I move—

It is not my intention to give a lengthy survey of this Bill. For the information of the House I want to state that the matter has been submitted to the Law Societies and all interested parties, and I think I am correct in saying that the Bill is practically an agreed measure. The history of the Bill goes back to February, 1931, when the then Minister of Justice convened a conference of Masters at Pretoria and the recommendations were unanimously agreed upon. Due to pressure of work and legislation the Bill was not introduced. The Conference submitted a number of amendments which were very necessary. Subsequently, in 1924, the Masters again assembled, again with the same result. There has been considerable pressure from all sections for the introduction of this Bill. I may say that the main feature is Chapter 3, Clauses 59-72, dealing with Administrators. Some very necessary provisions are introduced here and in this particular respect unanimity had been obtained. It is very essential that the Administrators should be subjected to a certain amount of control by the Masters, it is very much in the interests of minors and other beneficiaries. The Bill also deals with a number of other matters dealt with from time to time in legislation, and which will not only simplify the liquidation of estates and the distribution but will result in the reduction of costs of administration. That, I think, is a very necessary provision. I need only refer to a few sections. The question of the jurisdiction of Masters in relation to mentally disordered persons is now clarified by Clause 4, Sub-Clause (ii). The present uncertainties have given rise to delay. In future it will be unnecessary for such delay to occur as all communications can be made to the Masters direct. There are a certain number of clauses which I can just refer to very briefly—I don’t propose going into details now as it is the intention to go into all these matters in detail in Committee, but the clauses to which could refer as Clauses 15, 17 (2) (a), 18 (4), 24 (2). These are the most important ones; and Clause 29. A new procedure in connection with creditors’ claims is introduced in Clause 24. It closely follows Clause 35 in the Insolvency Act and will have the effect of facilitating the winding up of estates. There are important alterations in Clauses 35, 45, and others. For instance, where an executor purchases the assets of an Estate he has to have the sale confirmed by the court, and this procedure leads to delay in liquidation. Sometimes the confirmation is no more than a formality, particularly when the consent of all persons interested in the Estate has been obtained to the sale. Now, by Clause 50 any sale may be confirmed by the Court. And similarly, there are a number of other clauses which I shall not weary the House with now. As I have said this matter will be dealt with fully in Committee. In conclusion I again want to say that this Bill has been very fully considered by the Law Societies. They again in conjunction with the law advisers and also the Trust companies, have gone into this matter, and the Bill before the House is in the nature of an agreed and consolidating measure. I now move the second reading.

I want to lodge a protest. I cannot understand why a Bill of this importance, which consists of 110 clauses and 75 pages, should be introduced into this House a few days before the Second Reading. This is a Bill that should have gone around among the population for at least 12 months to ascertain what the position is. It should have been known to the public for at least six months, that is the least period. It is now alleged that this Bill will consolidate all the other laws, and that the Masters of the Supreme Court were consulted, and that the Chambers were consulted and also the Law Society. As regards the Law Society, I just want to say that it is a good body and that I also think that it consists of honest people who would like to do their best, but the Bill was certainly not distributed among legal experts. The members of the Society had no authority. I have had only a short while to read swiftly through the Bill, but I was not in a position to draft amendments for the improvement of the Bill, and I cannot stand up and argue about the measure. I consider that a Bill of this nature ought not to be introduced so late in the session, and much more time should be given members to go into the principles. For that reason I feel entitled to protest. I want to go further and say that when a Bill of this nature, in respect of which it is alleged that it will put right all the difficulties that existed in the past in connection with the administration of estates, is introduced, then there should be no objection to the public being given an opportunity to go into it thoroughly, and to see whether the changes that are proposed are justified. At a swift perusal of the measure I saw certain things against which I object. I do not see why the heirs of the longest-living or even the creditors cannot nominate an executor. That is where there is no will. The old rule was that the longest-living has the right to nominate the executor, and if there is no surviving spouse then the children or other heirs, and ultimately the creditors. It is now proposed that the Master should have the right to appoint a person himself if he is not satisfied. It may sound very nice, and it may be said that there are perhaps heirs who cannot judge for themselves, but I consider that it is their property and they must have the right to say whom they want to appoint. If it is said that the Master can intervene only in exceptional cases, then that may be so, but we know how things happen and how stories are spread in certain cases, and it seems to me to be a wrong step. There are quite a few other things in the Bill with which I do not agree. I have sent the Bill to my office and they have drafted about twenty-five amendments which I have not yet gone into. The reason why we have to come year after year with amending legislation is due to this sort of hasty legislation. There is always something wrong with legislation that is adopted head over heels. It is our duty as an Opposition to go into the Bills and to ensure that good laws are adopted. We must therefore be in a position to go into the measures carefully. It does not help if the Minister says that certain interests were consulted. I am not satisfied with that. So far as the Law Society is concerned, the Bill was not distributed among members. Even here in the city there are attorneys who are dissatisfied. Then there is one big principle that one must also bring up for discussion in connection with such a measure. It will avail nothing to hide it. There is one thing that this country must look in the face, and that is whether the banks should be entitled to administer estates. Some say that the banks should be enabled to do it, but others are decidedly opposed to it. The position is simply that on the platteland no attorney can exist if we have to compete with the banks. One often finds three or four attorneys on the platteland in one town, but they cannot exist if they cannot get estate work, and get auctioneering work, and all sorts of other things. They render meritorious services to the community, but they cannot exist if they have to compete with the banks. We remember the years when there was a shortage of attorneys. There was often only one attorney or perhaps two in the district, and at that time a person had sometimes to go to the Cape from my constituency to consult a solicitor. The same position will again arise if the banks do all the work. The banks have a great advantage in obtaining estates. A man goes to the bank and perhaps needs the bank at some time or other, and then they ask him who has his estate and where his will is. In that way they gain possession of his estate. The man must make use of the bank and then he feels that he should hand his estate to the bank for administration. The bank moreover loses nothing. They are in possesion of security of the people and if the one man goes insolvent then they have a grip on the man who endorsed the security. Through the grip that they have on the people, they get possession of the estate. I therefore warn the Minister that if the banks get all the work more such conditions as we have had in the past will arise. And so far as their politics and policy are concerned the banks are controlled externally. The directorates are overseas. I say that if the country wants the legal profession to die then let us be told so. That will happen if things go on as they are going on now. Legislation is now adopted to protect the public, and there is special insurance against losses. The money in connection with estates and trusts is paid in and there is insurance against losses, so that nobody need be afraid of losing his money. I am told that in Cape Town and all the big cities the banks have separate offices dealing only with these matters. They train people in connection with it, and the upshot of the matter is that the work is taken away from the attorneys on the platteland. The result will be that when people on the platteland need legal advice then they will have to spend money to go to the city to obtain advice. That is something we must prevent. It may be said that the matter should not be raised now, that it should be discussed later. But the banks also realise what is going on, and they possess the financial power, and I prophesy that no legislation of the kind will be adopted by this House so long as this Government is in power, because it is their supporters, and the Government will not dare to adopt such legislation. I feel a bit hurt about the whole business. With my long experience I might have been helpful. Now I have not even had the opportunity to study the measure properly. The measure will now be disposed of in a short space of time, and just now there will apparently again have to be amending Bills. I would like to assist the Minister, but then he must not set to work as he is doing now. I therefore propose—

I second.

The very comprehensive terms of this Bill are such that it should be made available to the country at large, before it is passed into law. There is no doubt that to introduce a Bill of this sort, when the Session is so near its end, is to legislate in a hurry on a matter which is of very great moment to a very large number of persons,—in fact it may be of great moment to any one of us in whatever walk of life we may happen to be cast. There are a number of very gross abuses that continue under the existing legislation in regard to the administration of estates. Quite recently I was made aware of a case in which a solicitor who had during the lifetime of the testator control of the estate, managed to get himself appointed as administrator of the estate with considerable advantage to himself, and some years ago the heirs to a large estate in Natal had to pay away £10,000 in all to rid themselves of a similar incubus. There are a large number of practices of an undesirable kind that are possible and in some cases are already followed by persons under existing legislation, and I think the Minister of Justice would have been well advised to have given the public at large the opportunity of bringing forward their complaints in regard to existing legislation. There is no doubt that with the process of time these abuses spring up. There are a super-intelligent class of people at large who very quickly see the weak points in any law, and their methods are not of the standstill variety at all. They are constantly inventing new methods for appropriation and new methods for advancing their own interests, and I think the time has arrived when, if we are to legislate at all, we must legislate to provide barriers against the enterprise and skill of this kind of person. I hope the Minister of Justice will be disposed to agree to a thorough investigation of the subject of this Bill in the hope that he will be able to make it very largely watertight against assaults of the wicked. I know that the administration of estates presents a fruitful field for the man who wishes to advance himself, at the expense of heirs who are probably completely unversed in the difficulties of administration of estates, and I hope the Minister will realise the very wide feeling there is in the country for better protection to be provided for heirs, particularly minors, in the administration of estates.

I am a little disappointed that the Minister of Justice wanted such an important Bill to be disposed of virtually in five minutes’ time, and that he did not explain the various provisions of the Bill in more detail. We have to do here with estate legislation that comprises 110 paragraphs, and we would have liked to hear a little more about some of the provisions. I shall mention one thing for instance, the difference between letters of administration and letters of appointment of executors. We wanted to hear more about that. The Minister says that he can explain it at the Committee stage, but by then we may perhaps be so compromised by the principles we have adopted that we shall hardly be in a position of again altering those clauses. The rules of the House may perhaps prevent us from doing so. I had the opportunity during the past fourteen days of seeing the Bill in type, but when we have to do with such a radical Bill, which consolidates all the laws, then it is difficult to study such a measure in a few weeks’ time in which we also have other work to do. I want to know from the Minister if it is not possible to refer this Bill to a Select Committee. It is very difficult to comprehend immediately all the changes that are proposed when we do not have the chance of going through all the old laws. There are certain things in the Bill of which I approve, and which platteland attorneys with experience of estate work will approve. To mention one, take the case of claims against an estate in respect of which there is a dispute. It is a very good thing that such a claimant can be brought before the magistrate and put under oath. It puts us in a better position to see if his claim is legitimate or not. But where I agree with the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) is this—and the Minister has told us nothing about it—that when we come to the appointment of the executors we must provide in the Bill who the executors are going to be and who not. As the law now stands, we know that a person who is not in his right mind, etc., may not become an executor in an estate. But matters have developed from year to year, and we find that the position today is such that the platteland attorney is undermined so far as these services are concerned; they are gradually being squeezed out by the strong financial power with whom they cannot compete. We want the Minister to give us a proper opportunity of discussing this matter. We cannot discuss it all here, but we can do so in Select Committee. I do not know if the Minister intends accepting the proposal of the hon. member for Swellendam.

I am willing to refer the Bill to a Select Committee after the second reading.

The Minister says he is willing to refer the Bill to a Select Committee after the second reading. Then the principle is already adopted, and it may perhaps be difficult to insert a provision as to who may be the executors in an estate. If such a provision can still be inserted, then I am glad that the Minister is prepared to refer the Bill to a Select Committee after the second reading. There are many things in the Bill of which I approve, but there are also things in respect of which I entertain doubts. Take the position in connection with sworn valuators. It is provided that the sworn valuator may not be an interested person. The Master has never accepted a sworn valuator who has anything to do with the estate. What is now provided in the Bill was already applied in practice in the past. I have here a number of notes about the Bill, but if the Minister is prepared to refer it to a Select Committee after the second reading, I shall leave the matter at that, and bring these points to the attention of the Select Committee later.

I notice that the remarks of hon. members on the other side on this Bill are very fair. I had thought, in view of the fact that this Bill was given to the Law Societies, that it would perhaps not be necessary to send it to a Select Committee. On the other hand it is not in the least my intention of having this Bill adopted in haste. I was under the impression that there was unanimity in respect of the Bill. I am prepared to move after the second reading that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.

I am prepared to withdraw my amendment on the understanding that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee after the second reading.

With leave of the House, the amendment was withdrawn.

Original motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

I wish to move the amendment appearing in my name on the Order Paper as follows—

1. (2) Any person who, after the commencement of this Act, holds an office under the Crown by virtue of an appointment as a member of any council, committee, board or similar body not referred to in Sub-Section (1), and in respect of his services on such council, committee, board or body, receives no payment in excess of the expenses actually and reasonably incurred by him in the course of such services shall, notwithstanding any provision in any law authorising or requiring the payment of any remuneration or allowance to members of such council, committee, board or body, not be deemed to hold an office of profit under the Crown in terms of Section 53 of the South Africa Act, 1909, or of that Section read with Section 72 of the said Act.

It will be seen that the purpose of this amendment is to provide for all other cases in addition to those not covered by Clause 1, Sub-Section (1), Sub-Section (ii) deals with past conduct and affords condonation in respect of such past conduct. Clause 1 (i) deals with the membership of the bodies specifically set forth in that Sub-Section, and it is provided that membership thereof shall not be held to constitute an office of profit under the Crown, if the Member of Parliament holding such office does not receive more than an allowance of £3 3s. per day. In respect of the other cases the position will be, if this new Sub-Section (iii) is included in the Bill, that members of Parliament may serve on bodies or committees or similar organisations, provided they receive no payment in excess of expenses actually and reasonably incurred. It will involve a submission in each specific case of a statement of out-of-pocket expenses by the person concerned if he wishes to be reimbursed in respect of such expenses. The clause is drafted in such a way as to make it quite clear that, although a statutory fee or salary is payable to a member of any body or committee, that fact in itself will not render membership of such a body an office of profit under the Crown if the Member of Parliament waves his right to receive a fee, but only accepts out-of-pocket expenses. I think this clause now clarifies the position of members of Parliament, and makes the position of members of this House and of the Other Place less ambiguous than it was in the past, and I think the amendment as drafted is such as to meet the wishes of members on all sides of the House and is in accordance with public policy.

At a conference of all parties on this Bill, I had the impression that we came to a understanding, which is not quite clearly expressed by this amendment. I understood that we were going to delete all mention of the four Councils referred to here. We were to condone any infringements in regard to offices of profit which had occurred prior to the passing of this Bill. My understanding of the whole position was that any person appointed before or since the passing of this Act, who receives no payment except out-of-pocket expenses, shall not be regarded as holding an office of profit under the Crown. My reading of the latter portion of Section 1 and the amendment proposed by the Minister seem to be contradictory one to the other, and I cannot see any clarity in them. If hon. members refer to the latter part of Section 1 they will read, “receives no payment in excess of an allowance at the rate of three guineas for each day on which he renders service together with the reimbursement of any travelling expenses incurred, shall not be deemed to hold an office of profit under the Crown”, and then in the amendment “and in respect of his services on such Council, Committee, Board or Body receives no payment in excess of the expenses actually and reasonably incurred by him shall notwithstanding any provision in any law, etc. not be deemed to hold an office of profit under the Crown.” These two sections do not appear to be reconcilable. It may be due to my lack of legal knowledge, but personally I cannot see daylight in the two sections proposed.

The position is quite clear. The hon. member is correct that at the conference it was held—and the view was expressed by members of all sides of the House—that specific mention should be made of no body or boards but that there should be merely a general provision enabling members of Parliament to serve on boards if they received merely out-of-pocket expenses. The hon. member says that a decision was come to—well, a decision insofar as the conference could give a decision, was come to, but that had to be considered by the Government, and in the light of further consideration it has been decided to act in terms of the amendment which I have proposed this morning. Now, there is no conflict between Sub-Sections (i), Clause 1, and the proposed Sub-Section (iii) of Section 1. Sub-Section (i) provides that a member of Parliament may be a member of these specific bodies set out in the clause, provided he receives no more than £3 3s. per day for his services. The new Sub-Section (iii) provides that, with the exception of these bodies mentioned—we are now limited to these bodies—a member of Parliament may be a member of any board or committee only if he receives his out-of-pocket expenses. In respect of these bodies mentioned a member may receive his £3 3s. per day. In the case of other bodies, he may receive only out-of-pocket expenses. It may well be that in future Parliament may wish to add to these bodies. Parliament may wish members to serve on other bodies where they may receive the statutory £3 3s. per day, but we have to safeguard the position and it will be necessary for the Government to come to Parliament and Parliament will have to decide whether the circumstances justify an addition to the list. There is no conflict whatever between the provisions of these two sub-sections.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Remaining Clause and the Title having been agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill with an amendment.

Amendment considered.

Amendment in Clause 1 put and agreed to, and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

Bill read a third time.

I want to say another word or two about the question of internment, and I want to ask the Minister if he really thinks that it is still necessary to detain all the people who are in the camps today. At the beginning of the war the Government had a fright and put a whole lot of people in the camps. What justification there might have been for the Government’s attitude at the time is a matter into which I do not want to go now.

Are you now referring to Union nationals?

I am speaking exclusively about Union nationals. A large number of Union nationals have been interned, something that did not happen in the previous war, or at least not nearly on this scale. Is it really necessary today, and imperative in the interests of our country, to keep all those people in the camps? I think that the Minister and the Government must realise that this is a tremendous trial to those people and their loved ones. It is a suffering that continues from year to year, and those people ultimately find themselves in the spiritual condition of people who have received an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment. If there is danger, and it is necessary for that reason to lock up all those people, then let the Government continue with its policy, but we do not believe that the Minister can say that this is the case. The Minister cannot deny that there will now no longer be any danger to the country if a large number of those people are set free—I am referring to Union nationals who were interned at the beginning of the war. There are men who have been sitting there since the beginning, whose behaviour in the camp has been good, and who have experienced the suffering of the camps for years. I can mention the case of a person such as Dr. Trumpelman. The Minister has told me that the reason why he is kept there is because he is making a case against the Government. I do not want to say that that is the only reason, but that was said to me. He is a man with a wife and little children who will not know their father when he comes out. There are numbers of other cases I can mention here. My point is: Does the Government still consider those people a danger to the country—all those people who have been in the camp since the beginning of the war? I want to ask the Minister to take into review the case of those people to see if it is not possible to set them free on probation. If such a step is found to be wrong then they can put those people back again. But set them free on probation. I want to mention a few cases of persons who are ill. Last year I approached the Minister in connection with a petition from Union nationals which was sent to the Governor General. In connection with that I drew the Minister’s attention to the matter and asked him to consider the petition. I pointed out to him that these people will suffer from some complaint or other, and that for that reason the internment camp had become unbearable to them. The Minister has the list, and I shall not mention all the names here. I want to mention only a few. Here is a person who was 59 years, and who must now be 60 years of age. He has been in the camp for three years and he suffers severely from rheumatism. Then there was another person of 65 years, who is now 66 years, who suffers from bladder trouble that causes serious pain and complications. Then there is one of 47 years who suffers from diabetes; one of 44 years who suffers from asthma; one of 50 years who has only one kidney and suffers from chronic rheumatism; another who suffers severely from asthma and inflammation of the knee. These people have begged the Government to set them free so that they can get better treatment outside than they can obtain in the camp. There is thus the case of those who suffer from complaints and who have been locked up for more than three years. Apart from that I want to refer the Minister to the spiritual torture of these people, and cannot the Government then be merciful in this respect? There is no danger of trouble in the country, and I think the Minister ought to set the people free on probation. Place restrictions on them, but set them free so that they can again live with their loved ones, so that they can again be rehabilitated spiritually. No matter what the treatment in the camp may be, no matter how good it may be, it is a spiritual torture and trial in the worst degree to these people, and I want to ask the Government to take the whole matter into review, and to see whether these people who are ill and who are certainly no danger to the country cannot be set free. In the past years the Government perhaps considered it necessary to detain those people, but if the necessity existed in the past then it is surely not still necessary today to detain large numbers of them. Many of the causes have disappeared. The necessity for persecuting Union citizens, born Union citizens, in that manner no longer exists. The list I have mentioned here is of persons who are all born Union nationals. What justification has the Government for detaining those people there indefintely? I want to suggest to the Minister to reconsider the matter, and where it is in any way possible to set these people free on the conditions I have mentioned.

Over the week-end the Minister announced his representative Coloured Committee, or Advisory Committee. I want to say a few words about it, and put a few questions to the Minister. The first I would like to know is whether the Advisory Coloured Committee has been appointed purely with an eye to the election or whether it is going to be a permanent institution. The second question I would like to put is why the Minister appointed the Committee in this manner, and why he did not come with a motion to this House where we could have gone into the matter properly? We could then have dealt with this matter properly, exercised criticism, and brought about improvements, and we could have expressed our approval or disapproval. It is a strange way of acting. It is not peculiar of its kind so far as this Government is concerned, but I think nevertheless that the Minister should not have appointed this Committee, an appointment at State expense, without the matter having first been discussed here. It can be deduced from the fresh statement of the Minister that this Advisory Committee, as it is represented to be by the Government, will be there to serve the Government with advice as regards public matters and matters of social importance. All I want to say about it at this stage is that there are about twelve members on the other side of the House who sit there at the grace of the coloured vote. I thought that the twelve members would be sufficient to give the Government advice as regards coloured questions. I did not know that the twelve members were such poor representatives of their electors that the Ministers should find it necessary to appoint an Advisory Committee of this nature to serve him with advice. The whole matter strikes one as strange. The Government is now being openly attacked by certain sections of the coloureds, and now the Minister comes and appoints a few members on the Committee. The Minister appoints the Committee without asking the approval of this House, without adopting a statutory measure. That is peculiar. But evidently the Minister is also in a great hurry. I do not know what is driving him. He is in such a hurry that he announces the Committee before the membership has been completed. Is the Minister perhaps afraid to say that he will also appoint coloured representatives for the northern provinces? It is strange that while the committee will consist of fifteen coloureds he announces the appointment of only seven. The other eight have still to be appointed. Now we would like to know from the Minister how many of the fifteen will have to come from the northern provinces? I want to point out further that we have to do here with a great departure from what has been done in our country hitherto. The non-Europeans have the franchise only in the Cape, they have no franchise in the Transvaal and the Free State. In Natal they have a so-called franchise, but one’s mouth almost waters when one says that in some way or other the Natalians are outmanoeuvring the coloureds in true British fashion. In any case, the coloureds in the northern provinces have practically no franchise—not legally in the Transvaal and the Free State, and not in practice in Natal. Now I cannot understand why the Minister can give and is going to give representation to the coloureds in the northern provinces without first coming to this House and adopting a statutory measure. I would like to give the Minister the opportunity now of explaining why he is acting in this way.

Are you against the proposal?

I was about to congratulate the Minister. In the first place I want to offer him my sympathy regarding the enormous opposition he is experiencing, and secondly I want to congratulate him that he has got so far as to announce seven of the fifteen members. The Government shivered and quaked, the Minister’s knees knocked together, in consequence of the opposition of the coloureds, and we thought that he might yet capitulate. Now I want to congratulate him that he has had the courage to announce seven of the fifteen members. We sympathise with the Minister that there should be opposition from the coloured ranks, from the ranks of the electors on whom the twelve members on his side of the House are dependent. The Minister should have known that there would be opposition in connection with any measure that savours of segregation. Any measure that has the least appearance of segregation will elicit such opposition. We experienced it in connection with the Natives’ Representative Council. When it was dealt with here there was terrible opposition, because it was described as a segregation measure, as the thin end of the wedge. Here we have the same instance again. The Minister should have expected the opposition. It will be said also of this coloured committee that it is the thin end of the wedge, and an attempt in the direction of segregation. That is where it is such a poor attempt, but the separate treatment of the coloured population will be described as a step in the direction of segregation. I am glad that the Minister has not succumbed to the opposition. The Minister is gradually becoming a convert to our segregation standpoint. The Minister has progressed considerably during the last few days. Last week with his Bill which amends the Electoral Laws, he moved a few points in our direction. I must say that this attempt of his is but a poor attempt in the direction of separate treatment for the coloured community, but one can yet call it a segregation attempt. Now I would like the Minister to get up and give us the assurance that there is no Communist or persons with Communist tendencies among the members of the committee whom he has so far appointed, and that also as regards the eight who have still to be appointed, the appointment of persons with Communist tendencies will be avoided. I would like to know if the whole committee will consist of non-Europeans? Or will there also be Europeans on the committee? One would regret it greatly if it is to be a mixed committee, and it would be a serious departure from what we have done hitherto. I will leave the matter here, because I would like the Minister to make a statement on why he appointed such a committee without proposing a statutory measure. [Time limit.]

May I invite the attention of the Committee to a few matters in connection with the Census Department. The Minister probably knows that there are continual complaints, and I think, with some justification, that the cost of living figures issued by the Census Department do not always coincide with the actual cost of living as experienced by the ordinary housewife, and in addition to that there is always the difficulty that the cost of living allowance that is paid from time to time in pursuance of these cost of living allowances is considerably behind the actual costs of living. Recently a Trade Union Advisory Committee to the Prime Minister made a suggestion that a statistical bureau be set up which could arrange to issue these cost of living figures more scientifically and more expeditiously than is the case at the present moment, and I would like to know from the Minister whether he will be prepared to take up the matter with the Census Department. Another matter in that connection to which I would like to draw the attention of the Minister is the fact that complaints, and I think justifiable complaints, are continually made by employers that under the present arrangements they have to send in a multiplicity of details on all sorts of subjects. In many cases these details are repititions, and it involves unnecessary delay and expense, and I would like the Minister to consider whether he will not make arrangements with the Census Department that they should call for a comprehensive return from all these employers, and then they can allocate these returns to the individual departments concerned, or to the control boards concerned, and so save a great deal of time and expense to those who have to send in the returns.

I would like to ask the Minister if he does not think the time has come for him to reconsider the internment of Union nationals. I want to plead on behalf of the children whose fathers are in the camps. The Minister must remember that the gratitude of a child goes very far and the Minister now has the opportunity of setting the fathers of the children free. I read recently that the coloureds say that the Minister is the most-hated politician in the country. If he goes on in the way in which he has carried on for the past few years, the Boer nation will also be of that opinion. The Minister now has the opportunity of preventing this. Children whose fathers are in the camps miss the presence of their fathers. The guidance of the father is missed, and the Minister is in position to set free those people who did not commit serious crimes. One sometimes finds persons in the internment camps who got there because other people had carried stories. It must be known to the Minister that only a coward carries stories so as to obtain a few pounds, but unfortunately too much notice was taken of such people. I say therefore that the Minister should reconsider his standpoint and should see if he cannot set some of the people free. I am thinking of one young man who sits there. I am thinking of a teacher who made a certain speech. In this time in which we live, a period of commotion and excitement, a person might perhaps get up and in a moment of excitement deliver a speech which he would not have delivered under normal circumstances. For that reason the teacher is sitting in the internment camp. Does the Minister not think that this person has been punished sufficiently? For all those months he has lost his salary, and he cannot be reinstated in his work, but he can be of great assistance to his father on the farm. His parents live on a farm and he can help them there. There are more such cases, and the Minister has a golden opportunity of diminishing the hate which the Boer nation will otherwise bear against him. Otherwise he will be looked upon as a person filled with hate and vengeance and the lust for persecution. Let him show mercy. I just want to address these few words to the Minister.

When we were discussing the question of Indian penetration on Friday last, the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) rose in this House and made a somewhat spirited attack on Natal members, and he accused us of not having tried to fight against the Indian menace in the past, and that we were only taking up the matter at the present time. I want to refute that statement most definitely. I am sorry the hon. member is not in his seat this morning, because I should have liked him to hear what I have to say. I have been in public life now for 20 years, starting with the City Council of Durban, and during the whole of my period of public work I have endeavoured to fight against this Indian menace, and I have informed the public of the dangers that beset them. In 1932 I presented to the Government a petition signed by the people of Natal. I am not quite sure of the number of signatories of that petition, but I think there were something in the neighbourhood of 30,000 signatories, pleading with the Government to take up this question of Indian penetration, both as regards residential areas and as regards trade. The hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) was then the Minister of the Interior, and after I had presented this petition he rose and said that the Government would take up the matter. The Government accepted the position, and said they would consider the matter. But as usual, nothing was done. I have frequently made speeches in this House pointing out the dangers of Indian penetration in Natal. When two or three years ago the Government introduced a measure to control the position in the Transvaal, we members of Natal urged the Government to allow that measure to apply to Natal as well. But again Natal was left to “stew in its own juice,” although the position in the Transvaal was protected. Since the war we have certainly not spoken as openly as we have hitherto done, but we have had frequent interviews with the Minister, and urged him to try to do something to stop this Indian penetration in Natal. In November last the Administration of Natal and the Mayor of Durban asked the Minister of the Interior to receive a deputation in Pretoria. I was not at all well at the time, but I nevertheless took the opportunity of going up to Pretoria in order to support the deputation. The deputation of the Provincial Council consisted of the Administrator and two members of the Provincial Executive. The deputation of the City Council of Durban consisted of the Mayor and two of the leading City Councillors. The hon. member for Greyville (Mr. Derbyshire) and I were also present to support the Parliamentary aspect of the case. We more or less came to a decision at that meeting. But the Minister asked us to consider the matter as confidential, and we have observed his wishes in that respect, and I am not going to break this confidence. But although we thought at the time, that the matter was going to be settled, when we got to Parliament in January we were told that the whole thing was “washed out”.

Your facts are entirely incorrect when you say that.

I am only saying what I believe to be the truth. If I am wrong I am sorry, but I am saying what I believe to be the truth. I certainly would not stand up in this House and say anything which I did not think was true. The Minister will have an opportunity of correcting me, if I am wrong. It is not only the question of encroachment in residential areas that is so serious, but what is equally serious is the encroachment in trades. A short while ago I put a question to the hon. Minister of Labour in regard to the encroachment of Indians in trades in Durban, and this was the reply I received. I asked how many trade unions there were in Durban in which Indians predominated. The reply was that there were 35. Thirty-five trade unions in Durban in which Indians predominate. I would like to read out what these trades are, in order to show the House to what extent the Indians are encroaching. These are some of the trades: Durban Laundry Cleaners and Dyers, Tobacco Workers’ Union, Twine and Bag Workers’ Union. Durban non-European Bus-employees, Natal Biscuit Factories and Natal Iron and Steel Workers. I do not want to take up the time of the House by reading out too many of these trades, but there are 35 in all.

Why do you say it is penetration?

Of course it is penetration. This has taken place in recent years, and it has increased from year to year. I have not much more time at my disposal, and I shall be glad if the hon. member will not interrupt me. Let me now give the number of members of these Unions: Coloured 847; Europeans 2,534; natives 5,693 and Indians 16,617. In 35 trades in Durban the employees are predominantly Indians, and all this has happened during the last few years, and the position is getting worse and worse every day. When our boys get back from the Front, there will be no jobs left for them if this goes on. The position is very serious, and I do hope the hon. Minister will take into consideration not only this question of encroachment in residential areas, but also the serious encroachment in trades.

This is perhaps the first time I have agreed with the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate). I have also travelled a little through Natal, any anyone who goes there must be impressed by the position that is developing there. I agree that the Indian question is one of the most difficult to solve in our country. I do not want to go into the matter of how the question originated, but I was told in Durban that the most big hotels there are run with Indian capital. The Indians do not run the hotels themselves, but they use Europeans to do so. But if that already happens in Durban what is the future to bring? Not only Durban, but the whole coast of South Africa, swarms with Indians. The same question exists in Kenya and Nyassaland. We must realise that if Natal is not assisted then it will shortly become an Indian colony. Everything will belong to the Indians and the Europeans will be there as poor whites within the next 20 years unless the problem is solved. I want to say something, however, about the penetration of coloureds in our interior towns. I want to speak about Middelburg and Cradock. From year to year, even from month to month, this penetration is assuming serious shape. Nothing can be done to keep the coloureds out of the European residential quarters. I have just received a report that a coloured person in Middelburg has bought a house for £1,350 in the middle of the European area. We are not against the coloured because he is a coloured. An educated coloured once said to me: “We do not want to be Europeans, we also do not want to be kaffirs; we want to be coloureds, but you must help us to be coloureds. All these years we have been the buffer between the Europeans and the kaffirs. The Europeans are very proud of their handiwork, and we are the handiwork of the Europeans.” What is the solution? Segregation. Keep them within their own limits. Give them housing, separate residential areas, let them develop in accordance with their own desire. It can be done and it must be done immediately, otherwise an untenable position will arise also on the platteland. We want the demarcation, but we also want to protect the coloureds, who are a part of South Africa, and to assist them to maintain their existence and their views. Then I also want to ask if it is still necessary to detain all the persons who are still interned, particularly also the few from the Midlands. They are surely not a danger. From my constituency there are still about four or five who are in the camp. The Minister has met me in respect of two cases, two young boys who are now on the farm of their father. But there are still a few other cases. There is for instance one case in Cradock of a man who perhaps got a little beyond himself as regards his language. Perhaps he was a little under the influence of liquor, and he said something which he should not have said. He has been interned for two years now. Is it necessary to keep him there longer?

Give me his name.

Certainly. Then there are still two other cases which I have already brought to the attention of the Minister, and I hope he will treat them sympathetically. If he considers it necessary they can be kept in the town under supervision. The police are there. It will be of great help to the families if the men can return. These are families in which there are perhaps four or five children. No sabotage has been committed in our area, so that these persons cannot be accused of that. I hope they will be set free as soon as possible.

Mr. Chairman, you will agree with me that the Minister of the Interior has seldom given a poorer reply than the one he gave us last Friday when he replied to the discussion on this Vote. In the first place he did not consider it worthwhile to reply to the questions which we put to him clearly, namely in connection with what is lurking at the back of the Government’s mind in connection with the increase of £100,000 on the estimates for internments. The Minister tried to get out of the difficulty by hiding in the first place behind the manner in which appeals may be lodged; he tried to hide behind the Appeal Commissioner; and then he came to light here with certain extracts from letters to tell us how wonderfully well the internees are faring. I want to go into these two points in the brief time at my disposal, and in a few words. The Minister insists that the Appeal Commissioner and the methods of lodging appeals are absolutely satisfactory. He contradicted himself with the figures which he read out here to the House—when he informed us how many of the internees simply do not avail themselves of the right of appeal. Why do they not make use of this right? Purely and simply because this method of lodging an appeal is a farce; and I want to mention instances to prove this. Here we have the case of three persons from Barberton, namely Wagner, Coetzee and Pretorius. A court was instituted under the jurisdiction of the Magistrate of Fauresmith, who went to hear these people in the camp. But before the court sitting one of those who came with Commandant Louw from Ermelo made the statement, which I heard myself, that it did not matter what the decision of the court was; these persons would remain interned anyway. Is not that a proof that these methods of appeal are a farce? The court sat and on 23rd December these persons were found not guilty by the magistrate.

Not guilty of what?

Not guilty of the charge brought against them. The court held its sitting in the camp, and on the 23rd December these persons were found not guilty. On the 11th January a further deputation came from the Department to find further evidence against these persons. They came there and they called six persons out of the camp to give evidence, and among the six was a person who had previously declared to Lt. Diederichs that the statement which he had made previously against those people was false; that he did it simply because he was intimidated. He was called up again, and he was asked if he would not submit further evidence against the Barberton people. He again made the statement that his previous evidence against the Barberton people was false. And now we come to the most serious part of the case. I challenge the Minister to show me that on any of the files of those twenty-three Barberton people a note was made to say that the statement of P. J. Venter against them was false. The Minister knows that the statement was false. I discussed the matter with him personally, and I know that he knows that it was false. He knows that the statement was made to Lt. Diederichs that the previous statement was false. It was admitted in my presence that the statement was false, and it was also stated in the Charge Office that the statement was false. But I say that there is no note on the files of any of those people that the statement was false, and consequently the Commissioner of Appeal does not know that the statement against those people was false. The information is submitted to him, and on the strength of that information he must decide if the people are guilty or not, and yet we find that in that information no mention is made that the statement made against those people was false. In such circumstances the appeal method is a farce. The Commissioner of Appeal must decide if the people are guilty and if they must be interned, but when the people’s appeal comes before him then he does not dispose of all the facts. So we can go on mentioning numbers of instances. I have here other cases, but I do not want to mention them now. I have here a case of a police official against whom there was the charge that he made certain utterances against the Government. He was fined £25 and dismissed from the Service. Notwithstanding the fact that he served his sentence he was arrested again within fourteen days thereafter and interned, and the reasons for his internment were precisely the same as these for which he was punished by the court. So I can go on mentioning numbers of cases to prove to the House that no Commissioner of Appeal is able to decide in respect of such cases. No, I think we must ask the Minister again to change this method and to appoint a commission which will sit on fixed days, and before whom persons can appear in the interest of those people; they must have the right to be represented by legal representatives, so that justice may be done them. They must also have the right of access to the reasons for which they are interned. Because it is a fact that the internees do not always know all the reasons for which they are interned. The Minister told us that they receive a summary of it. The internee is thus in the position that he does not know precisely what the charges against him are, and how in the name of heaven can the Minister expect those persons who are not legal people to be able to prove their innocence if they do not even know what all the reasons for their internment are? I want to go over to another matter, and that is the life in the camps. The Minister led us to believe that life in the camps is wonderfully good. I wonder if the Minister is informed as to what is really happening there. We have heard how those people get all they want. I want to mention a few things here of what those people in the camps have to buy, and I want the Minister to take notice of how the prices of these commodities in the camps compare with the prices outside. Vienna sausages cost 1s. 6d. a tin outside the camp, and inside the camp they cost 1s. 8d.; Bully Beef costs 1s. 7d. a tin outside the camp, and inside the camp 2s.; cotton costs 7½d. outside the camp, and 1s. inside the camp; tea costs 3s. 4d. outside the camp, and in the camp 4s. 3d.; raisins cost 9½d. outside the camp, and 1s. in the camp. Milk is plentiful in Koffiefontein and outside any quantity can be bought at from 11d. to 16d. per gallon. But the people who suffer from stomach complaints and who must have milk, must pay 2s. for it in the camp. The Chamber of Commerce can buy watermelons at 1s. 3d. each for the best to be had in Koffiefontein. In the camp they are sold at 4s. each to the internees. Tooth brushes cost 1s. 6d. outside the camp. I saw the things packed, and I asked what the price was. In the camp the internees had to pay 4s. for them. Tooth powder costs 1s. 3d. outside, and in the camp 4s. 6d. Tinned tongue costs 2s. 3d. outside, and in the camp from 4s. 6d. to 5s. 6d. Knives cost 2s. outside the camp, and in the camp from 4s. 6d. to 5s. Socks cost 2s. 6d. outside, and inside the camp 8s 6d. Is it not an everlasting shame that this sort of thing should be allowed? I have here a long list of those articles, and there the Minister now sits and laughs. I know why he is laughing. He will say that he has nothing to do with it. No, the Minister has everything to do with it. He has deprived those people of their freedom. They cannot go and buy where they want to. The Minister has delivered them over to the Chamber of Commerce who have to buy these things and deliver them to the camp, and who then price these commodities. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Moorreesburg raised just now the question of the Coloured Advisory Council, and he put certain questions to the Minister in connection therewith. There has been considerable controversy outside the House in connection with this matter, and I am sorry that on the one hand there have been attacks on the motives of the people sponsoring this commission; I do not believe that those attacks are justified. On the other hand, I am sorry that those responsible should have expressed the opinion that the opposition to it came not from genuine concern, but simply in order to make trouble. I do not believe that that view is correct either. My information is to the effect that although a number of prominent coloured people are in favour of this commission, there are also a number of organisations that at all events up to now, have been opposed to it. Whether their opposition is due to misunderstanding I do not know, but I do want to draw the attention of the hon. Minister to this fact, as the hon. member for Moorreesburg has rightly said, that the coloured people are bound, in the first instance, to be suspicious of a move that looks like discrimination, that looks as though they are to be treated on a different basis to other sections of the community. It is the experience of those of us who represent the native people, that they have good reason to fear that, because ultimately it will take the form of economic discrimination. That, I believe, is the reason for this opposition, and I am glad that the hon. Minister has issued the statement that he issued to the Press this morning. That was a reassuring statement. But what does disturb me is this, as to why influential sections of the coloured people and organised coloured opinion should have opposed this, if there had been full consultation beforehand, and I want to ask the Minister, if he feels it in the public interest to do so, to say what measure of consultation with the coloured organisations took place before the appointment of this council. It is essential for the success of any body that is appointed that it should carry with it the support of the people whom it is intended to benefit, and I should like to ask the Minister to tell us what consultation there was. I also want to make this point, that what is essential now is to carry out a positive policy of putting into effect the main recommendations of the coloured commission that was appointed a number of years ago. That commission issued a very good report, a report which focussed the attention of the country on the economic plight of the coloured people, and I hope that the Government will now accept those recommendations and put them into effect.

Do you support the appointment of the Council?

I am asking for certain information. I do not know enough about it yet. I have been asked previously by a newspaper to give an interview and to state my views, but my reply was that I did not know enough about it.

An in the meantime you are dancing on eggs.

The speech of the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Acutt) was most enlightening to me, because it bore out what I have always felt, that the main ground behind the so-called segregation is an economic one and not a social one.

It is definitely social.

The Broome Commission has reported that the main reason for what the hon. member called penetration is lack of residential facilities for the Indian community. The employers in Durban employ Indians in various undertakings. In the Cape Peninsula the hon. member will find that the majority of the working classes here are coloured people, and apparently the majority of the working classes in Durban are Indians, but because they are employed and employed by European employers, the hon. member calls it penetration. We are obliged to him, and the Committee is obliged to him, for telling us exactly what penetration means to him. In his opinion “penetration” is the employment of Indians in ordinary occupations.

The appointment of the Coloured Advisory Council of which the hon. Minister has notified the Press must be considered against the background of the Coloured Fact-Finding Commission’s Report of 1938. I do not think that there should be any doubt if one looks back at the circumstances which gave rise to the appointment of that particular commission and studies its subsequent findings and recommendations that this Advisory Council has come into being solely as an endeavour on the part of the Government to give the coloured people of South Africa a fair deal. There has been a storm of whipped-up criticism from the coloured people in regard to this particular council, and I want to say that as far as I am concerned, and as far as all other members of the Peninsula are concerned, we consider that the establishment of this Council is an excellent move and a real gesture of goodwill towards the coloured people. One can, however, well understand the suspicion that has been aroused, because it is unusual for the non-European section to have something genuine offered to them. They are suspicious because in the past so many promises have been made which were not fulfilled. Promises were made by the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) for instance, when he was Minister of the Interior, when he told the coloured people that it was only a matter of time before they would get equal political rights. Other promises have been made which were not fulfilled, and it has made the non-European so suspicious of promises that, today, when genuine offers are made to them, they are inclined to view them against the background of Opposition propaganda with the greatest suspicion and fear. I am convinced in my own mind, and there are many coloured people who are also so convinced, that this gesture on the part, of the Minister and the Government is something which they can accept and which will, in the long run, if the members work in the same spirit in which the Council has been appointed, have nothing but good results for the coloured community as a whole. It seems to me an extraordinary thing however that the coloured people should have allowed themselves to be whipped up into such a state of excitement in regard to the appointment of this Council. It has been appointed on the eve of a General Election. Surely if there were anything wrong in the intentions of the Government connected with the appointment of this Council, the Government would not have chosen an occasion such as this to announce its establishment! We, in our party, in the past, have been supported by non-European voters. We have often been told by hon. members opposite that we owe our seats in the House to these non-European voters. I can say this that although a fairly large percentage of the coloured voters in my own constituency are absolutely opposed to the appointment of this Council, I am still prepared to say that I favour it wholeheartedly knowing the honesty of purpose underlying it. I hope the Government will continue with it.

If you adopt that attitude you won’t get back again.

That threat does not worry me. I am not here in the House simply because I want to be here. My record, on which I stand, shows that I have tried to represent adequately and fairly those who have honoured me by electing me, and I would be failing in my duty to my coloured constituents if I did not try to prevent them making a fatal mistake in refusing to accept a golden opportunity for improving their lot in life. I want to refer now to one or two points which have been raised in connection with the appointment of this Council. A body has been formed known as the anti-C.A.D. Committee and the secretary of that Committee, an Indian, writes in a bulletin issued yesterday that “the Government has defied the real wishes of the coloured people and flung its council of Judases into our face.” He goes on to say—

And then he gives the eight names. He writes further—

I do not know whether hon. members opposite agree with this view that it is a second instalment of segregation. I would like to hear them say so.

It is your trouble; ask your Minister.

There is no reply from that side, because I am sure that they are fully satisfied that it is not a segregation move. There is no intention behind the appointment of this Council to bring about segregation in any form whatsoever. The whole idea is to form a Council which will be able to advise the Minister on all questions effecting the coloured people. It has been said that we have the report of the Fact-Finding Coloured Commission before us and that no Department of State has taken the trouble to implement or carry out the recommendations contained in the report of that Commission. The recommendations of that Commission affected, however, several State Departments, Provincial Councils, local authorities and other bodies, and it amounted to this that the report was nobody’s baby. Now the opportunity occurs, through the Coloured Advisory Council, to co-ordinate them in one channel and to urge their implementation. Again as a result of the war, other problems affecting the coloured people are arising. For instance, we find coloured men who were employed before the war in agricultural areas, joining up. Today they are receiving better pay in the army than they have ever received. Many of them are being discharged, and many of them will subsequently be demobilised. Those who have already been discharged are objecting to taking up employment outside at a lower rate of pay than they receive in the army. The question is how are we going to get these people to go back to the land, and at the same time enable them to get a rate of pay commensurate with the rate of pay they received in the army. It is in matters of this kind that the Council can function and advise the Minister. They may ask the Government to consider the question of subsidising farm labour. This Council can bring forward many other suggestions which can be of value to their own community and will at the same time assist the Government. Rather than regard these coloured men who have accepted appointment to the Commission as Judases, I would suggest to the coloured people that they should—as they will do eventually—regard them as men of great moral courage who, in the face of the greatest possible opposition from their own people, are prepared to serve on this Council in the belief that what they are doing is for the welfare and ultimate wellbeing of their people. There is one thing I want to ask the hon. Minister and that is whether it is the intention of the Government to have published an annual report of the proceedings of the Council, so that members of the House and the public outside may be kept aware of the various suggestions put forward by the Council to the Government from time to time. I think that is necessary because it will also indicate very conclusively, in my opinion, if the Council is doing good work on behalf of those whom they have been chosen to represent.

I regret that the hon. member for Cape Flats (Mr. R. J. du Toit) is such a stranger in Jerusalem as to ask what the policy of this side of the House is in connection with the coloureds. The policy of the Nationalist Party is well-known, and if the hon. member does not know what that policy is, then he can go and look at our Programme of Principles. Then he will be informed on the subject of what we stand for. But the members on the other side have involved themselves in such a thorny position that they now realise that they are falling into disfavour with their European electors. They try to sit on two stools and they burn themselves in such a way that they do not know which side to jump off. I want to congratulate the hon. member, however, on his attitude in so far as he intimated on what side he stands. I can only prophesy to him that there is a warm time ahead for him, and perhaps this is going to be one of the decisive factors in persuading the Government to make another plan and to postpone the Election—otherwise a lot of them on the other side will not return. On the same point in connection with the coloured question, I regret that the Minister took up the Indian question so lightly. It has been repeatedly stated by this side and also by the representatives of Natal that the time has come, and that this question has become so serious, for a statement of policy to be made by the Government in connection with this matter. But the Minister has less courage than the hon. member for Cape Flats, because he does not want to say what his policy is. We want the Minister to get up and tell us that the Government is going to do this or that in connection with the Asiatic question. I have in my hand a letter that was sent to the leader of the Opposition this morning by an English-speaking person. I am not going to mention the name, but the person agrees wholeheartedly with us that this is a very serious question. He encloses an advertisement in connection with the restaurant in which everybody is welcome, and where the penetration of Indians is taking place on an enormous scale. I want to quote a few sentences from this letter. The hon. member for Cape Town, Castle (Mr. Alexander) can tell us whether the contents of the letter are correct, because it comes from the vicinity of Woodstock, and he knows conditions there. After this person described the conditions there, he says this inter alia—

He goes on in this tone and he encloses the advertisement to show the penetration that is taking place there. The people are becoming embittered, and are coming into opposition against the Government, and now the Government is coming forward with the pretence of a Coloured Commission which the Minister is appointing to advise him in connection with coloured affairs. The fact remains that thousands of his supporters are filled with disgust, as this person writes—“I am getting disgusted, and many more like me.” Whether it is due to the stubborn fight of this side of the House against the penetration of Indians I do not know, but that is the position. Does the Minister know what has happened in Natal? I have asked the Minister what the reply of the Government was to the various representations from Natal. Now I read in the newspaper this morning that the Indians in Natal are coming to the Government with a serious threat, and we would like to hear from the Government in how far it is willing to surrender to this threat. It is said: “If the Union Cabinet proceeds with any pegging Bill ….” (the Minister has not yet replied to what we asked last week, viz. whether he is going to introduce a Bill in connection with this) … . “against the Indians of Natal, then they must ask the High Commissioner to request the Government of India to recall him as a protest.” I would like to know if our Government is going to heed the protest to the detriment of South Africa.

Then I read further—

Two deputations are coming to the Minister. What is he going to do?

He is going to put on his red cap again.

Is the Minister going to surrender to their representations to the detriment of South Africa? Is the Minister going to consult the representatives of Natal who have also urged this matter? Is he going to postpone the matter in order to obtain a few thousand Indian votes at the next Election? Or is he going to adopt legislation in the interests only of the Europeans of South Africa? I hope we are going to get a definite statement from the Minister regarding the policy of the Minister. This Indian question is one of the greatest questions today and it should no longer be allowed to develop. I hope the Minister will let us know what the attitude of the Government is.

I want to ask the Minister whether it is not possible before people are arrested to be interned to make sure that there is a legal charge against them. I am thinking for example of Count Genis of Potgietersrust. If the Minister asks the English-speaking people themselves in the vicinity, they will say that Genis is a person who has never taken part in anything political. He is a man who is a member of important bodies and he was originally a member of the Ossewa-Brandwag, but at the beginning of the war when the riots broke out, he resigned, because he felt that the positions which he held did not permit of his later falling under suspicion. On a certain day when persons removed explosives, and on the instigation of a certain person, a portion of it was deposited on Mr. Genis’ farm. I myself have been to the place. It was placed there openly and without cover. Simply because the person said that the stuff must be put there. Mr. Genis was arrested and is today in the camp. The Minister has no doubt seen the statement of Genis. Possibly statements were made by neighbours or enemies of his, so that he landed in the camp. Now the matter has been referred to appeal, but we understand that the appeal was rejected. With the knowledge I have of this man, I feel convinced that he is innocent. Can there not be a proper investigation before people are put into a camp. Another case I want to draw attention to is that of G. G. du Plessis. He originally enlisted in the army, but was later dismissed and then again joined the police. On a certain day he went to a gathering with certain other people, and then he was told there that they would exercise with handgrenades, etc. Simply because another policeman, who was an accomplice and who was present there and who was afraid that he would get into trouble, made a statement. Du Plessis is today in the camp and the other man is walking about free. I made representations to the Minister and he said that I should see him again in January. Now I am told by the Control Officer that Du Plessis cannot now be released, because certain cases have again occurred of the blowing up of houses, and therefore Du Plessis cannot be released. Is it fair to keep people in the camp longer because there are other people outside who do wrong? Simply because there are other people who have done something outside with which the Government is not satisfied, people must now be detained longer in the camp. An ordinary criminal who is sitting in gaol surely is not detained for a longer period because outside the gaol other people are doing wrong. They are treated worse than criminals. The law of appeal does not appear to mean anything. I must strongly doubt the decisions. It appears to me that the judgments are simply intended to keep the people there, not to protect people. Then I would also like to say a few words about the penetration of coloureds and natives into urban areas. It is the same position as it is in connection with the Indians. I am thinking for example of the suburb Claremont in my constituency. Next to Claremont there is a coloured or native location, Lady Selborne, and the coloureds and natives penetrate into Claremont like red locusts. You cannot prevent them. There is nothing to prevent them. The City Council is powerless, because in the conditions of sale of property there, there is no provision that coloureds and natives may not reside there. They are coming nearer and nearer to the city. I can do nothing. Only the Minister can assist. I would like to know what he intends doing in ths connection.

I do not quite agree with the statement made by the hon. member for Cape Western. The position is that the Indian population in Natal almost equals the European population, and the reason is that the majority of the Indians in Natal are the descendants of the indentured Indians who were brought to the Coast of Natal from India to organise and carry out the labour requirements of the sugar industry. The thousands of Indians are employed in the sugar industry, and in their thousands also they are the market gardeners of the cities of Natal. They have followed the callings of their fathers and I must say that they are very useful people. I do not know what the cities would have done without the Indian gardeners for vegetables. When the Voortrekkers founded these beautiful cities of Natal, Durban and Pietermaritzburg, they planned them and when they planned them they created broad streets. In both these cities there was an Indian community in an Indian quarter, and that is where the trouble began. The Indian quarters attracted the merchant princes of India. They started their mercantile businesses there, and the motto of all Indian business is this: “That co-operation is better than competition for making profits.” They carry out that principle, and it is these Indian merchant princes who have formed strong syndicates and they can outbid any Europeans for the properties they require. In both the business and residential quarters. Then they adopt this method, that in the residential quarters they will buy a property, they will outbid anyone else, knowing that in buying they are also buying the adjoining properties. As time goes on the neighbours are anxious to get out and sell. Those Indians have not got our mode of living; they have not got our methods. And these people living in that neighbourhood are anxious to sell and they sell at any price so as to get out. So the very high price paid for the initial purchase is made up by the low price for the adjoining properties which they may buy. I must say that in Natal the Durban Corporation are guilty of gross neglect as regards the housing of these Indians in Durban. It is an absolute disgrace. They provide houses of decent quality for Europeans. They have provided a good native township outside Durban, and those are splendid places. Every amenity is provided for the Europeans and for the natives, but the unfortunate Indian who is a master gardener in Durban is left there to live in houses which are disgraceful slums. Within the Borough of Durban, within two miles of the Town Hall, on the National Road, you find in one block, roughtly 150 acres of ground, overcrowded with Indians and in houses which are a disgrace. And a little further on beyond the Clairwood Race Course you have similar conditions. I cannot condemn too strongly the neglect of which the Durban Corporation is guilty in regard to the Indian community. One cannot speak too strongly about it. I should like to ask the Minister in replying to tell us whether he has received the report of the Broome Commission and to give us some information as to when the Government is likely to consider it and when it will be printed.

I find myself in perfect agreement with the remarks made by the hon. member for Maritzburg (Mr. Deane). There is one little point on which I don’t quite agree with him. That is that the City Council have not attempted to make provision for the Indians in regard to a housing scheme. The whole trouble is that immediately a housing scheme is put up, the Indians say that it is segregation, and of course, they will not look at anything which has the faintest resemblance to segregation about it. It is immediately boycotted. We have had members of this House talking about housing schemes. We have had members initiating legislation in this House in connection with housing schemes, and it is no credit to these members when you look at the conditions under which the Durban Indians are residing at the moment.

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

When business was suspended, I was making the point that there were people in this House who were sponsoring a housing scheme which, of course, is by the way, but it is germane to the discussion on account of the statement by an hon. member that the housing conditions for the Indians are deplorable. That is true, but the penetration that is taking place in Natal is not being committed by the poorer people of the Indian community. It is, as I have stated before, the rich Indian people of Durban who can afford to pay £1,000 or £2,000 for a house, and even up to £4,000 for properties in Durban, who are committing this penetration. We are anxious to hear the reply of the Minister to the statements made by the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Acutt). When the hon. member was addressing the House, the Minister repudiated certain statements of his, and it would be rather interesting to hear from the Minister which of those statements made by the hon. member are not correct. I was present at those meetings, and I must say that we are very sorry indeed that the Minister of the Interior has not been able to deal with this question satisfactorily. He could have dealt with it in a number of ways.

Why did you not press for this in 1937?

In 1937 we did press for it, when the Bill was under discussion. I am not concerned with what party was in power. The Nationalist Party was also faced with this question in 1925, when the Minister of the Interior shirked this problem. This Government is no better than the old Nationalist Party as far as this question is concerned.

It is worse.

It is probably worse. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) stated on Friday that we took no interest in this matter until recently. He said that in 1937 when the Transvaal laws were under discussion, we took no part in the debate. Mr. Stuttaford was in charge of the Bill at that time. I headed a deputation to him, and we asked whether the Government of Natal could not be brought under the same laws as the Transvaal, but we were told that there would be a Commission sitting shortly and that we should wait until the enquiry was held, that if it was necessary legislation would be introduced and that the Government was aware of the position, and all that sort of thing. We are not suggesting legislation today.

Why not?

Natal and Durban particularly are insisting on legislation. It is no use suggesting it.

The hon. member must come back to the vote; he must not discuss legislation.

A few years ago we suggested to the Minister that he should threaten the Indian community and that any legislation passed in this House should be retrospective.

I must ask the hon. member to avoid referring to the necessity for legislation.

As I have said, we are not interested any longer in suggesting legislation. We expect it. That is the position we have got to in Durban. The other day the hon. Minister stated in the Other Place that he was threatening the Indian community. Had this been done a few years ago when we suggested it, we would not have been faced with the present position. After this war many people will return from the North and find that their own properties, which they have bought with their life’s savings, will have depreciated by as much as 25 per cent. as a result of Indian penetration. That has been going on for the last three years. These are the things we warned the Minister about, and now practically every member in this House is insisting that something should be done in the interest of the Indians themselves; now at last the Government is prepared to take notice. It is deplorable that the Indian community should be bantered about the House in the way they have. As I have said, they have many friends in Durban, and it is regrettable that we should be placed in this position where it has become almost a racial matter. It is a social matter which has now become a racial matter, and the Government is guilty of creating that racialism, and it is to be hoped that the Government will not tell us that they want further evidence that penetration is continuing before they take any steps in the matter. It is there, and it is indisputable. [Time limit.]

To me two things of importance have come to light during the short time that I have been listening to this debate. The one is that that feigned unity no longer exists on the other side. The other is this, that while we in the past as Nationalists, as Afrikaners, in this House as well as outside, have urged that there should be a separation between European and non-European, between white people and Indians for example, we were always reproached that were inspired by racialism, that we wanted to place our feet on the neck of the Indian and the coloured, that we wanted to oppress them. We rejected that charge because we took the view that our policy was not the result of racialism, that it was not the result of a desire simply to suppress and oppress non-Europeans, but that it flowed from the natural point of view that you can only have peace in South Africa if there is a proper and effective dividing line between white and black. If there is one thing I am thankful about, then it is this: Today it is not only the members of the Nationalist Party who are advocating this point of view, but English-speaking members on the other side are now making the same plea, i.e. that if you want peace in South Africa, then there must be a dividing line between white and black, between European and non-European; then you must not allow non-Europeans to penetrate into European residential areas; and in this connection, with a view to recent happenings that have taken place in the country, I want to issue a serious warning to the Government. I want to warn the Government that if they do not make an end to these conditions which are rapidly developing in South Africa, then they will yet see a blood bath in South Africa. If these conditions continue, on the trains or elsewhere, a situation will develop in this country which nothing will be able to prevent. There will be a clash of such a nature that it will eventually result in a blood bath. The Government can take heed of this warning or it can ignore it, but if it ignores it, it will have to bear the responsibility in South Africa if these conditions develop further and result in a blood bath. You will not allow me at this stage to enlarge a little on this matter, to bring to light what has happened to me personally in Cape Town. It is not only among us Afrikaners that this feeling of absolute resistance exists against this deliberate neglect on the part of the Government as regards the white man’s rights in the social sphere. It is not only among us; he is also hearing from English-speaking members how there is resistance against this policy of his and his Government. I would like to come back to the question of internment in connection with what my hon. colleague, the member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) has already said. I want to register protest against the unnecessary dawdling and delay in connection with appeals and representations that are made by internees to the Minister and the Advisory Commissioner of Appeal to let justice be done to them. The hon. member for Winburg has pointed out that there are internees who have been sitting in internment camps for years already. Representations are made on their behalf, but those representations fall on deaf ears, or proper attention is not given to those representations. I now want to mention two cases of delay. I have here in my hand a whole correspondence which has been conducted between myself and the Minister and the Chief Control Officer in connection with the case of Mr. A. M. C. Theron of Brits. I want to draw attention to a few letters in this correspondence. At the beginning of January this person wrote to me from the internment camp that he had been detained for five months already and that no opportunity had yet been given to him to defend himself. On 13th February the Chief Control Officer eventually wrote to me that Mr. Theron’s case was receiving the attention of the Advisory Commissioner of Appeal. On 6th March I again received the same reply. The matter is now still being considered by the Advisory Commissioner of Appeal, and on 20th March I still received the same reply. One month after another I received the same reply that the case was being considered by the Advisory Commissioner of Appeal. Is it now fair that people sit there month after month and every time it is said that their case is being considered? It is inhuman. It is not only contrary to the principles of what justice is, but it is definitely inhuman and cruel to act in this way. If the Minister says that there are so many cases that must be considered by the Advisory Commissioner of Appeal that it takes him months to complete one appeal, then the Government must have the fairness to appoint more such officials. In connection with the ordinary criminal procedure we have not got only one judge who must hear all the cases.

An assistant has been appointed.

I am thankful to learn that one has been appointed, but more must be appointed. In ordinary justice you do not allow people’s appeals to stand over for six months or eight months because there is only one judge. I want to go further and say that it is not only inhuman, but it is a disgrace. I hope that the Minister will go into this matter and that they will not only appoint one assistant, but that he will appoint more officials, so that the cases of these people can be dealt with speedily. I have made representations to the Minister and he knows that this person is a young farmer, and he is being ruined. He is not a rich man. The one harvest after the other is being lost and when he comes out of the internment camp he will be ruined.

But what were the allegations against him?

That I do not know. I have the assurance that this person only belonged to the Nationalist Party and to no other organisation of any kind. People, who went about with him and who are reliable, have given me the assurance that this man has done absolutely nothing to justify the State in treating him in this manner. It is said that it is nothing other than political vengeance.

How would they know that?

The people who went about with him are surely the best people to be able to say what he has done and what he has not done. They are people who know him and who live with him. I say that this young man has lost one harvest after the other, and if he is eventually ruined and becomes a poor white, and supposing it then appears that he was innocent, will the Minister take it upon himself to restore the status quo in respect of this person, or will he merely shrug his shoulders?

It all depends on whether the internment was justified or not.

If it now happens that the Minister eventually releases the man because he was innocent, will the Government compensate him for everything he has suffered?

It depends on the circumstances.

Will the Minister give an undertaking that if this man is found not guilty and he is ruined to compensate him for what he has lost?

If innocent people are improperly interned, then naturally we will compensate them.

For that reply from the Minister I am thankful, and I hope that the Minister will carry it out.

Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt that at the present moment in Natal, and particularly in Durban, a great deal of feeling has been engendered upon this question of Indian penetration. Just how far that feeling arises from the penetration itself, or how far it arises from purposeful propaganda embarked upon by the Dominion Party is a point upon which there are several points of view.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

I think you ought to be ashamed of yourself; I will come to you in a minute. There is no doubt that there has been a measure of penetration within the last few years in Durban; just how far that penetration has gone, just to what extent that penetration exists is something which we will learn when the Broome Commission reports, and I think it goes very ill with the protestations which hon. members of the Dominion Party are continually nauseating us in Durban with references to their sense of British justice and fair play, that they are now using every possible endeavour inside this House and outside to pre-judge the issue on which the Government Commission is at the moment sitting. It is quite obvious that they are trying by all means at their disposal to influence the Commission along the lines on which they want to go. What is the position of the Dominion Party? We know that whenever any given political party has become completely bankrupt of any constructive ideas, they usually fall back upon the drum of racial prejudice. We expect that from the Nationalists, because we know that that is part and parcel of Nationalist policy. But you do not expect it from people who are elected to this House on the ground that they stand for the maintenance of the British Empire; we do not expect it from these people who come into this House and for a purely electioneering purpose treat us to a display of racial prejudice which is almost unparliamentary even in this House which is fairly famous for racial prejudice. The point is this, that the Dominion Party are not arguing this case upon its merits; they are arguing it on the chance of their being returned at the next Parliamentary Election.

Rubbish.

They are swept into this House upon a propaganda of falsehood; they came into this House on the story that the Prime Minister would sell the Empire, that the Prime Minister would refuse to go to war, and when the war did actually break out and they agreed to support the Prime Minister’s government, they only agreed on conditions. One of the chief conditions was that they would have a standstill agreement which they felt would continue them as Members of Parliament. They are now finding that so far as their conditions are concerned they were on a very bad wicket, they are faced with almost complete extinction at the next Election, and so the unfortunate Indian has to carry the weight of their displeasure. So the question of Indian penetration is now being elevated to the forefront, and will be, I presume, the chief plank in the Dominion Party platform. They are no longer interested in the Empire. Any responsible statesman in any part of the British Commonwealth knows that the question of Indian relations with South Africa is rather a delicate one. Those hon. members who some time ago were so interested in the Empire, were so afraid that the Empire might be faced with extinction, are now prepared to adopt, not a policy of moderation, not a policy of considering a problem which does exist on its merits, but they are now prepared to adopt the policy which is deliberately and flagrantly to the detriment of the United Nations by giving annoyance to the Government of India. The position in India is delicate enough and has been so for a considerable time. But what does the Empire matter to those gentlemen over there? The hon. member for Greyville (Mr. Derbyshire) thinks more of his seat in Parliament than he does of the Empire, that is quite obvious from the deplorable speech he made a few minutes ago. Let us take this question of Indian penetration; it does exist, and it is a problem with which the Government will have to deal. Possibly the penetration is true, I think probably it is true. [Interruptions]. Do listen to a little bit of intelligent speech for a change. It probably is true that the Government by delay has precipitated a state of affairs which might have been avoided had they acted a little quicker.

[Inaudible.]

I am saying that in a different way; if my hon. friend sticks to his mealies he will get on a great deal better. Let me deal with something that I know something about. The point I want to make to the Minister is this, that this question of penetration tends to be clouded by both sides: it has already been clouded and pre-judged by the Dominion Party, because of the virulence and violence of their attack upon the Indian community as a community. The hon. member for Greyville tells us that the Indians are losing their friends. If he was ever a friend of the Indians, Mr. Chairman, then the Indians have chosen their friends very unwisely. The issue has been clouded on the one side by this attack on the Indians upon a purely racial basis, and it becomes clouded on the other side by the Indians themselves, who continue to mix up this question of penetration in the European areas with the general question of Indian slums and the housing of the Indians themselves. I read this morning that certain resolutions were adopted yesterday at a conference of Indians in Durban, where once again they on their side are endeavouring to side track and cloud the issue by bringing to the notice of the Minister this question of the elimination of Indian slums. I want to suggest to the Minister in his consideration of this question of penetration—he has given notice in Another Place that consideration is going to be given to this matter—I want to suggest that in his consideration of this question he shall see to it that the general question of the elimination of Indian slums, which is also of very great importance to the people of Natal and Durban in particular, shall be kept distinct from this question of Indian penetration, because Indians do not penetrate European areas because Indian slums have not been eliminated. The class of Indians who are buying these properties are not the class who live in slums, they are the class who are in possession of a considerable amount of money; and so if we are going at one and the same time to consider Indian penetration and its relation to the existence of Indian slums, it means that we are going to give preference to quite an extensive brand of Indian capitalist on the ground that we are by some method doing good to the bulk of the more lowly-paid Indian. That is wrong. I am quite satisfied on the general question that the European in Natal is entitled to some Government protection. He is entitled to say that if he has spent his life savings in getting unto himself a house, he is entitled to say the Government must interfere when his property is being reduced in value, by 25 per cent. to 30 per cent. [Time limit.]

When I listened to the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside) I was reminded of the saying: “How lovely it is that brothers also live together.” I do not want to take part in this cat and dog fight between the Labour Party and the Dominion Party in Natal, and therefore I want to draw the Minister’s attention to something else. It is very interesting now to see all that cat and dog fight. If we look at the Press, then it appears as if the Government is leaving a free field to the Dominion Party and Labour Party to continue that cat and dog fight in Natal. We have now seen the ill omen of that. All that I want to regret in this connection is that the hon. member for Umbilo has run away from Natal before the time and has chosen not to remain there to take part in the fight. We have heard that the Indian problem is very serious, but if we must judge by how early the hon. member for Umbilo has run away, then it must be very much worse than we have supposed. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the Civil Service Examination which is set by the Public Service Commission.

Will it not be better if the hon. member raises that under the Public Service Commission’s vote?

But it falls under the Minister of the Interior.

Ye, but there is a special vote for the Public Service Commission.

Very well, then I will discuss the matter under that vote. The next point I want to raise is in regard to the regulations under the Act that have been passed in connection with the votes of soldiers. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact again that in 1941 we passed a Bill in connection with the voting by soldiers — or rather people on active service. At that time when that Bill was dealt with, the regulations had not yet been compiled, although provision was made in the Bill, i.e. in Art. 9 that regulations could be compiled. Now the Minister comes and tells us that he intends to introduce a Bill which will lay down how the soldiers must vote. I want to ask him now whether it will not be possible to submit the regulations together with the Bill to the House. It is now becoming a general practice in this House that we pass a principle and then we insert a Clause in the Bill to say that the Governor General by way of regulations, can do certain things, and then we get a long list of powers that are given to the Governor General. Previously this was also done now and then, but it was the practice to submit the draft regulations to the House together with the Bill. Now powers are simply given to the Executive Authority to issue regulations. This was done in 1941. We on this side of the House made a strong protest against it at that time. Afterwards the Minister said he would consult the various parties in connection with the regulations. He called together representatives of the various parties in Pretoria, but when we came there we noticed a difference among the members of the United Party about the contents of the regulations. The hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) and I were there for this side of the House, and we went home without accomplishing anything after a discussion of a few hours. We did not consider the merits of the regulations and nobody has ever seen the regulations. Now I want to appeal to the Minister to lay the regulations before us when we handle this Bill. Let us discuss them here, and then we can find out what the difficulties are in connection with them. We are very tired already of the practice of putting through Bills here with a Clause in them which gives such wide powers to the Governor General. We have the position today that in the Act of 1941 those wide powers are given to the Governor General. He is allowed to decide on the method in which the soldiers will exercise their vote; and not only that, but we have left it to him to decide which party a candidate represents. I want to refer the Minister to Art. 9.

That was surely obvious.

This House would like to deal with those matters itself. According to this Article which I have mentioned, the Governor General gets the right to draw up regulations about the whole question of secrecy, about how it must be provided that the soldiers vote secretly. It is a far-reaching measure. When the voting by post was handled by this House for the first time, there were days of debate about this question how the voting should be kept secret, and the Minister comes here with a Bill in which we accept the principle that it is simply left to the Governor General to decide how the secret voting is to take place. The Minister must realise that he is placing the Opposition in a very difficult position. I would like the Minister to tell us that when he comes before the House with this measure, he will at the same time lay the draft regulations before us as the practice was previously, so that this House will have the opportunity of seeing the regulations and approving them, or disapproving. Then there is another matter. I have on various occasions during this Session drawn the Government’s attention, to the question of the purchase of films. I do so here because the Department of the Interior is a large purchaser of films. Later, in connection with the Minister of Education, we will also come to this matter. Now I want to point out to the Minister of the Interior pertinently that his Department is spending a considerable amount of money on the purchase of films, and he will spend more and more money on this in the future as this industry develops. I want him to keep a watch, as regards his Department, that the films are not ordered from only certain firms. We have Afrikaans undertakings and English undertakings. We have this position in our country, and we must take notice of it. In the educational sphere we have the S.A.T.A. for English teachers and we have the S.A.O.U. for the Afrikaans teachers. We have the Voortrekker Movement and the Boy Scouts. It is accepted that there are different directions and that we have two kinds of institutions for the two sections of the people. We also have the S.O.E. and on the other side the F.A.K. In the motoring world we have the R.A.C. and the A.A. on the one side and the Voortrekker Motor Club for the Afrikaans-speaking people. In the film world we have on the one side among others Kodak and African Films, and on the Afrikaans side we have Vobi. If the Minister goes to his Department, then he will find that for 1941-’42 his Department purchased from a certain English firm film requirements to the amount of £613. In the case of the Department of Education, to which I will refer later, the purchases amount to thousands of pounds. In any case this Department has purchased film requirements from an English firm to the value of £613, but for not a single penny from Vobi. We want to ask the Minister to do his best to maintain a balance. If he now wants to restore the balance, for the following year, he ought to purchase nothing from certain English firms, only from Vobi.

Mr. Chairman, I am not in the least impressed by the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) who takes the Minister to task when he endeavours to promulgate regulations before the hon. member has had an opportunity of looking over them. We know perfectly well the attitude the hon. member and his party will take at the election. I want to ask the Minister to do everything he possibly can to give opportunities to soldiers to vote and discriminate either between individuals or parties. It is in the interests of the soldier to allow him to exercise his vote for a party, and I am quite prepared to leave the interests of the soldier in the hands of the Government and in the hands of this particular Minister rather than in the hands of the hon. member for Moorreesburg, or those who sit with him on that side. I am interested also in the suggestions made by the Minister, and the comments in the Press in regard to the Coloured Peoples Advisory Council. I say that this Council gives the coloured people the opportunity of expressing their views on matters and difficulties with which they have been faced for many years. Now, we know that the coloured community are an important section of the inhabitants of the Cape. We know that they have been discriminated against. The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) only a few weeks ago suggested that it was infra dig for Europeans to be clothed in the same clothes as coloured people. He suggested that coloured soldiers should be differentiated and discriminated against. He has consistently used every opportunity to depress the coloured section and to stir up public opinion into suggesting that they are definitely a section apart and should be so dealt with.

Do not you discriminate against them in hotels, cafes and in your own homes?

I still treat them as human citizens, and I would grant them every privilege they are entitled to.

Also in your own home?

No, if the hon. member asks me if I am in favour of social intermingling I am not. If the hon. member asks me if I would be prepared to go dancing with a coloured girl in my arms, my answer is “definitely not”, but surely I am perfectly consistent. I am perfectly prepared to give them the opportunity of dancing with one another. I have been at their dances and I have danced with Europeans there, and they have danced with coloured girls. And I say that at their dances they behave perfectly well. I want to maintain the same standard of high character and behaviour that is maintained at most of these coloured dances. Many of these coloured dances are an example to some of our European dances. There is no excessive drinking or shouting, or mauling people about at coloured dances. They do behave themselves and I tell hon. members opposite that I am prepared to grant them the very same opportunities of developing as I grant the Europeans. And I see in this new Council a step in the right direction by which the coloured people will be able to attend to their own affairs, advise the Government on their own affairs, and as a result of which they will not be buffeted about at election time. When the hon. member for Moorreesburg was a political fledgling he put down a motion which aimed at depriving the coloured people to use Afrikaans names. Is not the hon. member ashamed of that? Can he come here and say that he looks upon the coloured people as essential to our community, after he has put forward such a proposal? Does he not know that there are roughly 1,000,000 coloured people—half the number of Europeans in this country? Is he prepared to depress them? Is he prepared to continue the exploitation which was so visible when the present Leader of the Opposition at the time when he was Minister of the Interior had the temerity to stand up in this House and say that he was not prepared to give the European women of this country the vote, until the coloured women were given the same rights. I say I am prepared to do the same for the coloured people, for the coloured women, as the Leader of the Opposition was, and I say that in this establishment of an Advisory Council we give the coloured people the opportunity of expressing themselves, which they should have. Nobody knows the difficulties and the discriminations from which they suffer better than the coloured people themselves. Surely the hon. member for Moorreesburg knows that in the wheat growing districts coloured people working on the farms are in a very poor condition? Does he not know that 90 per cent. of these people at the end of the year are in a worse position than they were in at the beginning of the year. Most farmers in those areas have a book and they fine their workers certain wages. They are credited with their wages and they are debited with the cost of living.

You are talking nonsense.

Oh, no, I am talking of something I know. I know of instances where coloured families live on farms and commence the year with a debit balance of £27 and finish the year with a debit balance of £50.

What have the farmers on your side of the House to say about that?

Hon. members need only read the reports of the Commissions. Do hon. members opposite think that this coloured Council is a step in the direction of segregation? Are hon. members opposite genuine—do they think it is a good thing for the better relations between coloureds and Europeans? Are they prepared to support it as a step in the right direction? Are they prepared to allow the coloured people to come to the Government and show the Government the handicap and discriminations they have to put up with? Are not hon. members opposite stirring in troubled political waters so as to disturb coloured opinion against the Government? Ask the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie). The hon. member would love to have the coloured vote completely eliminated, but so long as it is there hon. members opposite are prepared to use every wile in order to ensure that the coloured people will come into their own election booth.

You are talking nonsense.

[Time limit.]

I want to speak on that part of this Vote dealing with the Civilian Protection Services. Under J (4) there is an amount of £12,000 for uniforms and under J (6) an amount of £5,000 for overcoats, capes and raincoats. The hon. the Minister when dealing with the second estimates of additional expenditure, referred to the fact that the uniform allowance under that heading was for that section of the C.P.S. known as the Civilian Guards. Now, I am well acquainted with the C.P.S. having been associated with that body since it was organised, and I have nothing but admiration for the way in which the Civilian Guard have carried out their duties in maintaining law and order in this country, but it is not my intention to speak on the position of the Civilian Guard. I want to speak on that section of the C.P.S. known as the Wardens’ Section. At the present time Wardens are patrolling the streets nightly in connection with the dim-out regulations. These men are out three or four nights a week, for three or four hours, and I maintain that they should be treated in exactly the same manner as the Civilian Guard. The Civilian Guard in areas like Cape Town go out with the Wardens on these patrol duties, and I think it is essential that the latter should be treated in a like manner to the Civilian Guards—in other words, they should be provided with the necessary uniforms, raincoats and capes to protect them from the weather. Many of these men when they patrol the streets get soaked through, and I do appeal to the Minister to see whether it would not be possible in areas where the dim-out regulations are carried out, to provide such men who are patrolling the streets with uniforms and coats. There is one other point I want to put before the Minister, and that is with regard to broadcasting. I do not intend referring to the broadcasting of Crooners or highbrow or lowbrow programmes, but I feel it would be of great assistance if the Minister could arrange with the Broadcasting Corporation to announce nightly warnings as regards dimming out, in exactly the same way as announcements are made warning the public not to talk about ships and shipping. It would assist the C.P.S. considerably and would be appreciated by those men who are nightly carrying out their duties in connection with the dim-out regulations.

I think I should now deal with some of the questions raised this morning and this afternoon. Perhaps I should deal with the matter dealt with by the last speaker (Mr. Abott) first. Hitherto the Government has provided uniforms for the Civilian Guards. It may interest the House to know that in the Union there are 167 C.P.S. organisations with over 80,000 members. And there are several thousands of Civilian Guards who have obtained 23,000 convictions, the amount of the fines realising about £22,000. These Civilian Guards have provided excellent services by assisting our police force. But side by side with the Civilian Guards there is the A.R.P. organisation consisting of wardens and other groups concerned with first aid fire-fighting and other matters. The A.R.P. side of the C.P.S. only came actually into the picture when the blackout was introduced, and there is no doubt that these wardens and the men and women serving under them are doing loyal and admirable service, not only in the Cape Peninsula, but in other coastal towns such as Durban, Port Elizabeth and East London, and even in some of the smaller towns. They are operating on the South Coast of Natal and in other places, and they are carrying out duties along the Coast, they are carrying out a watch by night, not only to ensure the dictates of security but also to see that survivors of ship-wrecked ships may be given assistance. These sea watchers are rendering admirable services. Hitherto the Government have provided uniforms for the members of the Civilian Guards. As the hon. member knows, the Government has now agreed to subsidise the C.P.S. organisation on a £ for £ basis in respect of future approved expenditure, and it may well be that in those areas where dim-out regulations have to be enforced, and where in order to enforce them, it is necessary to have street patrols by night, uniforms may have to be provided. That is a matter for the local authorities to take up, and I have no doubt that the Director of Civilian Protective Services will consider such matters as are raised on their merits. It will be a matter for the local authorities to take up with the Director of C.P.S. and he will then be able to go into each application on its merits. I shall bear in mind the suggestion that the use of the Radio should be enlisted in regard to warning people about dimming out regulations. Then the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) has suggested that a special statistical bureau should be set up in regard to cost of living figures. I would remind the hon. member that there is a statistical Council consisting of experts, and that body is there to do the work suggested by him. That suggestion came from a delegation of members of the Trades and Labour Council and it was carefully considered. But in view of the fact that there is existing machinery available I do not think it is necessary to set up new machinery. The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) has asked me about the regulations in connection with voting by soldiers outside and inside the Union. The House will recollect that the Bill passed by Parliament two years ago provides that soldiers outside the Union will be enabled to vote at the General Election for Parties but not for individuals. There will be a special ballot paper for that purpose. As I informed the House on Friday, it is my intention to introduce a similar Bill relating to persons on service, that is the Military, the Naval and the Air Force, within the Union, and the provisions of that Bill will similarly provide for voting for parties and not for individuals.

What is the necessity for that?

Why don’t you do it for the whole country—why only for soldiers?

My hon. friend will have the opportunity of raising these matters when the legislation is introduced in this House. As you have repeatedly pointed out, Mr. Chairman, we cannot discuss legislation at this stage. I only gave the information as the question was asked. That will be the provision in the Bill and hon. members will have ample opportunity of putting these questions when the provisions of the Bill are placed before Parliament. The regulations in connection with persons on service outside the Union were considered by a Committee consisting of representatives of all parties, in Pretroia, some eighteen months ago. Those regulations were never promulgated in view of the fact that it was decided to postpone the Provincial Elections.

There was no real discussion.

The hon. member will recollect that the delegates came together and there was a very full discussion as far as I can recollect for a whole day, and it was decided, in view of the representations made, that the Electoral experts would revise the regulations. These regulations have been revised and it is proposed now to have a consolidating set of regulations in respect of both Bills—in respect of the Act on the Statute Book and in respect of the Bill to be introduced in Parliament during this Session.

Will the House have a chance of considering these regulations?

I do not think it will be practicable to give the House an opportunity of discussing the regulations. I am quite prepared to give representatives of all parties the chance of discussing them with me before their promulgation. Then the hon. member for Moorreesburg has raised the question of films. I think there must be a certain amount of confusion in the hon. member’s mind. There is quite a difference between the question of film requisites and film production. In regard to film requisites the Government, either through the Department of Education or through the Bureau of Information, has been purchasing from the same sources as any production unit in South Africa. There are various film-stock producing people such as Kodak’s, and it is the practice of the Bureau of Information—I cannot speak for the Education Department, but I imagine the same practice prevails there—to obtain its supplies and film stocks from these private producers by arrangement with the Tender Board.

But they are all importers. Kodak is an importer.

The films are obtained through the Tender Board, the Tender Board regulations are observed, and anyone who is capable of complying with the Tender Board regulations is competent to supply stocks to the Government. In regard to film production that is another matter. There the Bureau of Information—again I cannot speak for the Education Department—requires 35 m.m. films, whereas I understand Vobi produces only 16 m.m. films for general exhibition in the commercial cinemas; the latter company, being confined to 16 m.m. films, is ruled out as a competitor.

Have you appointed that Commission?

No, the Government decided to appoint not a Commission but a small Committee of Enquiry to go into the general question of production of films in South Africa with special relation to the Afrikaans medium. There is no doubt that there is scope for the production of such films in South Africa. The activities of the Bureau of Information in producing films with Afrikaans scripts has had exceedingly good results, and it is felt that, by encouraging the production of these films, films dealing with the traditional and cultural background of South Africa, we may make considerable headway during the postwar years.

Who are on the Commission?

The Committee will probably consist of three or four members and an announcement will no doubt be made in the course of a few weeks. The Government intends obtaining the services of prominent persons, educationalists and others, who are in contact not only with Afrikaans Cultural Institutions, but also with the English cultural background.

Have you decided on a chairman?

Yes, that has been decided and an announcement will be made in a short time.

Is he the pamphleteer?

The hon. member will have his curiosity satisfied when the announcement is made in the next few days. A number of hon. members have returned to the question of internments.

And we shall keep on returning to it.

Yes, I know. The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) this morning very fairly made an appeal to me, in moderate and fair terms, which I appreciate, and he asked me whether the Government considered it necessary to keep Union Nationals under detention at this stage after three and a half years of war.

Why keep them at all?

I shall answer the hon. member at once and tell him that no general policy can be laid down other than that the Government must detain and continue to detain such persons as are a potential danger to the State. Many persons who have been detained have been detained only in the last twelve months.

They should have been there long ago.

The hon. member was pleading for those who had been interned for longer periods. He proposed that we should consider the cases that were intered at the beginning of our internment policy. Well, I am prepared to consider those representations, but I cannot give the hon. member any assurance. And let me tell the hon. member this. I conceive it as being my duty and the duty of the Chief Control Officer not to grant any relief unless there are reasonable grounds for feeling that such an act of clemency will not be abused. I do not lay this charge against the hon. member for Winburg. He has been fair and moderate in his criticism, but there are a number of hon. members on that side of the House and outside who speak in a manner which would suggest that the Union Nationals at present interned are persons innocent of all subversive activities.

And so they are.

That they are persons put there on false testimony.

Many of them are, and you know it.

I do not know that.

What about the Arndts?

The hon. member goes back to two cases every time on the merits of which I cannot speak.

They have been pointed out to you.

I have explained previously that that particular case he mentions is a case which took place before I was placed in control of internments. I am not prepared to say whether the hon. member’s contentions are right or wrong, because I had nothing to do with the matter.

You know that you were wrong.

I had nothing to do with the matter, but let me say this, that although persons have been released in the course of the last two or two and a half years, those releases have not been made because persons were innocently interned. They were released because it was felt that because of changed circumstances and because the facts, the charges, the original charges against the accused, had made it safe to release these people now.

That is an admission that they should never have been interned.

Oh, no. There have been times, for instance as in 1940, when many persons believed that the war was going to be over in a short time.

Just as you believe now.

There were many persons who pinned high faith in the belief that the war was almost over; there were many persons who acted at that time in that belief, and who made propaganda which cannot be described as legitimate propaganda—beyond the bounds of legitimate propaganda.

What do you call legitimate propaganda?

The Government had to act and it interned. It is one case to release a person who made active propaganda against the Government, who made active pro-German propaganda. Those people may have been misled—I suppose in most cases they were misled. But it is an entirely different thing when you come to deal with the case of a person who at that stage or at a later stage used explosives or engaged in acts of sabotage.

You could have brought them before the courts.

You have your regulations to deal with them.

The Government cannot consider the release of persons—it cannot release persons who have been engaged in that kind of thing.

How will you consider these cases?

I will tell you. First of all, there are a number of appeals still outstanding. I have had discussions both before this debate began and since with the Chief Control Officer and the Appeals Advisory Commissioner in regard to expediting appeals. I think we have arrived at a way in which we can still more expedite the disposal of these appeals. I informed the House the other day that an assistant to the Appeals Advisory Commissioner has been appointed, a magistrate of great experience. That will be a considerable help.

What is his name?

Mr. Tunbridge. Despite that, Sir, there are a number of appeals which have not as yet been disposed of, and, while experience has shown that in practically 100 per cent. of cases there is nothing in the suggestion that the decision to intern was wrong. I am anxious to dispose of appeals with the utmost celerity. The suggestion has been made that perhaps we could have a committee consisting of the Appeals Advisory Commissioner and his assistant, and perhaps one other who will be able to go through the records, and without putting anything to paper, sort out those cases where it is quite obvious that no release can be considered and recommendations to that effect can be made at once to me. Those appeals then can be dismissed. Where it is thought that release might be considered, not necessarily because there was an incorrect internment, but because of changed circumstances, then that committee could consider such cases and dispose of them much more quickly than if written judgments or written reports had to be made in each case. I am thinking along those lines at the present time, and as the result of discussions it may be possible to work out some machinery to expedite the disposal of those cases. I repeat, Sir, that the difficulties which have arisen are difficulties which followed upon the internment of a large number of Stormjaers last year. It was the uncovering of the Stormjaers’ movement which led to fairly wholesale internments, and that in turn had the effect of cluttering up, to a certain extent, the machinery of appeals administration. I want at once to disabuse the House of the idea that people are being interned on false testimony, on the false testimony of a single witness. The hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier) has talked about the Barberton case, he referred to what he called the Barberton case, and said that the Minister knew that the evidence against the Barberton internee was false. That was the charge as I understood it.

No, you know about the case. I interviewed you about it.

One of the persons concerned, I will call him V., had made statements against some of the internees and he subsequently stated that his evidence was false. We frequently had these cases, we have had a number of cases, not merely of internees, but cases which are happening before the courts, where participants in the Stormjaers organisation had given evidence implicating themselves and others, and when it comes to giving testimony in court, they have retracted. In many instances we know they have retracted because they have been subjected to intimidation. In other instances, they have had time to think the matter over, and they want to save their own skins. There is nothing new in this retraction of evidence. What is absolutely clear is this, that the Chief Control Officer does not intern members of this organisation unless there is other evidence to connect the accused with the organisation, and also to show that he took an active part in it. If there is a strong prima facie case not merely on the evidence of one single person, but on the evidence of a number of persons, that a given person was a member of the Stormjaers’ organisation and knew its objects, then that is a case for internment.

You intern merely because the man is a member of that organisation.

And has participated in illegal practices such as secret drilling.

Merely an allegation that the man was a member of the organisation, nothing else.

Each case must be dealt with in the light of its own circumstances. If, for instance, an assistant prosecutor, a magistrate, or a fairly senior official of the Police Force has been found to be a member of the Stormjaers, has been known to take this fantastic oath — I will remind the House of the terms of that oath. It will be remembered that, generally speaking, these members are led out in the darkness of night to some lonely spot, they have a revolver pressed against their chests and back, and they take this oath—

That is the oath they take. When you have assistant prosecutors, assistant magistrates, senior police officials, warders of the Government Prison Service taking this fantastic oath, going out in the darkness of the night, having revolvers pressed into their bosoms, and then after taking that oath attend secret practices of machine guns, and then side by side with that you have a wave of sabotage, I think any government which failed to act would deserve to be deprived of office. Let me take the Barberton case. One of the members of the Barberton section interned was K. He was a sergeant in the South African Police and was station commander at Barberton—

These were activities of the station commander at Barberton—

They went out like this at dead of night, without a funeral note, and they took this fantastic oath.

Did K. admit that he was a member?

I said that in March, 1942, the assistant magistrate, a constable and a railwayman made statements.

And that railwayman, where is he today?

A number of others, including a sergeant of police, warders and others, afterwards took the oath in the same manner. It is true that one of the persons who gave evidence against K. alleged afterwards that the statement he had made was not correct. May I just read this paragraph of the Commissioner’s report in regard to the case as a whole—

That is the case in regard to the sergeant of police, whom the hon. member for Kuruman said I had no evidence against, and that he was interned on the single evidence of another who was interned.

Who were the other people who saw them?

We have the evidence of other persons who were with him at that time, and who gave statements under oath that they were present, and similarly took the oath. So much for the suggestion that persons are interned on single and uncorroborated evidence.

Won’t you tell us who these other people are who made these statements. The Minister knows there are not any more.

The hon. member for Kuruman also suggested that scandalous profiteering takes place at the internment camp at Koffiefontein, and he quoted a long list of prices of delicacies ranging from Boerwors.

He never mentioned Boerwors.

He mentioned some sort of “wors” anyway.

This is not a circus.

I know it is not.

Well then don’t be a clown.

My friend need not fear that. The hon. member mentioned a number of delicacies and gave current prices in Koffiefontein, and said that these were being sold at a considerably higher price in the Koffiefontein camp, the suggestion being that the authorities were allowing profiteering to take place, and that the internees were being prejudiced. Let me tell the hon. member that the canteen at Koffiefontein is run by the internees themselves, they have their own canteen and their own committee, and they are at liberty to charge what prices they like. The Director of Internment Camps does not interfere, he does not wish to interfere, this is entirely a domestic matter in which he does not interfere, and the internees are given every facility for buying articles of this nature outside. The prices in the canteen are fixed by them.

They can only buy through one channel.

The hon. member must be reasonable. He says that excessive prices are fixed inside the camp, and my answer is that those prices are fixed by the internees themselves, and not by any camp director. The hon. member also referred to the increase on the Vote for “Internment Camps” and points out that the estimates show that we are asking to spend an amount of over £100,000 more than last year. He asks the reason. The reason is simply that the estimates were based last year upon an estimated number of internees in the camp of 4,200, whereas we actually had 4,600. As a matter of fact, when the Director of Internment Camps put in his estimate, he asked for a larger amount than £536,000, but my hon. friend, the Treasurer, cut that down by £73,000, on the general principle that he wished to avoid an over-estimate, and said that if we found it necessary to come back for more we had to do so. The hon. member knows that in the Additional Estimates I have come back to ask for more. In actual fact, the amount spent in 1942-’43 will be nearly £100,000 in excess of £536,000. This year we are asking for an amount in relation to the actual facts. The actual number of internees during the past year has been in the region of 4,600. These are the reasons for the increased amount. I come then finally to the question of Indian penetration in Natal. I am not going to be drawn into the controversy between the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside) and the hon. member for Greyville (Mr. Derbyshire) and others.

Are you going to restore harmony?

The hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Acutt) has reminded the House of the conference which was held at the end of last year in Pretoria. He was at pains to explain that he went there in company with a deputation from the Provincial Council and the City Council of Durban, but he omitted to mention that, had it not been for a personal invitation extended to him by me, he never would have been there, because the deputation had nothing to do with the hon. member. It was one which had been arranged by me with the Provincial Council and the City Council, and as a matter of courtesy I did invite the Durban members of Parliament to be present. I think, as a matter of courtesy, he might have borne that matter in mind when he gave us the historical record. He also stated that certain discussions took place and certain decisions were taken, but he said those decisions were confidential, and he did not wish to break that confidence, but when he got to Parliament he found nothing had been done. Now I say that that is entirely misleading. The hon. member knows that no decisions were taken at that conference which bound the Government in any way. Certain matters were discussed and certain matters I agreed to put before the Government in the light of that conference. I did put these matters before the Government, and the result was that the Government decided to invite Mr. Justice Broome to be a Commissioner to enquire into the position at Durban, so the hon. gentleman is incorrect when he says nothing was done.

Excuse me, I did not say that, you are wrong in your facts. What I did say was that the whole thing was washed out.

I gather that the hon. gentleman said that when he got to Parliament everything was washed out.

That is right; that is what I said.

Well, I think the hon. gentleman’s somewhat keen feelings over this matter have led him to be less accurate than usual.

That is an awful charge.

I am afraid I cannot make it any lighter than that. The hon. member knows that resulting from that discussion in Pretoria, the Government has appointed a Commission to enquire whether penetration has taken place in Durban in predominantly European areas since evidence was offered by the City Council in 1940. I have received Mr. Justice Broome’s report today, and that report is having the immediate consideration of the Government.

Why don’t you tell us what it is.

I shall be able to tell the hon. member for Stamford Hill what is contained in the report when I lay it on the Table of the House. It is being printed, and will be laid on the Table at the earliest possible moment. In the meantime it is having the consideration of the Government. I must ask my hon.

friend to be a little more patient and a little more moderate in his statements. I remember, sir, an occasion when the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Malan), who was then Minister of the Interior, pointed out very strongly that if there is one matter that should be dealt with in this country on a non-political, non-party basis, it is this Indian question, and I had hoped that this question would be dealt with in a dispassionate manner in this House. We are not dealing with trifling matters, we are dealing with the Indian community in this country, and that is a matter which obviously has reactions on a great Dominion in the East. These are matters which, I agree with the hon. member for Umbilo, one would have hoped the hon. member for Stamford Hill would have considered outside politics. I must confess that I am becoming a little cynical in these days about some of the super-patriotism of the past, which has faded like a smoke cloud in the face of expediency. However that may be, I would appeal to my friends over there to be calm and deal with this matter calmly, as the matter has been dealt with by the Government. The new situation which has arisen is having the consideration of the Government, and the Government’s policy will no doubt be announced before the end of the Session. With that the hon. member must be satisfied. But I may say that he does not do the cause of the European in Durban any good, he does not advance the cause of the European, nor does he advance the sacred ideals to which he is supposed to be pledged, when he discusses this matter in this extremely immoderate fashion in the House.

What are those sacred ideals?

I have always understood the hon. member was a pillar of the Empire.

I have had 20 years of this subject, and I am getting about tired of it.

Perhaps my hon. friend ought to feel that he ought to retire hurt and defeated.

Never.

I admire my friend’s pertinacity, while I cannot admire his immoderate language. I repeat the Government will give this matter very careful consideration, and I once again tell my hon. friends that they must exercise a little more patience.

The more the Minister tries to get out of the difficulty, to justify his side of the matter, as regards the treatment of internees, the deeper he sinks into the mud. Imagine a responsible Minister getting up in this House today and telling us that the internees in Koffifontein receive all facilities to make their purchases outside. The Minister knows that this is not true. They do not get the facilities to purchase their requirements where they want to purchase them. In the past the authorities of the camp saw to it that they purchased those things only at a certain place, and today the Chamber of Commerce at Koffiefontein provides for them through certain channels. We know that these people sell the things in the camp. They add 1d. per article to cover their local administration costs, but those enormous profits that are made there are made by someone else before the goods arrive in their canteen; and it is the duty of the Minister who has deprived them of their freedom, to see to it that they are not robbed as they are being robbed today. The Minister has told us here that things are going very well with these people. Can he imagine that there are 360 people there today. At one time there were 700. Those people’s recreation ground is only 25 yards wide. Does the Minister want to tell me that there is not sufficient ground available to give a proper recreation place to these people? There are 360 people in this camp. They must do their washing themselves. How many washing places are there for them? There are only four cement bowls where they can wash their clothes. We want to plead with the Minister today not to shield behind other officials. He is the responsible Minister and he must see to it that proper conveniences are created for the internees. I want to come to another matter now. The Minister has told us how well the internees are living there. Has the Minister ever told the House yet about the shooting that took place against those unarmed people in the camp? There are bullet holes in houses Nos. 16, 18, 22 and 54. For no reasons shots were fired at them during the night. On 10 January a shot was fired through the sinc at house No. 22 which missed the head of the internee by three inches while he was lying asleep on the bench. If this sort of thing happens are things so nice in the camp? We do not want to go into all these things; we only want to point out to the Minister that we know what is going on in camp. We also know what kind of food those people get. When I told the Minister last year that there was no longer an old ram to be bought in the Koffiefontein area because they had all been sold to the people who deliver meat to the internment camp, the Minister did not want to believe me. No, the hon. the Minister must not come and tell us that these people are living in a sort of paradise. We know what is going on. We do not come here with any loose talk; the Minister must not understand us wrongly when we plead in the interest of these people. We only want to plead with him to meet these people, that he, as the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. C. R. Swart) has said, that he must show more consideration, that the merits of the case should be gone into. You have seen the spectacle here. The Minister has come here and replied to certain allegations which I have made. But did he reply to all those allegations? Why did he not reply to the matter which came before the magistrate at Fauresmith? The magistrate heard the case and the magistrate found the people not guilty.

I can only say that those who are being detained are rightly being detained.

We come now to the argument that the Minister has said that they have the evidence before them in connection with these cases. We have asked whether this particular evidence was also before the Commissioner of Appeal i.e., in which the person stated that the statement previously made by him was a false statement. The witness admitted that his evidence was false, and our question is whether that fact was brought to the attention of the Commissioner of Appeal. Then we have another case of a witness who made a statement and when he had to give further evidence in connection with this he disappeared completely. He was employed on the Railways and when he had to come and support his evidence, all of a sudden he was nowhere to be found. Further the Minister by implication gave us to understand here that people in the camp at Koffiefontein made statements against this person. I want to say with emphasis, as one who acted in the interest of this person, that this is not so. They did not make statements against this person. If the Minister wants to be honest with these people, and if he wants to show any concession to them, then he must go into the proposal which we on this side of the House have made i.e. not to have only one Commissioner of Appeal who can decide as he pleases, but he must appoint a Commission of Lawyers before whom the person can appear and also the legal adviser of that person, who can present his case. What is more, the legal adviser should have an insight into the reasons why the person has been interned. Then we will find that these cases will be dealt with speedily. There are people who are sitting in the internment camps now for years almost, and their appeal has not yet been dealt with. The Minister has told us now that he will expedite the handling of these cases. I hope that this apparent concession which the Minister has shown will be a real concession and that things will go more quickly than was the case in the past. I hope that it will not again happen as in the past, where the Minister has promised me personally, that a matter would be dealt with in 14 days and we are waiting today still for it to be dealt with.

But there were special circumstances.

But that is exactly our plea that this sort of circumstances are becoming intolerable. The Minister cannot expedite the cases. Let him play open cards and let him appoint a Commission as we have suggested, before whom the person can appear and who can decide whether the person is guilty or not. Then we will know whether the person has been interned innocently and whether there was a reason for his internment. If we must always shield behind circumstances, where are we going to land? There are cases where we interfere on the behalf of people, and we go back and we tell them that the Minister says that their case will be dealt with within 14 days, and then we must find that after three months or after six months it had not yet been dealt with. Can the Minister not for a moment put himself in the place of these people? If the Minister must live in these circumstances for only one week, then his heart will not be so hard and he will be prepared to treat these people more accommodatingly.

Coming events often cast their shadows before.

That is some novel idea of yours.

And in the speech of the hon. member for Umbilo we have heard the first shots of what is apparently going to be a pretty stiff fight.

Are you going to blot each other out.

Now it comes very badly from the hon. member for Umbilo that he should have been chosen to fire these shots, for the simple reason that he is leaving a constituency which is evidently becoming far too hot to hold him.

No, he is becoming far too hot for that constituency.

The fact that Indian penetration in Durban is a burning question does not mean that penetration in the new constituency which the hon. member for Umbilo is going to seek is also a burning question. Apparently the hon. member seems to think that if he makes Umbilo still hotter, it will not matter a bit, but if he goes on the assumption that he can use the Indian paint brush on himself with impunity and without consequences, he forgets that he will be painting the whole of the Labour Party in Durban with the same Indian paint brush. And the results to the Labour Party may be very disastrous on election day. Now I want to get down to the question of Indian penetration in Natal. The Broome Commission has accepted statements from various Indian representatives in Durban that the reasons for their penetration and the purchase of property were that they wanted that property as an outlet for investment monies. Well, there have been many avenues for investment. Government securities have been on offer for many years, and the Indian community could have found an outlet there, but they preferred to find an outlet in buying property in predominantly European areas. So I have been casting round for another motive for investment in these properties, and I think I have found it. We have heard a lot from representatives of the Indian community quite recently on the subject of political and social equality.

Is Cape Town, Central, one of those?

They are putting up this claim, and I believe that they are pursuing this object by the purchase of property in Natal.

Now listen to that, Cape Town, Central?

Now with what object are they doing so? If they become the predominant owners of property in Durban they are predominantly the payers of rates in Durban, and if they find the major portion of the rates and taxes in Durban, then it is quite natural that they will claim that they have the right for direct representation on the City Council of Durban.

The first step.

Since this penetration is going on in every urban area in Natal and in country areas as well, in the course of time they will say: “We are paying the rates and taxes throughout Natal”, and they will say: “Because we are paying those rates and taxes we want direct representation in the Provincial Council.” The only manner in which they can get representation in the Provincial Council is by becoming Parliamentary voters, and I want to tell the Government, I want the Government to realise that they are progressing very fast along that road. I want to ask the Minister whether it is desirable that they should have such direct representation from the point of view of all sections of the community. Is it right and proper for the Indian community to have Indian members in this House?

Why not?

Perhaps the hon. member thinks it desirable. I do not think South Africa thinks so.

Do not whisper sweet nothings to each other.

Is it right that natives should be representatives in this House?

Certainly it is.

Is it right that coloured people should be representatives in this House.

Perfectly right, there are 1,000,000 of them.

Is it right that these people should be representatives in the City Councils and in the Urban Authorities? I put that thought in the Minister’s mind, and I ask him to reply to his own satisfaction and to say whether I have not struck the real object of this peaceful penetration.

Did you say peaceful penetration—it is not very peaceful, it is economic.

The reason given by the Indians for purchasing property in Natal is not their true motive, there is something very much more behind it all and I ask the Government to consider this matter very carefully because it is a problem which is becoming more and more serious every day.

I would like to bring yet another case to the attention of the Minister. It is the case of a person who was a civil servant, and as a result of the Government’s internment policy he was unfairly treated. I am not talking about the reasons for his internment, but about the way in which he was treated later. It is better that I should read out to the Minister the facts in connection with this case as they have been given to me. The name of this person is Mr. H. C. Janneke. He was a clerical assistant, grade three, in the Civil Service. I am not going to talk about the internment of the person, but the sequel to the internment. He was an officer in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. In 1940 he was transferred to the Department of Commerce and Industries. There his work was in connection with the commandeering of rifles. In November 1940 he was interned. Owing to his serious health condition, he was released from the internment camp in January, 1941. He was allowed to resume his duties, but as a result of his ill-health he was admitted to a sanatorium in June, 1941, where he remained until October, 1941. Then he was again interned for a month. In November, 1942, he was again set free as a result of his condition. I want to say again that I have nothing to do with the internment of this person, because I have no information about the reasons why he was interned. I have to do only with the way in which this person was treated after he was released from the camp. During September, 1942, he was examined by a Medical Board of the Civil Service with the view to his dismissal from the Civil Service for health reasons. The finding of the Board was that he should be examined again after three months. In December he was again examined and the Medical Board recommended that he should be examined again after six months. He was then again examined and on that occasion the Medical Board found that his illness had reached a stage where it was no longer contageous, and the recommendation therefore was that this officer should again be taken into the service. At this time he was in a position where all his paid sick leave had been used up, and consequently he was on leave without pay. Now at this stage we must take note of a few of the conditions on which he was released from the internment camp. The first was that he could not leave his place of residence without the consent of the chief magistrate of Pretoria. The second was that he had the right to go and work on certain days. In these circumstances he went and reported to the Department of Commerce and Industries to resume his duties, but the chief clerk refused to take him back in his service. The position was therefore that this man who was still in the Civil Service—he had not been dismissed under the regulations of the Civil Service, but had been interned and was therefore still a member of the Civil Service—went back to resume his work, and it was refused him. He was on sick leave and the judgment of the Medical Board of the Civil Service was that he was now well enough to resume his duties. He went back to the Civil Service to resume his work, he reported to the Department, but they refused to allow him to work. In the meantime he was sitting without pay. In this connection we must remember that he is still a Civil Servant and he may not accept work outside of the Department.

But you forget that he was still an internee.

He was released from the internment camp.

Yes, he was released for health reasons.

In any case the Medical Board recommended that he should go back to his work, and the Department refused to take him back. The man cannot go and work elsewhere, because he is still in the Civil Service, but the Department does not want to allow him to resume his work and he gets no pay.

Although he was out the internment camp, he was still an internee.

This person did not commit any offence under the Civil Service Act. If he goes and seeks work elsewhere then he makes himself liable to a charge of misconduct, which can result in his dismissal, and which will certainly bring about his dismissal. Then the matter developed in another direction. He then went to see the Chief Control Officer and the Department of Commerce and Industries also consulted the Chief Control Officer. The Chief Control Officer’s reply was that he would not allow this civil servant to occupy any government position or any Provincial position, but he could accept approved work outside the Civil Service. This is now told to a Civil Servant who is under the Civil Service regulations, which does not allow him to go and seek work elsewhere. This person was then simply driven into a corner. He comes under the Civil Service regulations, but the Chief Control Officer says that he may not work in the Civil Service. It is not the Government that governs; also not the Public Service Commission that governs, but the Chief Control Officer says now what must happen in the Civil Service.

But this person was still on parole.

Now the Chief Control Officer comes and says that this person can do approved work outside the Civil Service. Three positions are offered to him outside the Civil Service and the Chief Control Officer refuses to let him accept that work. According to him it was not approved work. This man is too ill for the internment camp; he may not resume his work in the Civil Service; he is forbidden to accept work outside the Civil Service, and as I understand, the State pays him no allowance. He is on sick leave without pay. Even if he can get employment, then the State does not want to allow him to do the work. From what must such a man live? I have spoken here about inhumanness and unfairness. I ask the Minister what he thinks about this, and what will any decent person think about this. The man is a Civil Servant on leave without pay. All his sick leave has already been used up. The result is that he eventually resigned to see if in this way he coud not get employment in order to keep body and soul together. I contend that the Government and the Minister, if they carry on on this basis, show that they have lost all feeling of humanity Here we have a person who is placed in a position that he is forbidden to work, and unless the Government wants this man to die of starvation they must give him an allowance. If he may not work, give him an allowance so that he need not work. Will the Minister do that? I would like to know from the Minister whether he will do this. The Minister gives us the assurance that all the people who have been interned are not sitting there innocently. I want to know from him now whether he is prepared to apply this kind of justice to all crimes, that the Minister can decide who is guilty and who not, and then to be able to give the country the assurance that all the people who are sitting in gaol are guilty and the public need not concern themselves about the fact that these people are sitting in goal. Will he for robbery, theft, high treason and all such things apply the same sort of justice, or will he realise that it is not fair to expect the people to submit to this kind of justice? If this kind of thing is not fair and just in respect of other misdeeds, on what grounds can the Minister be convinced that the Chief Control Officer can simply declare people guilty on his own, that all these people who are alleged to have contravened the Emergency Regulations are guilty, and that is hearing is not necessary? If he can come and give me the assurance that not a single one of these people, despite the fact that they have never been before the court and have never met their accusers face to face, and could never cross-examine the witnesses—if he can give me the assurance that not one of them is innocent, then I only want to say to the Minister that it is a very easy thing for him to dismiss the judges and magistrates and to save the State all that enormous cost. At the same time he can also dismiss all the advocates and lawyers.

That would be a good thing.

Then they are there as parasites and the Minister can simply say who is guilty and who is not. [Time limit.]

I should like the Minister to make a statement on this question of a permanent Coloured Commission.

What do you call it?

I don’t know what the newest name is, but hon. members know what I am referring to. Many of us in this House are anxious to know what is happening. We notice that protest meetings are being held, and we are informed that certain of these coloured people are violently opposed to the Minister’s proposals. Violent language is being used, and I think we should have a statement in this House. I think the coloured people are in a most unenviable position and I feel also that if they were to use their heads we might be able to do some good for them. I think it is admitted that the coloured man has no friends on that side of the House—the friends of the coloured man are here, on this side. And when we try to do something for the coloured man he throws a spanner into the works. It only makes the position very much more difficult.

All that is necessary is to go to their dances.

Well, I have been to their dances, and even that does not seem to help.

You went away too early.

They are in an unenviable position. We are trying to do our best for them and then they throw a spanner into the works. Now I should like to know whether the Minister is going to continue in his efforts or whether he is going to drop the matter altogether.

I think I should deal with this new Coloured Advisory Council at once. I omitted to do so when speaking a little while earlier.

Isn’t it very sudden?

As a number of people have dealt with the matter I think I might make a short statement on it now, but before doing so may I just dispose of the question raised by the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. j. G. Strydom). He referred to the case of Mr. Janeke and he suggested that this young man had been harshly treated by the Control Officer and by me. The hon. member has chosen a most unfortunate case there. This young man was a young Civil Servant who attempted to make use of his position in one of the Departments to secure plans of aerodromes and fortifications in the Defence Department.

Then why did you not haul him before the courts?

Yes, my hon. friend can go on with that parrot cry every time.

It is not a parrot cry, it is simply common sense and justice.

My hon. friend knows that it is not always possible to establish a conviction for treason. He knows the technical difficulties in obtaining the evidence.

You need not charge him with treason, you can charge him under your regulations.

Well, whether or not that is so, this young man in his position of trust tried to abuse the confidence placed in him, and let me tell the hon. member that there were found in his possession documents relating to this matter. I tell him so.

All the more reason why you should have brought him before the courts.

That young man was interned as he very rightly deserved to be.

In Germany they would have shot him.

His appeal was dealt with by the Commissioner and it was dismissed, but the young man suffered from tuberculosis, and it became necessary for him to receive treatment, and immediately that position disclosed itself he was sent to Springkell. There came a time when he was held to be, not cured, but not in an infectious condition. So he was sent back to the camp for a short time and then further representations were made, and he was released under control. In no circumstances would I be prepared to allow that young man to go back to the Civil Service.

Why not?

He was under control, and when not working he was actually receiving an allowance from the Social Welfare Department—I am not sure he is not receiving it now.

Although he is an enemy of the State.

I believe he is employed by the Transvaal Boekhandel Beperk. But let me tell hon. members that if that man had not been found to be suffering from tuberculosis he would still be in the internment camp.

I am concerned with the fact that after allowing him out you made it impossible for him to find employment.

In the Public Service, yes, that was the condition.

Not only in the Public Service but outside as well.

Well, probably it was a condition that he should not be in employment. But he was receiving a grant from the Social Welfare Department, a fact which was not mentioned by the hon. member. And then, in addition to that, I am informed that he had parents who could provide for him.

What has that to do with it?

He was given this grant in order to augment anything his parents could give him. Hon. members should not forget that this was a young man who had shamefully abused his position in the Service—he actually tried to get secret documents of military aerodromes, and fortifications, and I can tell hon. members that incriminating documents were found on him.

He should have been shot.

Could you not have charged him under the Public Service regulations?

Maybe that could have been done, and I think there was a suggestion that that was going to be done. But the Chief Control Officer tells me that this man asked to be allowed to resign and he did resign.

Because he had to leave.

It was made impossible for him to stay on.

It may well be that he resigned because he knew that these proceedings were coming. I know this matter was referred to the Public Service Commission.

You have given no reason why he should be treated in this way.

The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) has asked some question about the Cape Coloured Council—the Advisory Council. He has asked whether this Council is to be set up merely for a temporary period pending the Elections or whether it is to be a permanent body. This Council is to be a permanent body. The hon. member asked why it has been introduced in this fashion, and not by way of motion in Parliament.

Why is it set up at all?

I see nothing unusual in the Government appointing a body to deal with a matter of this sort administratively.

Parliament should have some say about it.

The Government has appointed a number of bodies—the Social and Economic Planning Council and a number of other bodies, without reference to Parliament.

Two wrongs don’t make a right.

Parliament, of course, is always free to discuss a matter, and consider a matter on its merits—and Parliament is doing so this afternoon, is it not? Then the hon. member asked why the Government in appointing this Body has made an announcement in regard to its personnel before all the fifteen members had been chosen. The position is this: the Government has announced the personnel in respect of the Cape Peninsula at this stage in order to indicate first of all its determination to carry on with this proposal, and, secondly, to show that this proposal has the backing of responsible, experienced members of the Coloured community who are not going to be stampeded by irresponsible agitation, coming from a certain section of the community.

Which section?

I can say this in answer to another question from the hon. member for Moorreesburg—the Council will be a Coloured Council. It will not consist of Europeans but of non-Europeans. And that is in response to a request from members of the Coloured Community themselves who asked that they should have a body on which they themselves should be represented. The hon. member for Cape Western has asked whether consultations have taken place on this subject with leaders of the coloured community. A number of consultations did take place, not only with leaders of the coloured community, responsible members of the coloured community, but also with Europeans who have the interests of the coloured community at heart, and who are anxious to see that their legitimate needs are given effect to and that they will have adequate communication between themselves and the Government, that they will have something more than they have had in the past, something tangible and effective in their own interest. The hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) has said that the time has come to put into operation the recommendations of the Coloured Commission. I have read similar criticism outside the House. It has been suggested by one critic that there is no necessity to appoint a body of this sort, but that the Government should rather immediately put into effect the recommendations of the Cape Coloured Commission of 1937. Sir, that criticism is based upon a misunderstanding of the facts, it betrays an ignorance of the facts of the situation. The report of the Commission of 1937 is a very valuable document, it contains a large number of recommendations traversing the whole gamut of the life of the coloured community. The recommendations deal with such matters as school facilities, health, feeding, the tot system in the Western Province, political rights and a host of other matters. Those recommendations refer not merely to Government activities, but to the activities of provincial councils, local authorities, village management boards, health committees and other similar matters. Those recommendations, in fact, do not merely concern one Government Department of State, but the Central Government, the provincial and local authorities. These recommendations are not the result of unanimity on the part of members of the Commission. It is an unfortunate fact that in many respects that report betrays a striking lack of unanimity on the part of members of the Commission, and therefore to say that the Government must step in and immediately put into operation all the recommendations, is to betray an absolute ignorance of the facts. The Government cannot do that, primarily because it has no power to do so, the majority of the recommendations affecting other than Government bodies. Secondly, it would be unwise to do so even if the Government had the power, because these recommendations are not the result of unanimous opinion. It is precisely in order to sort out these recommendations, to sift them and analyse them and correlate them to present circumstances that it is necessady to have a body of reasonable, responsible members of the coloured community whom the Government can consult, and whose views the Government can take advantage of. The task of this Coloured Advisory Council will be no easy one. It has been inaugurated in the midst of a diabolically carefully planned campaign of antagonism. The members of the Council are being charged with being Judases and Quislings, traitors to their community. It is, however, quite clear that this noisy opposition comes from a very small coterie indeed; it does not come primarily from members of the coloured community but from a small group consisting of Europeans, Indians, natives and a sprinkling of the coloureds.

Are they Communists?

Many of them are so-called Communists, they describe themselves as Communists. Many of them are persons who have been active in one way or another for some years past; they have been a noisy ineffective opposition in small groups about the country, but more particularly in the Cape Peninsula. These groups have set themselves to sabotage the Government scheme. They have done that, quite obviously not because they feel that this scheme is inimical to coloured interests, but because it may be inimical to their own private interests. The test of the bona fides of the opponents of the scheme is simply this; that not one of them has taken the trouble to approach either myself or the Department of the Interior for information as to the scheme. If this group had considered that the interests of coloured persons were really jeopardised by the scheme, I should have thought that they would have sought information; but immediately the scheme was announced they launched upon a campaign of verbal extravagance almost unprecented in this country, and they characterised the scheme as a swindle on the coloured people. An hon. Senator in Another Place, whose views are well known for their impartiality and moderation, has characterised that phrase “a swindle on the coloured community” as in itself a swindle. To suggest that a Government with Gen. Smuts at the head—a Government composed of many persons who are tried friends of the coloured community—is about to embark on a swindle on the coloured people would be just about as true as to suggest that my hon. friend here, the Minister of Finance, was a passionate protagonist of polygamy! Well, sir, those who have attempted to sabotage this genuine gesture on the part of the Government have killed their agitation, and exposed it for what it is worth, by immoderate and extravagant criticism, and the Government is not going to be deterred by that, the Government proposes to go through with the scheme. This is not something which has been lightly thought out, it follows on discussions and explorations which have taken place in the course of two or three years since a motion was under discussion in the Senate in 1939. It was then pointed out by the late Senator F. S. Malan that it was nobody’s business to look after the interests of coloured persons; that the interests of the coloured community were affected by the activities of numerous State departments, and provincial departments, but there was no body, no Government body, or independent body whose task it was to co-ordinate these activities. The inauguration of this Council is to enable the Government, through a special section of the Department of the Interior, to maintain close and constant contact with the coloured community, and to consult it on all matters of interest to that community.

Are you creating a new department?

No, the Government is not creating a new department. If my hon. friend had read the official announcement in regard to this matter, he would know that there is no new department being created, but merely a link between the coloured community and departments of the Government. This special section in the Department of the Interior will be a clearing house which will get in touch with other Departments, and draw attention to matters dealt with in the report of the Cape Coloured Commission, and will suggest certain lines of action, acting as a channel of negotiation between the departments concerned.

It will be a special branch of your Department.

Not a special branch, but a special section having no executive functions whatever. A special Department has, of course, an executive function. The Native Affairs Department, for instance, appoints its own magistrates and has other functions. This special section will have no such functions.

[Inaudible.]

My hon. friend’s ingenous interjection will not divert me. I do not propose to be put off by such patent efforts to lead me into traps.

We seek information.

I know hon. gentlemen opposite have no genuine interest in this matter, except to attempt to make political capital in the Platteland. [Interruptions.] Let me tell hon. members, for what it is worth, that the appointment of this Council and the establishment of a special section in my Department is not an attempt to whittle away political rights, it does not mean that we are going to place the coloured people on separate voting lists, or introduce compulsory residential segregation. What it does mean is that by this experiment we are paving the way for a new relationship between the coloured and the European community. The aims we have in view are not to build up social equality between the two races—this has never been asked for by the coloured community. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) has his views upon this.

I look at it with abhorrence.

Some bankrupt politicians in this country take delight in exploiting these racial issues in order to inflame others, to inflame racial passions and obscure the real issue. There is nothing sinister towards the Europeans or the coloured population in this proposal. If this Coloured Council is given a fair opportunity both in the Cape and elsewhere, I think it will pave the way for a real advance in better relations between the two racial groups, and it will pave the way for better economic conditions for the coloured community. The primary need of the coloured community is better economic conditions. We may talk about votes and political rights, but what the coloured community needs is more bread and butter, proper nutrition, proper housing and better economic conditions. It is in the hope that that may be achieved that this experiment has been instituted and, despite the noisy agitation from a somewhat international group, a small coterie, the Government is going on with this proposal. The Government is not going to be put off by rude and clumsy circulars and other objections, and what is more, the Government is going to ensure that those members of the coloured community who have had the moral courage to accept membership of this Council, will not be intimidated and will not be blackmailed by this Opposition.

Are you going to intern them?

I give that as a warning. If action goes beyond the bounds of reasonable criticism, these people will be protected by the Government.

Mr. Chairman, I have had to listen this afternoon to an irresponsible speech from the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside), who has slunk out of the House. I want to reply to some of the allegations he has made. He sarted out to say that we were endeavouring to influence the Broome Commission. Now, that Commission has already reported, and how he can expect us to influence a Commission which has already reported, I do not know. But he certainly said that. He said we were using the Indian question in Natal for purely political purposes. Mr. Chairman, the whole of my remarks on the Indian penetration subject has been a plea to the Minister to keep this question out of party politics. We in Natal know only too well that for many years too many political people have been living upon the backs of the Indian community in Durban, and probably some of these members have realised at last that it is impossible for further revenues to come from this particular source. That is why they do not like this matter being brought to a satisfactory conclusion. We have always impressed on the Minister the necessity of keeping this away from party politics. Few people really take much notice of these irresponsible statements inside the House, but they do get outside, and there are some foolish people who pay some attention to the hon. member’s insane remarks that happen to get into the Press.

Order. The hon. member must withdraw the word “insane”.

It is all right, Mr. Chairman, he cannot help it.

I will say inane remarks. The hon. member also stated that we of the Dominion Party were bankrupt, and we wanted some Election cry. He also said that our support of the present Government was the result of blackmail that we had levied upon the present Prime Minister, and that the Leader of the Dominion Party had to be given certain assurances before he would give that support. No one knows better than the hon. member for Umbilo how that statement differs from the truth. The present Minister of Mines, sir, was asked by telephone whether he would join the Cabinet when he was a thousand miles away. The reply was “yes” and that reply came straight from the wilds of Natal. The Labour Party has continually used that argument that the Dominion Party backmailed themselves into the Cabinet.

Order. The hon. member must now come back to the Vote.

The hon. member for Umbilo used these arguments against the Dominion Party, and I suggest that I am entitled, with your permission of course, Mr. Chairman, to review those extravagant allegations that have been made by the hon. member. That is all that I am doing, and I feel sure you will allow me to make my reply in my own way. It was never necessary for the Dominion Party to look for an Election cry in Durban; we are safe in Durban. We are not looking for any propaganda, rather the reverse. But what do we find in the case of the hon. member for Umbilo? His seat has got so hot there, he knows he cannot win Umbilo again. Perhaps he is going to the Transvaal as a wonderful supporter of the Indian community. In any case, he must go to the Transvaal now for a safe seat. His own party has been able to blackmail the Government into getting a seat for him. This is the man who states that the Dominion Party must have some security for tenure from the Government.

Don’t let out any Caucus secrets.

I am not letting out Caucus secrets. The Labour Party has to go cap in hand to the Government and in order to prove that, you have only to go to the “Argus” last Saturday night to see what the Labour Party has been able to do with the present Government. They have to go cap in hand and say to the Government: “Please let us back into the House unopposed; if you oppose us there will be nothing left of us.” They are completely sunk, and they have to go crawling to the Government and say: “Please give us some seats on the Rand.” Unfortunately the present Government dare not refuse those demands. It is a terrible state of affairs when you have a member like the hon. member for Umbilo getting up in this House and criticising this party when they are begging the Government, for all they are worth, to give them a safe return ticket to the House, knowing that otherwise they have very little hope of any one of them getting back. This is the party that has the impudence to talk of the Government conferring any privileges on the Dominion Party. If it were not so ridiculous it would be very amusing. This is the party that tells us the Dominion Party are out for an Election cry. The Dominion Party are quite prepared to stand on their own in Durban and they seek no favours from the Government, the Labour Party or any other party, and we will not run away from the seats we hold like the hon. member for Umbilo. [Time limit.]

I should also like to put a few questions to the Minister. I want to ask the Minister whether it is a fact that in 1928 the Leader of the Opposition so amended the law of the country that the Malays in the Cape were enabled to marry Asiatics and then have the right to own land in the Transvaal. I refer to this for the following reason: I know that there is Indian penetration, and that they marry Malay girls in order to be able to become landowners in this manner. I know of such cases. Then I want to ask the Minister whether he has made investigations in connection with this case in the Transvaal, in a thickly-populated settlement, where under the old system land was privately owned in the middle of the settlement, while it has now fallen into the hands of Indians. I want to ask the Minister whether the land in the Klipdrif settlement at Potchefstroom which formerly belonged to a European, now belongs to a Malay girl who is married to an Indian. I should like to know whether this transaction took place in this manner, and I ask this particularly for the reason that the previous owner of the land was an opponent of this Government, someone who did not support this side of the House but who was always a supporter of the Opposition. He received a very high sum for this land. This is a man who had a great deal to say about the penetration of Indians, and who wanted to throw the Indians out of the country, but he received a high price for his land, and I want to know whether it became possible, under the Act of 1924, passed by the Leader of the Opposition, for that land to fall into the hands of Malays.

I am quite sure the House will be amused, if not edified, by the speech of the hon. member for Greyville (Mr. Derbyshire). I think, Sir, that we ought to get this thing right at the very beginning. You, Mr. Chairman, were not in the Chair when I made the point in connection with Indian penetration, that the Dominion Party were now using this question as an election dodge, and that it fitted ill with the Dominion Party’s original programme in which they set out to save the Empire. I drew the attention of the House to the fact that the Dominion Party are now in the position of being prepared to sacrifice at least the Indian portion of the Empire. I understand the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Acutt) has already made that statement in the House. I trust that the hon. the Leader of the Dominion Party is going to tell the House whether that is his party’s policy, to sacrifice the Indian portion of the Empire, whether his party is in favour of eliminating India from the Empire. If that is so, we shall know where we are in South African politics. One does not listen to the ignorant stupid vapourings of the hon. member for Greyville.

Order. The hon. member must withdraw that.

Well, I withdraw that, Sir, it is a possible exaggeration. Will the Minister of Mines tell us what the policy of his party is, because that is something we want to know, and the people of Natal and Durban will want to know if the party which was originally elected to this House, on the ground that it alone was in a position to save the Empire, is now prepared to sacrifice the Indian community. As a matter of fact, Sir, their battle cry in Durban was: “A vote for the Dominion Party is a vote for the British Navy.” Just how it happened I do not know, but that was their battle cry. The Dominion Party have never pressed this question of Indian penetration until they saw that they were faced with an election. Just as my hon. friends on the opposite side have produced the cries which are going to be used in the election; so the Dominion Party are using this Indian penetration, despite their alleged interest in the Empire. That is on a par with the Dominion Party’s past record. When South Africa was faced with war in 1939, when this Empire about which these gentlemen are supposed to be very much concerned was trembling in the balance, when there was a possibility of Great Britain and the Commonwealth, for which these people ostensibly stand, when there was a chance of the Empire being broken up, the Dominion Party officially were prepared to hold in the balance their political future against the future of the Empire. If that is not so, perhaps the Leader of the Dominion Party will explain to me how it was that he insisted, as a carpet-bagger, on getting a seat in Peitermaritzburg as against another Minister of the then existing Cabinet. Possibly the hon. member for Greyville can explain that away. He says it is an extravagant statement, but it has not been said so far that it is an untrue statement, and that is the position of the Dominion Party today. We have to go into these questions because the question of Indian penetration is a very burning one. I believe it has been made more burning by the kind of propaganda indulged in by the members of the Dominion Party. Of course, it is the only kind of propaganda they have today. They cannot go back to the people of Durban and put any other propaganda before them. They cannot go back to Durban again and say: “Smuts has sold the Empire,” but they are prepared themselves to sell the Empire. The hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Acutt) is quite prepared to throw a large portion of the Empire to the wolves. At the last election they said: “Smuts was prepared to do that.”

And you said so too.

But now they have fallen down and they have adopted the well worn political line of banging on the racial drum by raising another issue—that of Indian penetration. They want to play on the prejudices of a large section of the people and in that they are supported by hon. members opposite. History is again repeating itself. We had the Devolution League before we had the Dominion Party—or whatever one may call them—and just as those racial prejudices were used by my hon. friends, now again hon. members over there are playing on the racial prejudices of the people of Natal by starting this propaganda against the Indians in Natal. They are going to use these racial prejudices to show the people of Natal that the Government itself is divided on racial issues, and that the Government itself is divided into sections, each of which has a different outlook on different matters.

Quite so.

You are stating the truth.

That is the political position which we are getting into, and I feel that since battle has been joined we may as well come out into the open, and let me tell you confidentially, Mr. Chairman, that the Dominion Party were not adverse to try and come to an agreement with the Labour Party.

Who told you that?

We may be all the hon. member for Greyville thinks we are, but that was what they were anxious to do, that was their desire, though they were clever enough never to put it into writing.

On a point of order, what on earth has the quarrels of the Dominion Party to do with the Vote before the House?

I have allowed this discussion quite a lengthy period now, and I hope hon. members will now confine themselves to the Vote.

Why not let us have a little fun?

This is one of the most important things that has occurred in this Session, and we have to get it clear. And it is unfortunate that it has arisen on the subject of Indian penetration, but the subject of Indian penetration is being made the battle ground apparently by the Dominion Party and some particularly hard things are said about my own party and those things are said because in no circumstances are we prepared to admit the right of the Dominion Party to continue to exist. They were proved wrong by the events of 1939 and their only honest course would have been to have thrown in their lot with the United Party. [Time limit.]

We are glad that the Opposition members have at last woken up. Their consciences are now beginning to prick them. They realise at last that they are responsible for the fact that many young men are today in the internment camps, young men who adopted their policy, young men who swallowed their propaganda. I want to give an example to the House. The Government is continually being accused that the people who are in internment camps are altogether innocent, that there is not the slightest evidence against those people, and that the Government is abusing its powers. A certain man was interned. His relations felt that he had been interned innocently, and that there was nothing against him. We then investigated the case. What came to light as a result of that investigation? Together with one of the relations we saw a certain letter which was written by the internee to another man. This man held the same political views as the internee. He wrote as follows to his friend, that he had learned with regret that one of his (his friend’s) neighbours had been interned. He says that this neighbour did not do a quarter as much as he himself had done, and nevertheless the Government had interned him first; that he was very disappointed that he (his friend) had not been interned already. He says that he is very disappointed, because, according to Hitler’s calculations, he would be here on the 15th September. If Hitler gets here on the 15th September …

Then you will run for dear life.

… and finds his friend in the internment camp Hitler will be very disappointed in him if he is not there as well, because Hitler will then regard him as unworthy.

You must be careful: you’ll succeed in being funny just now.

Many hon. members on the other side are in the same position as this man. They have done their best to get into the internment camp, because they thought that if they get into the internment camp and Hitler comes to set them free, Hitler will hail them as true heroes There are many young men in internment camps today who regret the fact that they listened to the false propaganda of those prophets I want to associate myself with the plea of the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. H van der Merwe). We ask that where it appears that a young man lent his ears to those false prophets, and got into trouble as a result of it, his case might be taken into review.

I have listened to what is going on here in the House. We are perpetually told that there are many little parties on this side of the House. Today it has emerged how many little parties there are on the other side. I would like to put a few questions to the hon. Minister. His people here in Cape Town are worried. They are very worried. Now I would like to put this question to the leader of the Dominion Party, the hon. Minister of Mines. I want to ask him if he agrees with his supporters on the other side. Can he perhaps give us a statement? We would like to know what the position is. The hon. Minister does not speak much, and if he says something then we know it is so. We would like to have a statement because it is not clear to us what the position is.

I would like to deliver a plea on behalf of one of the inhabitants of Paarl who is now in an internment camp.

It would be better if we discussed the matter personally.

The Minister asks me to bring the matter to his attention personally. I shall do so with pleasure. Then I just want to say something in connection with what I brought forward here on the previous occasion, and also in connection with what has been said by the Dominion Party who discussed the difficulties that exist in Natal very thoroughly here. I want to come to the question of the mixed residential areas in many of the towns here, and also in the cities. When I spoke here on the last occasion, I did not have the report which I now have in my hand, viz. the report of the lady social worker in my constsituency. This lady is completely impartial. She knows no politics, and for that reason the report is of so much value. I just want to read out here what she says in this annual report submitted to the various bodies which she represents in the social work she is doing. Her report reads as follows—

That is in the main town. I just want to say here that I am prepared to tell the Minister privately to whom these hired houses belong—

And now I come to the important point—

This is a general thing in my constituency. It is an insufferable state of affairs. But now I go further, and this to me is the most important thing, coming as it does from the mouth of an impartial social worker—

We are busy these days with social rehabilitation, and here we have a statement from someone who has practical experience, someone who looks at the matter objectively, and she declares that social rehabilitation is impossible with these existing mixed residential areas that we have in Paarl and in other places. If this sort of report does not weigh with the Government then I prophesy that the Government, more than anyone else, will pay for this state of affairs. What bothers me most is that all of us think precisely the same on this matter, but the difference consists of this, that some people are satisfied that a certain class of our Europeans, viz. the poor section, should live in mixed residential areas, so long as the richer classes do not find themselves in those circumstances, and it is precisely for that reason that we feel hurt that this should be permitted by the Minister on whom rests the responsibility. I say that it is impossible, that it is impossible practically, to solve these conditions, but we must not depart from the rule: Do not do unto others what you would not like to have done to yourself. These conditions are good enough for a certain section of our people, while it is not good enough for the richer people. If we want to save the poor-whites in South Africa, if we want to avoid that situation which the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Bowen) advocated here, viz. the dancing together, then we must rectify these conditions, and ensure that a social worker should not have to deliver such reports.

The hon. member for Paarl knows very well that I never pleaded for social intermingling or for dancing with coloured girls. If he cannot understand my English I am quite prepared to translate anything he wants to know into Afrikaans for him. Let me tell the hon. member that I have been to coloured dances, I have been to social functions, for the entertainment of returned soldiers, of coloured soldiers in uniform. But what will interest the hon. member more is this. The first real social function I went to was one given by the present Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Malan) who as Minister of the Interior, gave a function in honour of Mr. Sastri. There I met quite a number of prominent coloured people in Cape Town, and I was proud and honoured to meet them, and I am not ashamed of any association I have made with the coloured people. But those people over there …

What about this dancing business ? (dansery).

Dansery! I went there and the hon. member for Swellendam would have been privileged to have gone there—if he had gone with me he would have been honoured. Let me tell the hon. member for Swellendam that he and his church and his people have done a tremendous amount of good social welfare work and mission work, and have done a tremendous amount for the coloured people …

And you are breaking it down.

Tell us something we don’t know.

I am telling you something you don’t know. The hon. member is ashamed of associating with coloured citizens of this country.

Socially, yes.

Let me tell the hon. member that I have in a little institution not far from Cape Town 150 blind coloured children and that South Africa is prepared to give me all the money required for their social, economic and healthful development, and South Africa is prepared to support such institutions as the Athlone Blind School and extend to blind handicapped children all the economic advantages and privileges that are extended through the church to which the hon. member belongs, to the European people. And I say that those blinded people are entitled to those privileges and that the coloured people are entitled to those privileges.

Not social equality, not dancing with them.

No one has ever suggested that.

You danced with them.

I do not dance with them. I say that the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) is at present exploiting the coloured voter for all he is worth. He knows that anything the hon. member for Mossel Bay is doing, merely has the object of exploiting the coloured question. Let me tell the hon. member that I respect probably even more than I respect the hon. member—because I question his sincerity in this particular case — the Chairman of the Coloured Advisory Council. Who is he? Every hon. member of this House, whatever his politics, whatever his race, or whatever his religion is, can respect such a man. Dr. Gow is a son of a clergyman, Bishop Gow. He was denied the opportunity of education in this country. He went through his primary education here and then went overseas at his own expense. He went to a college in America. There is very little in the way of a colour bar there. While he was a graduate of that particular university, war broke out, and he enlisted as an American citizen in the American army. He got a commission there and as an officer in the American army, as a coloured man, he led his Forces and fought in France at the head of a Platoon of European citizens. He returned to this country despite the fact that there was excellent facilities and opportunities for him—he came back to this country to adapt his own outstanding ability and personality here. He returned here for the benefit of his people—to give them the benefit which his education had given him. He is the pastor of a church which is perhaps the largest church, seating 1,500 people—his church is never empty, and he is the leader of his people. He is proud of being a coloured man. He is prepared to give to his coloured people the benefits of his education and of his experience, and I am proud to be privileged to be working in close co-operation and association with that honourable gentleman, the Rev. Gow. And I work with him in that Institution for extending to the coloured blind children of South Africa the same opportunities of development that are given to Europeans, and what we are prepared to give to handicapped blind children I am prepared to give and work for for all coloured children. And the time is coming when this Government and this country will be prepared to give these opportunities. The coloured population constsitute half the population of this country—they constitute half of the numbers of the white population. They are not natives, they are civilised people, and what annoys me is the attitude taken up by hon. members who are proud of their Duitch blood, their language. Do they not know that in the Colonies where Dutch people have colonised, they have extended to any coloured man to any Eurasian, in whose veins flows Dutch blood, the same opportunities for advancement as are given to the Europeans. The coloured people of this country are not prepared to segregate and to be classed as natives. They are insisting on their rights and I shall insist so far as in me lies, on their being given equal opportunities to advance. I deplore any effort to draw the red herring of social equality across the trail. I am not in favour of social equality, and South Africa is not. But the time is dawning when South Africa will insist on equal opportunities for every citizen who is satisfied to maintain a civilised standard.

It is people of the class of the last speaker who are a curse in South Africa. They are the people who have incited the coloureds and are still inciting and exploiting them. They are the people who get up and profess to protect the coloureds. They would not have opened their mouths were it not for the fact that they want the vote of the coloureds. I can assure that hon. member that I do more for them than he will do for them in his whole life. The speech that we have just had from the hon. member is typical of all the speeches that we get before a General Election. Then the coloured vote is exploited. I have even seen a man mount the platform and wave the Union Jack to and fro to get the votes of the coloureds. The coloureds know me better than they know that hon. member. They know that they can bring their complaints to me and that I shall assist them if their grievances are well-founded. The hon. member speaks of uprightness. He is the last man in the world who can speak of uprightness. We on this side are always prepared to treat the coloureds properly. They have received their rights. In the old days they had more rights. Those people who today talk such a lot, what do they do for the coloureds? Dance with them, yes. Can the hon. member come here and tell us European persons that we must be placed on terms of social equality with non-Europeans?

But he never said it.

Perhaps not in so many words, but if you dance with them, then what do you do?

But don’t talk nonsense now.

[Inaudible.]

Order, order!

The hon. member now wants to pretend that it is not social equality if you dance with a coloured woman while in the same hall coloureds are dancing. We who were born on the platteland know the coloureds better than he does, and we know that the educated coloureds do not vote for him. It is the uneducated coloured person, the man who is incited a week before the election, who votes for that class of man. The coloured person is not told what the exact position is. We know what the position is. We do not hesitate to tell the coloured person what his position is. The hon. member for Cape Town, Central, speaks in sneering terms of segregation. If you can dance with coloureds in the same hall, then there is no reason why you should not live with them in the same locality. If hon. members on the other side do not want to segregate the coloureds, then we are prepared that the Europeans should be segregated. We are prepared to live together. If the words “separate residential areas” hurt them, then give us Europeans separate residential areas. Today the Europeans have to live together with the coloureds, not only in the city but also in the smaller towns. It is the poor man who has to live together with the coloureds in the same residential areas because he cannot afford to hire an expensive house in a European residential area. We see what is going on here today. Not more than a week ago a white woman married a coloured man. He is of course a well-to-do person. But the Minister knows what is going on, and if he does not know it then he ought to know it. I just want to say this. If the Minister does not intend to make a change in connection with this committee which he is going to appoint, and if he is going to propose things that are in conflict with the principle of separate residential areas, or if he is going to propose that there should be social equality, then he must expect that there will be opposition from our side, because we look upon it as our duty to keep this country a European country. If they want bastardisation, then they must go to those countries where miscegenation takes place. Then I want to come to another matter. There is an amount of £10,960 here for publicity. We are now involved in war and there is no opportunity for people to come to visit our country. Why does the Minister want publicity in other countries to persuade people to come here; on what does he want to spend that money? Publicity at the moment is of no use. We see that they show photographs of kaffirs overseas. The people evidently take a greater interest in that. Or is it intended for these motorcars that go about our towns? The other day there was a lorry in one of our towns which drove through the streets. I do not know if it was a Government lorry, or whether it belonged to the United Party. But the lorry drove through the streets, and the people on it shouted out such foolish things that the people in the vicinity began to think that they must be demented. They would fold Rommel up, and I do not know what all they would do with his friends. It was remarked everywhere that the fellow must be mad. We do not know if that man is in the service of the Government or whether he is in the service of the United Party. If that is the sort of publicity that we must have, then this money is wasted. I see that the amount has been reduced from £14,000 to £10,000 but I really do not know to what this money must be devoted. We are already encumbered with so many foreigners that we cannot supply them with food and clothing. We prepare ourselves to receive people and to give their children food, while some of our own children are dying of hunger. I do not know why this money is being spent. Then I find on page 139, in connection with internment expenditure, that there is a reduction of the amount for domestic camp requirements (edible), from £2,500 to £2,000. Does the Minister intend to give those people less food or privileges? I would like to know what he has to say in that connection.

We have been listening here to a misunderstanding—whether it was deliberate or not, I do not know.

The hon. member must not use the word “deliberate”.

Let me say then that we had to listen to a misunderstanding on the coloured question in connection with what we stand for on this side. The hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Bowen) tried to give an explanation of what he stands for and what he would like to have. I do not know whether he spoke for himself or on behalf of his party.

No, I spoke on my own behalf.

Then we need not take much notice of what the hon. member said. This side of the House has never been opposed to giving the coloured person his rightful share in South Africa. I can say that the Afrikaans Church has in the past always seen to the interests of the coloureds, and it is the Afrikaans-speaking section of the population who have always ensured that the coloured could make a living in the country. What we disapprove of most strongly, and what we do not stand for, and what the coloureds are now beginning to find out for themselves, is that when an Election comes then we get candidates, as happened in Hottentots-Holland, who take a group of coloureds into a room and tell them things that they dare not tell the Europeans on a public platform. These are things that the coloureds are beginning to find out. They are discovering that that side of the House are using them merely as a football at Election time. If you pay attention, then you will discover that it is only the members of Cape Town who profess here that they are anxious about the coloureds. It is remarkable that it is only the Cape Town members who speak on the other side, and the Transvaal members do not say a word on this subject. They do not speak here, but when they return to the Transvaal then they tell the Europeans there that it is the Nationalists in the Cape Province who plead for the coloureds and who flirt with the coloured vote. But here in Cape Town we are held up as the people who want to shipwreck the coloureds. I would like to put a question to the Minister of the Interior about this Advisory Coloured Committee that he has called into being. I nut this question for information. We have not the least intention of involving ourselves in what the Minister has done here. It is his affair. He said here that he was taking this step for the welfare of the coloured copulation. Now I would like to know from the Minister what coloured organisation has requested him to create such a committee or council?

That is what you tell outside.

No, I put the question to the Minister. I do not think the Minister understands me. I asked what coloured organisation asked the Minister to create this committee or council. He said that leading coloureds got into touch with him and that he had also consulted European persons who have the welfare of the coloureds at heart. I want to ask if a single coloured association has put this request to the Minister. I happen to have here in my hand a document issued by the coloured organisation here in Cape Town, and in this several questions are put to the Minister. It seems as if there is a misunderstanding about what the Minister wants to do, and I want to quote a few of the questions so as to receive the Minister’s reply on that. In the first place we find this in the document—

Then the names of the persons are mentioned, and it is added that seven more names will be announced. And then follow the questions—

The Minister pretends to be so concerned about the coloured population, and it is no more than right that the Minister should say why he made this change. I quote these questions because it is a coloured organisation which is putting them. They proceed—

Ana then they ask this—

They want to know why the Minister changed the name of this Council, and I think it is no more than fair that the Government should reply to these questions. I leave it at that. Then I want to come to another matter that I have mentioned before, viz. the position in connection with the internment camps. There is not the least doubt that it is very difficult to obtain information about persons who have been interned. It is said that the internees receive the complaints brought up against them, and that they can then appeal. To whom do these people appeal? Is it to the people who have already condemned them by putting them in the camp, or to impartial persons? Last year the Minister gave an unfortunate reply here that deeply hurt the relatives of one of the internees. I put a question to the Minister about the internment of Dr. Kirby of Elgin, and I asked him inter alia if he would give the reason why Dr. Kirby was interned. His reply was that it would not redound to the honour of Dr. Kirby’s family if he gave the reasons. Perhaps the Minister did not intend to cast a blot on the character of Dr. Kirby. But I want to ask the Minister again if he meant the reply in that sense, or if he thought that it was better not to give the reply because the public outside had nothing to do with it, and that it is not a matter that has anything to do with his character. I want him either to explain his reply or to withdraw it. To this day Dr. Kirby’s family has not discovered why he was interned. When he was taken away he was told that he could appeal within three weeks. I went to see the Minister, and the Minister promised me to go into the matter. I want to ask the Minister again if there is a blot on this person and I also want to ask him why Dr. Kirby was interned, no matter what the reason may be. Our information is that the police report about him is not unfavourable. I want to go further than that. Dr. Kirby was summoned to appear before the magistrate at Caledon. The magistrate said to him, before he was interned, that there are trifles against him, that they are not serious, but that it was his duty to warn him to remain quiet. Three months later he was interned, and so far we cannot discover the reason for it, except this, that they very much wanted to have another doctor in Elgin. The English-speaking section of the population wanted another doctor because Dr. Kirby treated the poor people free and thereby gained influence among the poor people. It was also not long after his internment that one of the persons who brought the complaints against him ensured the distribution of a list to get another doctor in his place. [Time limit.]

We have had many speeches here about the internment camps and about the people whom the Minister bundled into those concentration camps, for we cannot call them anything but concentration camps, and now I want to put this question to the Minister. What is the reason, when these people are interned, or sent to the camps, that we cannot discover what the charges against them are? Even the accused persons do not know why they were interned. I am thinking of the case of one of my electors who was sent to an internment camp in March. I immediately made representations, and I wrote that this man’s business did not permit him to interfere in politics and similar things. I got no reply from the authorities concerned on the subject. He sat there in the camp, and in September I went to see the Minister personally, and he told me that that person’s case would go to appeal shortly. I then returned from the North, and when I arrived at Worcester on the 28th, that person arrived there. He was set free, and to this day I do not know what the charge against him was. Peculiarly enough, eight days after I had returned I got a letter from the Internments Office to tell me that in reply to my letter of March—it took them six months to reply to my letter—that was the letter in which I wrote to them about the case and told them that this man could not possibly be guilty—then I got the reply to this letter in which they tell me that the person has been set free and that no restrictions have been placed on him. If this man was innocent, then why did he have to sit in the camp for six months? I think of another case. It is the case of Mr. Steven Eyssen, the principal of the High School at Heidelberg. He was interned and after a time set free again. Was he innocent when he was set free, or was he guilty? If he was guilty, then I take it that he should have remained in the camp. But he was set free: He was allowed nevertheless to return to his work. He had to go and live in another place. He could not go back to his own house. He had to take his family away and go and live in another place. Does the Minister consider that this is a method that should be employed in a civilised country under a civilised Government?

Do you consider that he should have gone back to the internment camp?

He should return to his house and to his work. If he is innocent why should he return to the camp?

And during the whole morning members of the other side have been speaking in favour of parole.

Was this person guilty or innocent?

He got his reasons.

I want to say to the Minister that the charges which come to him are in the most cases charges that do not prove that the people actually said anything, that do not prove that they made themselves guilty of misconduct, but there is some person or other who wants the post of that man, or who wants to destroy his business so that he himself can flourish. That is the position in most cases, and if it is not so then let us hear what the charges against such a person are and who lodged the charges.

He was not a business man, but a teacher.

I know that; I know him very well. I do not know if it is so, but it is said that the persons who bring complaints get 7s. 6d. for it—it means thirty silver pieces. These people are not even as good as Judas. He at least had the decency to go and hang himself after his treachery. They have not even that decency.

It is Ossewa-Brandwag tales that you are now hawking.

No matter what the Minister may say, if he cannot come to light with the charges against these persons, and if the world may not know what the reasons are why those people are interned, then I say that the Minister has no real reason for interning them; then I say decidedly that he is busy keeping innocent people in the camps. There are 360 Afrikaners in those camps today who have been deprived of their freedom, people whose businesses are going back and whose families are suffering and must undergo great difficulties because they have to do without the earnings of the head of the family. Those people find themselves in disgrace, and harm is being done them—they are undergoing a tribulation for which no Government can ever compensate them. I want to appeal to the Government, and more particularly to the Minister of the Interior, to use his brains—which he perhaps does not possess.

The hon. member must not be personal.

Let me then appeal to the Minister to use all the intelligence he possesses to put this matter right and to do better than he has done in the past. I say that these people in the camps are innocent in the eyes of the world, and I shall continue to say this until the Minister proves clearly to the world that they are guilty.

The other day the Hon. Prime Minister said in the course of the debate that we dare not permit tampering with the corner-stone of the country’s administration, with the administration of justice. But what is happening here? The Minister of the Interior is still failing to give sufficient facilities to those internees to prove their innocence. I am very proud that the Minister has got so far as to tell us here that he is going to do his best to try to expedite the hearing of the appeal cases of the internees. We only hope that the Minister will really do his utmost to expedite the hearings. But I want to suggest something else to the Minister. I do not want to scratch open the bitterness that there was. That is in no sense my intention. I want the Minister to realise that where feelings ran so high a year or two ago we had the position that people were driven by bitterness to do things that they would never have done otherwise, for instance to make utterances that were due to incensed feelings. I need only refer the Minister — nobody knows it better than the hon. Minister himself—to the fact that it was perpetually flung at the heads of Afrikaners that we are pro-German and pro-Nazi, simply because we said that we are not pro-British and not pro-war. It was not realised that there was such a thing as being pro-Afrikaans. The kind of feelings’ that were incited by these allegations were the cause of people employing utterances as a result of the bitterness that prevailed.

It was the hon. member for Potgietersrust (The Rev. S. W. Naudé) who spoke about being anti-British and pro-Satan.

That is a horse of a different colour.

That was in the old days.

I wonder if that was sufficient to influence the Government, that the hon. member for Potgietersrust should have used that expression. What the Minister should understand is this. I accept that he has statements about certain utterances made by the people who are interned. But he must realise that when those utterances were made sixteen months ago, feelings in our country were running bitterly high. The people were incited to make such utterances, not by some political party or other, but as the result of the bitterness that originated from the declaration of war. There is now a better feeling in the country in general. There is more tolerance. What the reason for this is, is not the point. But there is a much greater measure of tolerance, and I want to ask the Minister if he does not think that the Government in the light of this should reconsider its internment policy. Last year the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) was prepared to unlock the internment camps when Japan came into the war. Will the Minister not now make an experiment and unlock the internment camps in a large measure? The hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Wolfaard) mentioned the case of Mr. Stephen Eyssen. I went to see the Minister personally and told him what type of person this was, what a sense of responsibility the man possesses. The Minister then made certain allegations into which I do not want to go now. It was told me confidentially and I do not want to speak about it. But I want to emphasise here and I want to give the Minister the assurance that if ever there was a responsible man in South Africa then he was Mr. Stephen Eyssen. I want to ask the Minister if Mr. Eyssen, since he was set free under restrictions, has made himself guilty of any neglect.

No, he has not.

Since the Minister knows that the man has behaved himself with absolute responsibility, I want to ask the Minister to go a step further and to set him free completely.

He is now going back to the Transvaal.

I am very glad that the Minister is now removing all restrictions.

No, not all; we cannot do that at the moment.

I hope the Minister will make this concession and that he will consider giving Mr. Eyssen his full freedom. I want to give the Minister the assurance that the people of South Africa suffer because the energy of a man such as Mr. Stephen Eyssen is not at the disposal of the people. He is truly a useful citizen of the country. He is an artist in the real sense of the word. Our art is poorer and our country is poorer if we do not have the services of such a person available. He has done a lot for education. My children are at school in Heidelberg, and since he has left the school has gone back so much that I am considering whether I should not take my children away. I have already taken one away. These are all matters that the Minister should take into consideration. I can assure the Minister that every ounce of energy is needed in our country, and if it is not available to us then the population, English-speaking as well as Afrikaans-speaking, will be so much the poorer. I say that the Minister can really show South Africa a favour at this stage if he will reconsider his internment policy, and if he does this then he will do much to create a better feeling in the country.

I just want to ask the Minister, where he said that Mr. Eyssen may now go back to the Transvaal, whether he will be permitted to pursue his work in the school at Heidelberg.

No.

Will he then be allowed to take any other school? I know him well. He is now sitting in the district of Ladismith on a lonely little farm, because he can stay there free since it belongs to his brother. He has no income. The children are in the high school and in the university, and Mr. Eyssen got a little ill. The man cannot go on sitting there. He must get the opportunity of earning so that he can support his family. Otherwise you must support him properly. He cannot live on wind. I think it is time for the Minister to waive the punishment in this case. The charge was not so great, as appears also from the fact that the Minister himself has set him free from the camp. Why should the man be punished further by depriving him of the opportunity of earning something? He has a family to support.

I just want to put a request to the Minister. I had almost finished discussing the matter just now when the time limit intervened, but I still want to ask the Minister if he will not allow Dr. Kirby, who is a medical practitioner, to practise in some district or other. There is a shortage of doctors. The Minister himself can determine the district and, if the Minister wishes, members of Parliament will be prepared to stand surety for the good behaviour of Dr. Kirby. He has children to bring up and I want to ask the Minister to allow him to practise.

I will go into the matter.

Then I want to ask the Minister something about reading matter in the camps. Whether a man is guilty or innocent it is a soul-deadening thing to be incarcerated in a camp. To sit in an internment camp all that time is terribly hard, and I want to ask the Minister if he will not allow newspapers and periodicals to go to the camps, also Afrikaans newspapers which interpret a different view than the Government view, viz. “Die Burger”, “Die Oosterlig” and “Die Transvaler”. These newspapers are being allowed to be published. Are Government newspapers allowed in the camps?

Some of them.

It is a scandal.

If there was something wrong with the Afrikaans newspapers then the Government would not allow them to appear.

I shall consider it.

I do not wish to pursue the argument again with the hon. member for Umbilo.

You had better not.

He has had the assurance that the statements which I made in this House in connection with the Dominion Party participation in support of the Government is correct, and if he still has any doubt I suggest to the hon. member that he should make enquiries from the Prime Minister and no doubt the Prime Minister will be prepared to make a statement. If he does not wish to pursue it on these lines perhaps he would like to Table some question on the matter.

I think the hon. member had better come back to the Vote now.

Yes, I am coming back to the Vote in a moment, but at the same time I submit that I am entitled

The hon. member must not question the ruling of the Chair.

I am not questioning the ruling for one moment; I am merely suggesting that I am entitled to defend my Party against any accusations in this House, and I shall continue to do so until these false accusations are withdrawn.

A real Sir Galahad.

The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside) really has nothing to criticise the Dominion Party about—he should say nothing about Indian penetration in Durban—he should not defend it.

He didn’t.

For years he led an agitation in Durban against the Indians. Yes, sir, he was employed in the tailoring trade, and he asked for all sorts of enquiries and he said that the taloring trade had disappeared because of Indian competition, and perhaps I might say this—that is why the hon. member is here in this House—probably because his business has disappeared—that is why he has turned to Parliament. Now the Minister said this afternoon that it was vitally necessary for him to invite the Durban members of Parliament to Pretoria to attend this Conference. It was a matter of courtesy and we should consider ourselves extremely fortunate.

I merely asked for courtesy in view of the fact that it was alleged that I had ignored the Natal members.

Well, the Minister seemed to suggest that he was doing us a great favour in asking us to come to Pretoria—but the matter had already been settled in their absence.

That is quite incorrect.

It is not incorrect.

I say it is deliberately incorrect. When the hon. member makes a statement like that I say that he is making a statement which is deliberately incorrect.

The hon. the Minister must not say that the hon. member is deliberately incorrect. He must withdraw that.

Well, I withdraw the word “deliberately” but I say that it is incorrect, and the hon. member having been there should have known it.

Is the Minister prepared to admit that he knew exactly what would happen at that Conference? He had heard the views of the Natal Executive, he had heard the scheme and he had accepted it.

That is not correct. It is absolutely untrue.

Well, if the Minister simply says it is not true I shall ask him this—is it a fact that the City Council put up their case and then the Provincial Council representatives and the Executive Committee did, and the Minister knew what the Provincial Executive had in mind, and what they were going to suggest. Is that correct?

The hon. member says that I had settled with the Provincial Council something in advance—and I say that is absolutely incorrect.

Did the Minister not know exactly what the Pronvincial Executive was going to suggest at the meeting?

Oh, yes, I knew that.

And you agreed?

No, I did not.

Did you not agree subject to the Cabinet agreeing?

I can put up with the hon. member being foolish, but when he puts up incorrect suggestions, then I am afraid I cannot put up with it.

That’s very cheap.

The hon. member must not make allegations about my bona fides.

No, that would be too terrible.

My point is this, if the Minister is going to treat it in that manner I say that we were brought to Pretoria under false pretences and I say that his invitation had nothing in it.

You may be interested to know that I had agreed to meet the deputation from the Natal members of the Executive, and also the Durban City Council and others to discuss the general question of Indian penetration. As the position in Durban has received particular attention, it occurred to me that members of Parliament might wish to attend.

That does not affect my argument. I still say that the invitation to members of Parliament did not carry any weight at all.

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 30th March.