalist Government and the present Government. The fact that some members of Parliament who were on the Government side in the last Government have gone back to their spiritual home, does not relieve this Government from its responsibility in connection with this question. I would just give two instances. In 1927-’28 there were on the Roll 176 European owned properties in one block, and 71 Indian owned properties. In 1939-’40 these 176 Europeans had dwindled to 66 and the Indians have gone up from 71 to 192. Hon. members can see for themselves what has been going on. Let me quote another instance. In one area there were 87 Europeans owning property and 74 Indians. In a matter of twelve years it was changed to 57 European owners and 131 Indian owners. These were predominantly European areas. The evidence is so clear that there is no need for the Government to appoint any more commissions. A stop should be put to this penetration without more commissions.

Why did you sell the land to the Indians?

Let me quote from a letter which I have received from Wards 1 and 2, Citizens Association, Durban. The writer says that he hopes the Government will deal with the position without further enquiries. If it is not done no enquiry will be necessary because there will be nothing left to enquire into. There would only have to be an inquest. [Time limit.]

At the beginning I took part in the discussion on this question, this question about which the Minister must now hear so much. But the matter is now becoming rather amusing, and I think that the time has come when I should remind the House that this matter is at last beginning to take a direction. It is now many years that all governments have been experiencing some difficulty in this matter. The strange thing to me was that members of the Transvaal, only members of the Transvaal have let their voices been heard about this, because the Transvaal is greatly burdened with this matter. The House will remember that a few years ago when a Bill was dealt with on this question, we one day broke lose from all sides and the Government then agreed that this case was really beginning to become dangerous and that Indian penetration had taken a very serious turn. The hon. member for Greyville (Mr. Derbyshire) says here that we must throw open the boundaries. I think that all the other provinces, the Cape Province, the Transvaal and Natal, will give half of their lives if they, as regards this question, were in the position of the Free State. We must not, now that we see that one province for years already has been following a wise policy in connection with this complicated political problem, come here and ask that the boundaries must be thrown open between them and us who have followed the stupid policy of which we are today picking the bitter fruits. Let us say the correct thing, that the Cape Province, the Transvaal and Natal did not have the sense of the old Free State legislation. All the years since I have been in this House, this problem has been discussed year after year, but the friends of the Dominion Party will agree with me that this is the first time that they have woken up, and they now want to move heaven and earth and force the Government to take action within a few days. We in the Transvaal have long ago realised the danger of Indian penetration. I think the House is today rather unanimous on this problem, but the friends down there must not pretend now that they are the apostles of the country who have pointed out this danger. No, time and again when legislation was before this House, we did not hear their voice. At that time we would have said that there was not a single Indian in Natal. Now they say that they are being overrun by Indians. I know that Natal is begin overrun, but at that time they did not want to admit it. And now they come here and say that we must throw open our boundaries so that the rest of the country can have a tatse of what they are experiencing as a result of Indian penetration.

Speak to the Cabinet a little as well.

I am now speaking to the hon. member for Greyville. The Minister is being attacked because there is no legislation before the House. We may of course not plead for legislation now. But we have always pointed out how this danger is growing, and we know that we, as regards legislation, have to do here with an extremely difficult matter. But seeing that Durban and Natal, where concentrated Indian penetration is also taking place has also woken up today, and while we today are hearing their voice, whereas we did not hear it in the past, the Government’s hands will be strengthened in the future by the unanimous action of this House if it tackles this problem and introduces the necessary legislation. I have tried to find out what the feeling of the House is, and if I take the feeling of all sides of the House as it is revealed here, then I think the Government’s hands have been strengthened. All the areas that are faced with this problem are unanimous that the time has come to introduce legislation.

The hon. member may not now advocate legislation.

I realise that, Mr. Chairman. But I think that the Government’s hands will be strengthened. When the Minister of Finance a few years ago had this portfolio, he was faced with this problem. The present Minister is faced with it. He made a concession to me in respect of an important case in my area. In Krugersdorp we have fought the Indians to a standstill, and if those friends had been with us then they also would perhaps have reached that position. In conclusion I want to say this to the hon. member.

He does not understand you.

That is his own fault. I hope that the time has come when the Minister will give his attention to this matter and I am convinced that he will get the unanimous support of this House for a Bill. It is a problem that is becoming worse from day to day, and the longer we wait, the more difficult it will be to solve this problem.

At 6.10 p.m. the Chairman stated that, in accordance with the Sessional Orders adopted on the 28th January and 11th 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 29th March.